5 ms·

I wish the author discussed the fact that Apple doesn't allow any other browsers to target the iOS platform. Chrome / Firefox are forced to be thin wrappers aga

by bhawks 9y ago

I wish the author discussed the fact that Apple doesn't allow any other browsers to target the iOS platform. Chrome / Firefox are forced to be thin wrappers against the webkit engine instead of bringing their own technology. No other platform has policies like this and it greatly impacts the web platform and changes the dynamic of web standards in a way no other browser developer could.

thekingofh 9y ago
If it makes you feel any better there's some of us that left iOS for this exact reason. I don't like Apple telling me what I can and can't do with my computer.
carlob 9y ago
Me too, but from the brief mention of Chrome being faster on Android than iOS in the article, I'm afraid the author actually believes that there is such a thing as Chrome for iOS.
chriskrycho 9y ago
This is an important point, but it's ancillary to what I'm getting at here. (And, contrary to sibling comment, I'm well aware that "Chrome on iOS" is just a wrapper around the Webkit view.) There's an important role of competition, and I sometimes do wish that Apple allowed alternative implementations. On the other hand, alternative implementations are also alternative vectors for security holes, and one of Apple's primary business differentiators at this point is "security and privacy"—so I'm also sympathetic to the reasons they don't allow other implementations on their system.
- bhawks 9y ago
  Two points: 1. Today we have 4 browser implementors. Only one of them doesn't also own an operating system (FF). We lost opera year or two ago. I would argue that a significant factor in this shrinking landscape is the fact that Apple has locked away ~10% of the market forever (and this 10% is not a random sampling - it includes many high value customers). Sure implementing a browser is technically challenging - my argument is that Apple's policy has altered the environment in such a way that there is no longer any reward for overcoming that challenge unless you have an operating system or some other large interest that requires you to make a browser. This will have effects on the web as a platform for years to come. 2. Security is a core principle for all browser implementors - due to the nature of a browser you won't get far without it. Privacy is a can of worms - all implementors will pay lip service to it. Whether or not they deliver on it is another topic entirely. A blanket ban on browser development in the name of security is heavy handed. Browser implementors love security and would gladly follow any procedures and policies the platform chooses to enforce. Apple's kill switches give them more than enough leverage to protect users from bad security actors. Now privacy, given that WKWebviews apis allow developers today to evaluate arbitrary JavaScript and monitor the users navigation Apple has already trusted developers to respect user privacy. A browser implementor wouldn't have much more ability to damage user expectation of privacy as a normal app developer already does. Looking at the facts I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Apple's policies and actions are hurting the web in a way the no other browser implementor could.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I don't see it any different than what Google is doing with Chrome, specially with ChromeOS.
    - wor3q 9y ago
      You can always install other os along with other browser on a chromebook. You can install whatever engine you want on android. With ios you cannot do anything, you're just stuck with safari.
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Installing other OS is by definition not ChromeOS anymore.
        wor3q 9y ago
        Replacing chrome in chromeOS would make it not chromeOS too. But you can use chromium instead of chrome if you want, and nothing stops you from developing same OS with different browser and installing it on Chromebook. With iOS it is safari and no way to go around it.
  - alwillis 9y ago
    1. Today we have 4 browser implementors. Only one of them doesn't also own an operating system (FF). We lost opera year or two ago. I would argue that a significant factor in this shrinking landscape is the fact that Apple has locked away ~10% of the market forever (and this 10% is not a random sampling - it includes many high value customers). Sure implementing a browser is technically challenging - my argument is that Apple's policy has altered the environment in such a way that there is no longer any reward for overcoming that challenge unless you have an operating system or some other large interest that requires you to make a browser. This will have effects on the web as a platform for years to come. You are wrong. I get you’re making a