8 ms·

Safari is a terrible, Apple-like version of WebKit. The last viable windows version of Safari was abandoned 8 years ago, so please nobody use this browser.

by riamu 7y ago

jnwkw 7y ago
Safari is the fastest browser I've ever used on mobile. It also supports ad blocking. Calling it "terrible" simply does not resonate with me. Chrome is slower and Firefox on mobile is a joke.
- kekebo 7y ago
  If you're on iOS it would make sense since Apple is only allowing it's own webkit as browser engine, forcing chromium and firefox to be disfigured versions of what they are on other systems. When I was working more frontend (~1,5 years ago) no browser would cause more work and trouble for us than Safari on iOS (we didn't have to support IE9 and lower).
  - jnwkw 7y ago
    Nah I'm talking about Chrome and Firefox on Android. They are both worse than Safari on iOS. Also I understand that Safari might've created some pain for you as a frontend developer, but frankly I don't care. I'm an end user and I only care about how fast and secure the browser is. And Safari wins there, it's not terrible by any measure for the end user.
    - kekebo 7y ago
      That might be your personal impression but I don't share it. Development wise it's not so much about our pain as about certain known bugs that went unfixed for up to 2+ years, similar goes for a range of CVEs (re:being secure).
      - jnwkw 7y ago
        Do you believe Chrome or Firefox on Android to be faster or more secure than Safari on iOS?
        ethelward 7y ago
        Performances issues will be hard to estimate, as you can not compare safari to the others on the same phone, which means that you will not be able to correct for hardware and software stacks influences.
    - AsyncAwait 7y ago
      > Chrome and Firefox on Android. They are both worse than Safari on iOS I realize that this is subjective, but Firefox Focus has been my preferred mobile browser, regardless of if I have Safari available, (iPad), or not, (Android). In fact having desktop addons on Android has been great.
    - seabrookmx 7y ago
      Safari being faster on iOS might be more indicative of your iDevice's performance rather than Safari's (the A-series chips are quite fast). Without being able to run both browsers on the same hardware you can't really make an apples to apples comparison.
- jekrb 7y ago
  Have you tried Brave browser on mobile? It's quite fast and blocks ads. A couple issues with Safari I've seen since it's slower to adopt web standards: - buggier websites from devs who don't have iPhones. Since there are some quirky inconsistencies with how webkit handles css vs other browser rendering engines it's easy not to catch those quirks if you don't have an iPhone to check them with. And once users point them out, it's a pain to fix without a physical device. - a smaller web feature set than chrome/Firefox. For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito. I think it supports serviceworkers and webrtc now but it took years to get them.
  - walterbell 7y ago
    > For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito. Isn't that good for privacy? Localstorage can store unique IDs and other data about the client's past behavior, it's much more dangerous than cookies.
    - jekrb 7y ago
      It would be nice if localstorage worked in a new instance in incognito. This way webapps that require it can still function without affecting non-incognito tabs. What other privacy concerns would there be I'm wondering?
      - walterbell 7y ago
        If incognito mode discards localstorage, there is risk of silent data loss. E.g. imagine a web-based editor that saved drafts. Websites can detect the absence of localstorage and change their behavior, e.g. notify the user that information will be lost after the session ends.
  - revvx 7y ago
    > For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito It does allow (at least in the version I'm using), but doesn't persist the data between sessions. Which is the whole point of Icognito mode.
- willtim 7y ago
  Firefox on mobile has improved enormously since Quantum. It works well enough to ditch Chrome.
  - ycgeu 7y ago
    No it doesn't. For example to tap a link you have to tap it directly, links don't have a halo around them to make them easier to tap. Tapping things like the [-] buttons here in HN is very hard. It's stupid shit like that that makes it unusable for me. I don't believe for a second the developers of Firefox for Android use it every day and haven't fixed that. And if they don't dogfood what hope is there for that software?
    - yorwba 7y ago
      > I don't believe for a second the developers of Firefox for Android use it every day and haven't fixed that. Why is that so unbelievable? I use Firefox every day and haven't even considered that this might be a problem. I don't have difficulty hitting the [-] on HN, but if I did, I would simply zoom in until it becomes large enough.
      - ycgeu 7y ago
        Yes I suppose that's what the Firefox developers think to themselves. Let's ignore basic usability issues. That's why Firefox is a failure.
      - noir_lord 7y ago
        Same, used Firefox on Android (currently on a 5.5" phone (Nokia 6.1)) for over a year without a single issue. Chrome still had a slightly better UI the last time I tried it but the gap wasn't remotely wide enough to give up ublock origin. Adverts are even more annoying on phones than they are on desktop so been able to run ublock origin directly on device is a major win.
      - patrick5415 7y ago
        I’m amazed at the tiny inconveniences that lead people to something is totally broken and completely unusable.
- Zardoz84 7y ago
  I'm using Firefox for mobile since Quantum, and works better that Chrome (except for a few pages that don't bother on supporting Firefox on any platform)
  - iforgotpassword 7y ago
    For me it's faster on mobile mostly since I can just install ublock origin so most pages load and execute much less crap.
- riamu 7y ago
  Ok that's fair. From a developer's PoV, Safari is a terrible browser. It's old and buggy and stifles innovation on iOS in the same way ie did on windows.
  - madeofpalk 7y ago
    As a web developer, I find this to be anything be true. Safari supports loads of cool features that clients ask for, like native css carousels (css snap points), and blur effects (backdrop-filter). Chrome, does not.
    - seabrookmx 7y ago
      As a web developer, I like my browser to implement internet standards correctly so websites actually work. People aren't trashing Safari because it's cool.. generally Apple provides a great software experience. But Safari is a bug ridden mess. Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906 There's also been issues with the handling of 3rd party cookies that create issues for login systems, js stdlib functions being incorrectly implemented, etc.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        Safari generally implements standards as they mature. Chrome generally implements everything new and shiny, no matter how underspecified it is, and with blatant disregard to whether or not it breaks the web.
        seabrookmx 7y ago
        I don't disagree with regards to new standards, but that doesn't change the fact that existing, well established standards are often broken in Safari (see the bug I linked in the parent comment). These bugs are much more likely to break the web than Chrome's half baked bleeding edge features because there's already a huge body of web software that relies on them.
- NightlyDev 7y ago
  You clearly don't have much experience as a developer with Safari on iOS. It's a terrible browser full of bugs and inconsistent behavior.
- blablabla123 7y ago
  Since I have the new Macbook Air I also switched to Safari because it also extends battery lifetime. Still need to get used to the different keyboard shortcuts and plugin system though. (But yes, if I do Frontend development, I use Chrome)
- xenator 7y ago
  In last version of Safari uBlock shows warning that it is not supported anymore and slow down your browsing experience. Adblockers from App Store are limited by number of allowed rules the same way as in promised Chrome API changes. If we should start to worry about browser shift then Safari should be first in the list.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > It also supports ad blocking. It supports the same crippled ad blocking that this article complains about. It is also years behind the competitors in standards support, and the standards it claims to support are implemented buggily. Finally, it crashes more often than its competitors, but I suppose making a browser unusable is one way to save battery.

