4 ms·
We can, just not the Firefox rendering engine. As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would tak
by welly 8y ago
We can, just not the Firefox rendering engine. As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would take a hint and open up allowing other rendering engines. Although I'm not holding my breath.
I'm an Apple user in as far as I have an iPad Pro and a Macbook Pro, I certainly don't hold Apple in as high regard as I used to do but those two products are superb even with the limitations of the iPad/iOS.
- izacus 8y agoNot using the Firefox rendering engine means you're effectively using Safari for rendering sites and not helping ecosystem diversity. The renderer is still WebKit controlled by Apple, not a Firefox browser controlled and built by Mozilla.
- takluyver 8y agoI don't have an iOS device, but presumably Firefox on iOS still integrates with Firefox Sync, so it may reinforce using 'real' Firefox on a laptop or desktop.
- welly 8y agoIt does, although doesn't support Firefox extensions as the Android version does. Again due to browser engine restrictions. Damn you, Apple.
- saagarjha 8y agoActually, since Firefox uses WKWebView, it should be able to support extensions to some extent. Whether this would fly on the App Store, with the rules against alternative marketplaces for software and all, is indeterminate, but I don't think there is a technical reason why this couldn't work.
- welly 8y agoThat is definitely a fair point, and that's the frustating bit for me. I had hoped that eventually Apple would bow to pressure to open up allowing other rendering engines but as I say I'm not holding my breath. They haven't done this in the last 10 years of iOS/iPhoneOS, can't imagine why they'd change their mind now. It is a shame.
- kkarakk 8y ago>Apple would take a hint never gonna happen
- Yoric 8y ago~10 years ago, Apple killed the original Firefox for iOS, which was using Gecko. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- saagarjha 8y ago> As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would take a hint and open up allowing other rendering engines. Although I'm not holding my breath. The problem with this is that allowing other rendering engines would open up a whole can of worms that Apple would rather not have to deal with, and there's no easy way, even if Apple wanted it, to allow JIT execution for third-party browser engines without utterly destroying the entire codesigning system.
- jefftk 8y agoWhat design choices mean third party Android browsers can do JIT but third party iPhone ones can't?
- saagarjha 8y agoAndroid doesn't do codesigning, at least in the way that iOS does: on iOS, all code that executes must be signed and approved by Apple before it is allowed to be loaded by the OS into memory (with some exceptions e.g. Safari). JIT gets around this because applications can now generate and execute arbitrary code, which is obviously something that Apple doesn't want. So this basically means that you are not allowed to put apps like this on the App Store.
- lern_too_spel 8y agoIt is a result of Apple's broken security model. On Android, generated code has no more provoleges than the code that generated it, just like interpreted code.
- saagarjha 8y ago> On Android, generated code has no more provoleges than the code that generated it, just like interpreted code. This is true on iOS as well, just it is on almost every other operating system: you don't get to expand your privileges by being able to generate code because said code still runs in your process. There's no "broken security model" here; in a sense iOS has a much stronger security model than Android does because all code that gets executed can be statically verified beforehand.