political argument because you have something against Apple, but what you’re suggesting is just wrong on the merits. Apple’s global iPhone marketshare is around 15%; it’s 35-40% in the US. When the W3C was going to shove XHTML 2 down our throats, where you had to have perfectly conforming XML markup to have a valid webpage, Apple helped form with Mozilla and Opera, the WHATWG that lead to HTML5 and web standards that made sense. It was Apple that said no to shipping Flash on the iPhone, which was the beginning of the end for proprietary media plugins. You seemed to forget about the ecosystem of open source developers that have lead the charge on implementing new open standards; Igalia was obviously able to work with Apple (and Google) to implement CSS Grid: https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/2017/03/16/css-grid-layout-is-here-to-stay/ https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/2017/03/16/css-grid-layout-is... Much of the variable font spec is based on Apple’s TrueType GX technology from the 1990s: https://atadistance.net/2016/09/20/truetype-gx-model-lives-on-in-opentype-variation-fonts/ https://atadistance.net/2016/09/20/truetype-gx-model-lives-o... Sure, they were behind on several important technologies, but they’ve made a ton of progress this past year or so. I created a Service Worker in the latest Safari Tech Preview that shipped two days ago: https://webkit.org/blog/8042/release-notes-for-safari-technology-preview-46/ https://webkit.org/blog/8042/release-notes-for-safari-techno... You also might want to check the feature list; you might be surprised: https://webkit.org/status/ https://webkit.org/status/ Apple is a convenient target for a lot of things; I get that, but I can’t see how anything you’ve said holds up when we take an objective look at things.
Spivak 9y ago
> No other platform has policies like this The Windows store has the same policy and by proxy all Windows S machines.
- bhawks 9y ago
  So then the trend is that platform owners are the only allowed browser implementors on the their platform? Platform owners' interests and public rationalizations aside, is this in the best interest of the web and its users?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Not sure, but Microsoft seems inclined to lean that way, since even on Android, where they have a choice, they elected to use Chromium for Edge.
simonh 9y ago
>No other platform has policies like this MS has a similar restriction on their App Store. Browsers are only allowed to use the MS rendering engine. Also plenty of feature phones only allow use of the integrated browser. You might think that’s an unrelated issue, but it’s not. From a regulatory perspective, how do you differentiate between those, feature phones that allow a limited range of installable apps, games consoles with game offerings controlled by the console vendor, and the App Stores? There are even children’s educational toys with downloadable apps. Vendor control of software access on their platform is actualy everywhere and some platforms like games consoles are defined by the concept so completely we often don’t even notice it. Dont like the games offered by Sony? Buy a Switch or an XBox. Don’t like the software offered by Apple? Buy an Android. But you don’t get to tell people which of these platforms they can or can’t choose.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Just like Google has on ChromeOS. What do I change the browser being managed by ChromeOS?
  - jzylstra 9y ago
    On a Chromebook, open the play store and download an alternative browser. It is that easy. Or sideload an apk if you've decided to opt-out of the play store. When it comes to an alternative engine, Firefox on Android is Gecko-based rather than being based on Chromium. You can install this on a Chromebook. If you need any more help understanding, please let me know.
- wor3q 9y ago
  All other platforms allow you to install apps from outside of the store though.
  - simonh 9y ago
    But they don’t all allow you to install apps that have not been approved by the vendor and comply with vendor policies, which is what is actually relevant
pjmlp 9y ago
Windows Store like many others already mentioned, and ChromeOS come to mind.
alwillis 9y ago
No other platform has policies like this and it greatly impacts the web platform and changes the dynamic of web standards in a way no other browser developer could. Wow, that's quite a stretch. I monitor web standards pretty closely and I haven't found this to be the case. I have seen many threads on Github and mailing lists with Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft actually communicating with each other on how to implement web standards in a cross-browser way. Here's a good example: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1817 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1817