Safari is a terrible, Apple-like version of WebKit. The last viable windows version of Safari was abandoned 8 years ago, so please nobody use this browser.

by riamu 7y ago

Safari is a terrible, Apple-like version of WebKit. The last viable windows version of Safari was abandoned 8 years ago, so please nobody use this browser.

jnwkw 7y ago

Safari is the fastest browser I've ever used on mobile. It also supports ad blocking. Calling it "terrible" simply does not resonate with me. Chrome is slower and Firefox on mobile is a joke.

kekebo 7y ago
If you're on iOS it would make sense since Apple is only allowing it's own webkit as browser engine, forcing chromium and firefox to be disfigured versions of what they are on other systems. When I was working more frontend (~1,5 years ago) no browser would cause more work and trouble for us than Safari on iOS (we didn't have to support IE9 and lower).
- jnwkw 7y ago
  Nah I'm talking about Chrome and Firefox on Android. They are both worse than Safari on iOS. Also I understand that Safari might've created some pain for you as a frontend developer, but frankly I don't care. I'm an end user and I only care about how fast and secure the browser is. And Safari wins there, it's not terrible by any measure for the end user.
  - kekebo 7y ago
    That might be your personal impression but I don't share it. Development wise it's not so much about our pain as about certain known bugs that went unfixed for up to 2+ years, similar goes for a range of CVEs (re:being secure).
    - jnwkw 7y ago
      Do you believe Chrome or Firefox on Android to be faster or more secure than Safari on iOS?
      - ethelward 7y ago
        Performances issues will be hard to estimate, as you can not compare safari to the others on the same phone, which means that you will not be able to correct for hardware and software stacks influences.
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    > Chrome and Firefox on Android. They are both worse than Safari on iOS I realize that this is subjective, but Firefox Focus has been my preferred mobile browser, regardless of if I have Safari available, (iPad), or not, (Android). In fact having desktop addons on Android has been great.
  - seabrookmx 7y ago
    Safari being faster on iOS might be more indicative of your iDevice's performance rather than Safari's (the A-series chips are quite fast). Without being able to run both browsers on the same hardware you can't really make an apples to apples comparison.
jekrb 7y ago
Have you tried Brave browser on mobile? It's quite fast and blocks ads. A couple issues with Safari I've seen since it's slower to adopt web standards: - buggier websites from devs who don't have iPhones. Since there are some quirky inconsistencies with how webkit handles css vs other browser rendering engines it's easy not to catch those quirks if you don't have an iPhone to check them with. And once users point them out, it's a pain to fix without a physical device. - a smaller web feature set than chrome/Firefox. For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito. I think it supports serviceworkers and webrtc now but it took years to get them.
- walterbell 7y ago
  > For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito. Isn't that good for privacy? Localstorage can store unique IDs and other data about the client's past behavior, it's much more dangerous than cookies.
  - jekrb 7y ago
    It would be nice if localstorage worked in a new instance in incognito. This way webapps that require it can still function without affecting non-incognito tabs. What other privacy concerns would there be I'm wondering?
    - walterbell 7y ago
      If incognito mode discards localstorage, there is risk of silent data loss. E.g. imagine a web-based editor that saved drafts. Websites can detect the absence of localstorage and change their behavior, e.g. notify the user that information will be lost after the session ends.
- revvx 7y ago
  > For instance, Safari doesn't allow localstorage while in incognito It does allow (at least in the version I'm using), but doesn't persist the data between sessions. Which is the whole point of Icognito mode.
willtim 7y ago
Firefox on mobile has improved enormously since Quantum. It works well enough to ditch Chrome.
- ycgeu 7y ago
