4 ms·

"Chrome is unfortunately contributing to the web’s bad reputation by caring more about developers than end-users." Actually, this is my favourite part about it

"Chrome is unfortunately contributing to the web’s bad reputation by caring more about developers than end-users." Actually, this is my favourite part about it. It's fast and it has its priorities in the right spot: me, as a developer. If you don't like Chrome, well, then don't use Chrome :) Another point I would like to make is Apple's ridiculous refusal to allow anything other than Safari on the App Store. I feel that this is holding back the web more than anything, at the moment.

charlieegan3 11y ago
> I feel that this is holding back the web more than anything, at the moment. Perhaps a little exaggerated? Sure, it'd be nice if Apple were a little more welcoming to products from other vendors that are in the same market as their own but personally I feel isn't such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If the MAS was the only way to get software on Apple computers (as the app store on is on iOS where chrome is available) it'd be another matter.
- dasmoth 11y ago
  iOS Chrome doesn't use the Blink renderer. Similarly, iOS Firefox. While it's great to have some choice, from a developer's point of view these browsers aren't especially interesting.
- atomi 11y ago
  It is a little exaggerated, although completely true in part to some extent. :/
  - pvinis 11y ago
    your statement is so neutral, i could easily use it as a comment on any opionion ever. even your own.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Apple's not exactly in the browser market. It's not competition to anything they sell. > iOS where chrome is available That is a chrome shell for the safari engine. Not actual chrome.
kitsunesoba 11y ago
There are legitimate reasons for not allowing non-webkit browsers. The biggest one that comes to mind is security; because of the vast complexity of web engines, the moment Apple allows a third party engine in is also the moment that they can no longer keep control of web-based holes. The security of millions of handsets, many of which belong to individuals with zero tech savvy, suddenly falls into the hands of third parties. This is a serious problem. The other problem is that given their track record on the desktop, Google and Mozilla are highly unlikely to prioritize battery life the way Apple does, and if Chrome or Firefox cuts into someone's battery in a big way they're more likely to point fingers at iOS and Apple than at third party vendors. It's the same problem that Flash on iOS presented except not quite as severe.
- callumlocke 11y ago
  Other app stores like Google Play don't prohibit third party browsers
  - cududa 11y ago
    There's also a crap ton of malware on the Play store
millstone 11y ago
How do you feel about Google disallowing anything other than Chrome on their desktop OS?
- idle_zealot 11y ago
  That's not really fair, in the case of ChromeOS, the browser is the OS.
  - eitally 11y ago
    And honestly, this is why people say Chrome is slow or Chrome is a memory hog. There's so much non-web-browser stuff in Chrome it's just become tremendously heavy. That doesn't make it bad, and Google has recently done things to lighten it (like removing the feature of mirroring Now cards in Chrome), but it's the truth.
- lucid00 11y ago
  To be honest, this isn't true. Chrome Packaged Apps allow developers to build alternative browsers using Native Client. Just no one has bothered to do so because it wouldn't make much of an impact, plus alternate browsers wouldn't be able to set themselves as the default browser.
- zeroxfe 11y ago
  Wha?? That's not the same thing at all. ChromeOS is basically a browser, and ChromeOS applications are basically webapps. (Or are you suggesting that some competitor will write a browser in JavaScript, which be disallowed from the appstore.)
collyw 11y ago
Hows is refusing anything other than Safari legal when Mirosoft got done for pre-installing IE on its OS? They didn't stop any other browsers being installed.
- kemayo 11y ago
  Microsoft got in trouble because they: 1. Were engaging in anti-competitive behavior. 2. Had an effective monopoly. Both are important. Since Apple has nothing even close to a smartphone monopoly, they get a lot more leeway in their actions.
- evilduck 11y ago
  MS had a de-facto monopoly on the desktop at the time and got in trouble for abusing that position. Apple, optimistically, has around half of the US smartphone market and maybe like 10% of the global market. Apple can't remove consumer choice from the entire market when there's Android stuff which is functionally very similar, readily available, and usually cheaper.

charlieegan3 11y ago

> I feel that this is holding back the web more than anything, at the moment. Perhaps a little exaggerated? Sure, it'd be nice if Apple were a little more welcoming to products from other vendors that are in the same market as their own but personally I feel isn't such a big deal in the grand scheme of things. If the MAS was the only way to get software on Apple computers (as the app store on is on iOS where chrome is available) it'd be another matter.

dasmoth 11y ago
iOS Chrome doesn't use the Blink renderer. Similarly, iOS Firefox. While it's great to have some choice, from a developer's point of view these browsers aren't especially interesting.
atomi 11y ago
It is a little exaggerated, although completely true in part to some extent. :/
- pvinis 11y ago
  your statement is so neutral, i could easily use it as a comment on any opionion ever. even your own.
Dylan16807 11y ago
Apple's not exactly in the browser market. It's not competition to anything they sell. > iOS where chrome is available That is a chrome shell for the safari engine. Not actual chrome.

kitsunesoba 11y ago

There are legitimate reasons for not allowing non-webkit browsers. The biggest one that comes to mind is security; because of the vast complexity of web engines, the moment Apple allows a third party engine in is also the moment that they can no longer keep control of web-based holes. The security of millions of handsets, many of which belong to individuals with zero tech savvy, suddenly falls into the hands of third parties. This is a serious problem. The other problem is that given their track record on the desktop, Google and Mozilla are highly unlikely to prioritize battery life the way Apple does, and if Chrome or Firefox cuts into someone's battery in a big way they're more likely to point fingers at iOS and Apple than at third party vendors. It's the same problem that Flash on iOS presented except not quite as severe.

callumlocke 11y ago
Other app stores like Google Play don't prohibit third party browsers
- cududa 11y ago
  There's also a crap ton of malware on the Play store

millstone 11y ago

How do you feel about Google disallowing anything other than Chrome on their desktop OS?

idle_zealot 11y ago
That's not really fair, in the case of ChromeOS, the browser is the OS.
- eitally 11y ago
  And honestly, this is why people say Chrome is slow or Chrome is a memory hog. There's so much non-web-browser stuff in Chrome it's just become tremendously heavy. That doesn't make it bad, and Google has recently done things to lighten it (like removing the feature of mirroring Now cards in Chrome), but it's the truth.
lucid00 11y ago
To be honest, this isn't true. Chrome Packaged Apps allow developers to build alternative browsers using Native Client. Just no one has bothered to do so because it wouldn't make much of an impact, plus alternate browsers wouldn't be able to set themselves as the default browser.
zeroxfe 11y ago
Wha?? That's not the same thing at all. ChromeOS is basically a browser, and ChromeOS applications are basically webapps. (Or are you suggesting that some competitor will write a browser in JavaScript, which be disallowed from the appstore.)

collyw 11y ago

Hows is refusing anything other than Safari legal when Mirosoft got done for pre-installing IE on its OS? They didn't stop any other browsers being installed.

kemayo 11y ago
Microsoft got in trouble because they: 1. Were engaging in anti-competitive behavior. 2. Had an effective monopoly. Both are important. Since Apple has nothing even close to a smartphone monopoly, they get a lot more leeway in their actions.
evilduck 11y ago
MS had a de-facto monopoly on the desktop at the time and got in trouble for abusing that position. Apple, optimistically, has around half of the US smartphone market and maybe like 10% of the global market. Apple can't remove consumer choice from the entire market when there's Android stuff which is functionally very similar, readily available, and usually cheaper.