4 ms·

has to be on safari? lol

avdempsey 10y ago
That covers the vast majority of people browsing the web on their iPhones/iPads. Not sure what the browser share is on the Mac though.
- knodi123 10y ago
  shockingly low, if the 3 mac-using companies I've worked at are any indicator.
- pfooti 10y ago
  That covers everybody on an iDevice - the only browser on iOS is Mobile Safari. Chrome, Firefox, Opera are all skins on top of the Safari Webkit renderer. Interestingly / Ironically / Whateverally, it doesn't cover a ton of other, non-iOS users. This may be a push to Desktop Safari usage, but I am really uninterested in supporting proprietary browser tech, especially when there are competing open standards, doubly-especially when (as the OP mentioned) Safari in particular doesn't seem interested in supporting other open, interesting APIs.
  - nothis 10y ago
    Since I never quite figured this out: Why are there no real other browsers on iOS? Is it policy or simply not feasible?
    - 0x0 10y ago
      App Store policy requires any app rendering HTML/JS to use the safari/webkit-backed UI components. See 2.5.6 here https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." As for why this is, one can only speculate. There used to be an extremely strict "no interpreted code allowed", which was relaxed to "no interpreted downloaded code", which I think (with the addition of the JavaScriptCore framework and the lack of bans on bundling a LUA interpreter as many games do) has turned into a "no major functionality changes or additions in downloadable code". I guess their main concern was developers publishing app updates outside of the app store review team's oversight.
      - kitsunesoba 10y ago
        Allowing other browser engines would also mean there'd be a lot more room for vulnerabilities that Apple has no control over. That's not to say that Blink or Gecko or whatever aren't secure, but if either of these engines introduced any kind of severe holes the consequences could be disastrous (and worse, unpatchable for that segment of folks who disable auto update). Besides that, both Firefox and Chrome on OS X are notorious for power usage issues. There's a very good likelyhood that'd be true under iOS as well and the last thing Apple wants is a bunch of users blaming their iDevices for poor battery performance when the issue is actually web engines that are bad at rationing energy.
        0x0 10y ago
        Well, the horse's kinda already bolted out of the barn when they allow external scripts to be executed in game level updates or whatever. And any damage would be contained to the app in question... unless the iOS sandbox is a sieve... they do seem to have tightened it up fairly well recently though. You're right about power usage though. Even if they did allow third party engines, they wouldn't allow third party JIT compilers (much bigger attack surface, W|X memory protection is gated behind an apple-only entitlement) so those browsers would be second class citizens battery- and performance-wise for sure.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
untog 10y ago
Even more disappointingly, there is an open W3C standard in progress for payments. Ah well, such is Apple.
- ihuman 10y ago
  Does anyone use that standard? This is the first time I've heard that there was a standard.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Google announced web payments integration for Android Pay using the Web Payments API last month. Just like Apple Pay for the web, nobody is using it now, but it's on the Chrome roadmap.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      So therefore it's a question of whether Google or Apple get to muscle their way to influencing the eventual W3C standard, by deploying a pre-standard implementation. Same difference in my view. Yet somehow Apple is smacked down for it?
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        Too bad this space is so heavy regulated. I'd like to see a free and open source implementation pushing the standard.
        lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Both the Firefox and Chromium implementations of the payments api are free and open source.
      - Touche 10y ago
        If by same difference you mean "one is being developed in the open, with editors from Microsoft, Firefox, and Facebook and the other was developed in private and has the company's name in the API"... then yes, same difference.
grangulius 10y ago
If you have access to TouchID, you're going to be using Safari to browse the web.
- pbreit 10y ago
  And could probably hack it with redirects otherwise.
- tomphoolery 10y ago
  macOS Sierra will be capable of authenticating using TouchID (read from your iOS device)

That covers the vast majority of people browsing the web on their iPhones/iPads. Not sure what the browser share is on the Mac though.

knodi123 10y ago
shockingly low, if the 3 mac-using companies I've worked at are any indicator.
pfooti 10y ago
That covers everybody on an iDevice - the only browser on iOS is Mobile Safari. Chrome, Firefox, Opera are all skins on top of the Safari Webkit renderer. Interestingly / Ironically / Whateverally, it doesn't cover a ton of other, non-iOS users. This may be a push to Desktop Safari usage, but I am really uninterested in supporting proprietary browser tech, especially when there are competing open standards, doubly-especially when (as the OP mentioned) Safari in particular doesn't seem interested in supporting other open, interesting APIs.
- nothis 10y ago
  Since I never quite figured this out: Why are there no real other browsers on iOS? Is it policy or simply not feasible?
  - 0x0 10y ago
    App Store policy requires any app rendering HTML/JS to use the safari/webkit-backed UI components. See 2.5.6 here https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." As for why this is, one can only speculate. There used to be an extremely strict "no interpreted code allowed", which was relaxed to "no interpreted downloaded code", which I think (with the addition of the JavaScriptCore framework and the lack of bans on bundling a LUA interpreter as many games do) has turned into a "no major functionality changes or additions in downloadable code". I guess their main concern was developers publishing app updates outside of the app store review team's oversight.
    - kitsunesoba 10y ago
      Allowing other browser engines would also mean there'd be a lot more room for vulnerabilities that Apple has no control over. That's not to say that Blink or Gecko or whatever aren't secure, but if either of these engines introduced any kind of severe holes the consequences could be disastrous (and worse, unpatchable for that segment of folks who disable auto update). Besides that, both Firefox and Chrome on OS X are notorious for power usage issues. There's a very good likelyhood that'd be true under iOS as well and the last thing Apple wants is a bunch of users blaming their iDevices for poor battery performance when the issue is actually web engines that are bad at rationing energy.
      - 0x0 10y ago
        Well, the horse's kinda already bolted out of the barn when they allow external scripts to be executed in game level updates or whatever. And any damage would be contained to the app in question... unless the iOS sandbox is a sieve... they do seem to have tightened it up fairly well recently though. You're right about power usage though. Even if they did allow third party engines, they wouldn't allow third party JIT compilers (much bigger attack surface, W|X memory protection is gated behind an apple-only entitlement) so those browsers would be second class citizens battery- and performance-wise for sure.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

untog 10y ago

Even more disappointingly, there is an open W3C standard in progress for payments. Ah well, such is Apple.

ihuman 10y ago
Does anyone use that standard? This is the first time I've heard that there was a standard.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Google announced web payments integration for Android Pay using the Web Payments API last month. Just like Apple Pay for the web, nobody is using it now, but it's on the Chrome roadmap.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    So therefore it's a question of whether Google or Apple get to muscle their way to influencing the eventual W3C standard, by deploying a pre-standard implementation. Same difference in my view. Yet somehow Apple is smacked down for it?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Too bad this space is so heavy regulated. I'd like to see a free and open source implementation pushing the standard.
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Both the Firefox and Chromium implementations of the payments api are free and open source.
    - Touche 10y ago
      If by same difference you mean "one is being developed in the open, with editors from Microsoft, Firefox, and Facebook and the other was developed in private and has the company's name in the API"... then yes, same difference.

grangulius 10y ago

If you have access to TouchID, you're going to be using Safari to browse the web.

pbreit 10y ago
And could probably hack it with redirects otherwise.
tomphoolery 10y ago
macOS Sierra will be capable of authenticating using TouchID (read from your iOS device)