  No it doesn't. For example to tap a link you have to tap it directly, links don't have a halo around them to make them easier to tap. Tapping things like the [-] buttons here in HN is very hard. It's stupid shit like that that makes it unusable for me. I don't believe for a second the developers of Firefox for Android use it every day and haven't fixed that. And if they don't dogfood what hope is there for that software?
  - yorwba 7y ago
    > I don't believe for a second the developers of Firefox for Android use it every day and haven't fixed that. Why is that so unbelievable? I use Firefox every day and haven't even considered that this might be a problem. I don't have difficulty hitting the [-] on HN, but if I did, I would simply zoom in until it becomes large enough.
    - ycgeu 7y ago
      Yes I suppose that's what the Firefox developers think to themselves. Let's ignore basic usability issues. That's why Firefox is a failure.
    - noir_lord 7y ago
      Same, used Firefox on Android (currently on a 5.5" phone (Nokia 6.1)) for over a year without a single issue. Chrome still had a slightly better UI the last time I tried it but the gap wasn't remotely wide enough to give up ublock origin. Adverts are even more annoying on phones than they are on desktop so been able to run ublock origin directly on device is a major win.
    - patrick5415 7y ago
      I’m amazed at the tiny inconveniences that lead people to something is totally broken and completely unusable.
Zardoz84 7y ago
I'm using Firefox for mobile since Quantum, and works better that Chrome (except for a few pages that don't bother on supporting Firefox on any platform)
- iforgotpassword 7y ago
  For me it's faster on mobile mostly since I can just install ublock origin so most pages load and execute much less crap.
riamu 7y ago
Ok that's fair. From a developer's PoV, Safari is a terrible browser. It's old and buggy and stifles innovation on iOS in the same way ie did on windows.
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  As a web developer, I find this to be anything be true. Safari supports loads of cool features that clients ask for, like native css carousels (css snap points), and blur effects (backdrop-filter). Chrome, does not.
  - seabrookmx 7y ago
    As a web developer, I like my browser to implement internet standards correctly so websites actually work. People aren't trashing Safari because it's cool.. generally Apple provides a great software experience. But Safari is a bug ridden mess. Here's an example that broke many many sites that use OAuth2 Auth Code Flow for login (including the main UI portal my company provides clients): https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194906 There's also been issues with the handling of 3rd party cookies that create issues for login systems, js stdlib functions being incorrectly implemented, etc.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      Safari generally implements standards as they mature. Chrome generally implements everything new and shiny, no matter how underspecified it is, and with blatant disregard to whether or not it breaks the web.
      - seabrookmx 7y ago
        I don't disagree with regards to new standards, but that doesn't change the fact that existing, well established standards are often broken in Safari (see the bug I linked in the parent comment). These bugs are much more likely to break the web than Chrome's half baked bleeding edge features because there's already a huge body of web software that relies on them.
NightlyDev 7y ago
You clearly don't have much experience as a developer with Safari on iOS. It's a terrible browser full of bugs and inconsistent behavior.
blablabla123 7y ago
Since I have the new Macbook Air I also switched to Safari because it also extends battery lifetime. Still need to get used to the different keyboard shortcuts and plugin system though. (But yes, if I do Frontend development, I use Chrome)
xenator 7y ago
In last version of Safari uBlock shows warning that it is not supported anymore and slow down your browsing experience. Adblockers from App Store are limited by number of allowed rules the same way as in promised Chrome API changes. If we should start to worry about browser shift then Safari should be first in the list.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
> It also supports ad blocking. It supports the same crippled ad blocking that this article complains about. It is also years behind the competitors in standards support, and the standards it claims to support are implemented buggily. Finally, it crashes more often than its competitors, but I suppose making a browser unusable is one way to save battery.