by bhawks 9y ago

thekingofh 9y ago

If it makes you feel any better there's some of us that left iOS for this exact reason. I don't like Apple telling me what I can and can't do with my computer.

carlob 9y ago

Me too, but from the brief mention of Chrome being faster on Android than iOS in the article, I'm afraid the author actually believes that there is such a thing as Chrome for iOS.

chriskrycho 9y ago

This is an important point, but it's ancillary to what I'm getting at here. (And, contrary to sibling comment, I'm well aware that "Chrome on iOS" is just a wrapper around the Webkit view.) There's an important role of competition, and I sometimes do wish that Apple allowed alternative implementations. On the other hand, alternative implementations are also alternative vectors for security holes, and one of Apple's primary business differentiators at this point is "security and privacy"—so I'm also sympathetic to the reasons they don't allow other implementations on their system.

bhawks 9y ago
Two points: 1. Today we have 4 browser implementors. Only one of them doesn't also own an operating system (FF). We lost opera year or two ago. I would argue that a significant factor in this shrinking landscape is the fact that Apple has locked away ~10% of the market forever (and this 10% is not a random sampling - it includes many high value customers). Sure implementing a browser is technically challenging - my argument is that Apple's policy has altered the environment in such a way that there is no longer any reward for overcoming that challenge unless you have an operating system or some other large interest that requires you to make a browser. This will have effects on the web as a platform for years to come. 2. Security is a core principle for all browser implementors - due to the nature of a browser you won't get far without it. Privacy is a can of worms - all implementors will pay lip service to it. Whether or not they deliver on it is another topic entirely. A blanket ban on browser development in the name of security is heavy handed. Browser implementors love security and would gladly follow any procedures and policies the platform chooses to enforce. Apple's kill switches give them more than enough leverage to protect users from bad security actors. Now privacy, given that WKWebviews apis allow developers today to evaluate arbitrary JavaScript and monitor the users navigation Apple has already trusted developers to respect user privacy. A browser implementor wouldn't have much more ability to damage user expectation of privacy as a normal app developer already does. Looking at the facts I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Apple's policies and actions are hurting the web in a way the no other browser implementor could.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  I don't see it any different than what Google is doing with Chrome, specially with ChromeOS.
  - wor3q 9y ago
    You can always install other os along with other browser on a chromebook. You can install whatever engine you want on android. With ios you cannot do anything, you're just stuck with safari.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      Installing other OS is by definition not ChromeOS anymore.
      - wor3q 9y ago
        Replacing chrome in chromeOS would make it not chromeOS too. But you can use chromium instead of chrome if you want, and nothing stops you from developing same OS with different browser and installing it on Chromebook. With iOS it is safari and no way to go around it.
- alwillis 9y ago
  1. Today we have 4 browser implementors. Only one of them doesn't also own an operating system (FF). We lost opera year or two ago. I would argue that a significant factor in this shrinking landscape is the fact that Apple has locked away ~10% of the market forever (and this 10% is not a random sampling - it includes many high value customers). Sure implementing a browser is technically challenging - my argument is that Apple's policy has altered the environment in such a way that there is no longer any reward for overcoming that challenge unless you have an operating system or some other large interest that requires you to make a browser. This will have effects on the web as a platform for years to come. You are wrong. I get you’re making a political argument because you have something against Apple, but what you’re suggesting is just wrong on the merits. Apple’s global iPhone marketshare is around 15%; it’s 35-40% in the US. When the W3C was going to shove XHTML 2 down our throats, where you had to have perfectly conforming XML markup to have a valid webpage, Apple helped form with Mozilla and Opera, the WHATWG that lead to HTML5 and web standards that made sense. It was Apple that said no to shipping Flash on the iPhone, which was the beginning of the end for proprietary media plugins. You seemed to forget about the ecosystem of open source developers that have lead the charge on implementing new open standards; Igalia was obviously able to work with Apple (and Google) to implement CSS Grid: https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/2017/03/16/css-grid-layout-is-here-to-stay/ https://blogs.igalia.com/mrego/2017/03/16/css-grid-layout-is... Much of the variable font spec is based on Apple’s TrueType GX technology from the 1990s: https://atadistance.net/2016/09/20/truetype-gx-model-lives-on-in-opentype-variation-fonts/ https://atadistance.net/2016/09/20/truetype-gx-model-lives-o... Sure, they were behind on several important technologies, but they’ve made a ton of progress this past year or so. I created a Service Worker in the latest Safari Tech Preview that shipped two days ago: https://webkit.org/blog/8042/release-notes-for-safari-technology-preview-46/ https://webkit.org/blog/8042/release-notes-for-safari-techno... You also might want to check the feature list; you might be surprised: https://webkit.org/status/ https://webkit.org/status/ Apple is a convenient target for a lot of things; I get that, but I can’t see how anything you’ve said holds up when we take an objective look at things.

Spivak 9y ago

> No other platform has policies like this The Windows store has the same policy and by proxy all Windows S machines.

bhawks 9y ago
So then the trend is that platform owners are the only allowed browser implementors on the their platform? Platform owners' interests and public rationalizations aside, is this in the best interest of the web and its users?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Not sure, but Microsoft seems inclined to lean that way, since even on Android, where they have a choice, they elected to use Chromium for Edge.

simonh 9y ago

>No other platform has policies like this MS has a similar restriction on their App Store. Browsers are only allowed to use the MS rendering engine. Also plenty of feature phones only allow use of the integrated browser. You might think that’s an unrelated issue, but it’s not. From a regulatory perspective, how do you differentiate between those, feature phones that allow a limited range of installable apps, games consoles with game offerings controlled by the console vendor, and the App Stores? There are even children’s educational toys with downloadable apps. Vendor control of software access on their platform is actualy everywhere and some platforms like games consoles are defined by the concept so completely we often don’t even notice it. Dont like the games offered by Sony? Buy a Switch or an XBox. Don’t like the software offered by Apple? Buy an Android. But you don’t get to tell people which of these platforms they can or can’t choose.

pjmlp 9y ago
Just like Google has on ChromeOS. What do I change the browser being managed by ChromeOS?
- jzylstra 9y ago
  On a Chromebook, open the play store and download an alternative browser. It is that easy. Or sideload an apk if you've decided to opt-out of the play store. When it comes to an alternative engine, Firefox on Android is Gecko-based rather than being based on Chromium. You can install this on a Chromebook. If you need any more help understanding, please let me know.
wor3q 9y ago
All other platforms allow you to install apps from outside of the store though.
- simonh 9y ago
  But they don’t all allow you to install apps that have not been approved by the vendor and comply with vendor policies, which is what is actually relevant

pjmlp 9y ago

Windows Store like many others already mentioned, and ChromeOS come to mind.

alwillis 9y ago

No other platform has policies like this and it greatly impacts the web platform and changes the dynamic of web standards in a way no other browser developer could. Wow, that's quite a stretch. I monitor web standards pretty closely and I haven't found this to be the case. I have seen many threads on Github and mailing lists with Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft actually communicating with each other on how to implement web standards in a cross-browser way. Here's a good example: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1817 https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1817