6 ms·

moving forward we can expect Apple to start systemically hindering web apps They have been doing this for quite some time now. Always ostensibly to protect use

moving forward we can expect Apple to start systemically hindering web apps They have been doing this for quite some time now. Always ostensibly to protect users but always also conveniently putting webapps at a permanent disadvantage to native apps. For my part I'm not interested in being a user of a platform so hostile to the web that it disallows any third party browsers.

fpoling 7y ago
Apple disallows third-party web rendering engines. Google Chrome on iOS uses own networking stack. It is still a significant restriction, but it is rather understandable. Without it it could be just Blink everywhere at this point.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Without it it could be just Blink everywhere at this point. In what reality-distortioned universe is that worse than having a crippled web?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Please don't call anything that's not Blink "a crippled web".
    - jamiesonbecker 7y ago
      I believe that OP is saying it would be preferable to have blink-everywhere than to have a deliberately-crippled Apple web browser with all other choices banned.
      - soapdog 7y ago
        I'm the OP and I am a Mozilla volunteer. I prefer a web with many engines, I want it to have WebKit, Blink, Gecko and more.
        jamiesonbecker 7y ago
        Agreed. There is no choice with IOS: you choose the same WebKit that they've chosen, or Safari. One engine and version, or one browser using that one engine.
        millstone 7y ago
        Android is a web monoculture too. Non-Blink browsers on Android are at <1%.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        searchableguy 7y ago
        You can install any browser you want from playstore or outside of playstore. There are no restrictions on what you can and cannot have on your phone on android.
        fpoling 7y ago
        Yet non-default browsers on Android are non-existent. So in practice Android has the same web-engine mono-culture as iPhone. Given how successfully Google was able to ensure Blink domination on desktop and even more so on Android it is very understandable what Apple has done. And for me having at least 2 web engines on mobile is better than 1.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        In what reality-distortioned world is that worse than 0%? Also, several of those Blink-based browsers include additional non-Google-approved features, like Mozilla's own Firefox Focus, Samsung Browser, Edge, and Brave. I'd hardly call that a monoculture just because they share the same lineage.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Then you also prefer not to have those options banned.
- cageface 7y ago
  So it's not about what's best for the user but what's best for Apple? I wouldn't call that "understandable". All this is doing is contributing to webkit monoculture.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    There's some irony that Apple forcing the use of Safari on iOS is creating a monoculture when, were the restriction lifted, everyone would be using Chrome.
    - cageface 7y ago
      If so it would be because users chose it and it would also help keep Firefox in the game which important to the long term health of the web.
    - zimpenfish 7y ago
      > everyone would be using Chrome. I'd be amazed if there were more than a tiny fraction of iOS/iPadOS users (of which there are hundreds of millions) who weren't perfectly ok with Mobile Safari for their everyday usage. [I'm probably the "target market" for Chrome (backend, occasionally frontend developer) and there's no way I'd have it on my phone. I only suffer the GMail app because they've made IMAP usage of gmail unreliable.]
      - kitsunesoba 7y ago
        It doesn’t matter what users choose, devs would badger users into using Chrome for their own convenience. It’d be the return of the “viewed best in” badges from the late 90s and early 00s.
  - TheKarateKid 7y ago
    Remember, making everything a web app is Google's agenda because they benefit most from it.
    - NightlyDev 7y ago
wildduck 7y ago
One can always rely on cordova/phonegap type of app with a C++ plugin to address this issue. Personally, not having web app storing large amount of data is a good thing.
tomp 7y ago
Technically it's disallowing third-party JITs / executable data. Which is a good thing all-in-all.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Eh, I'm not completely sold on that.
- madeofpalk 7y ago
  Actually the guidelines specifically ban non-webkit rendering engines. > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
  - tyree731 7y ago
    At a minimum we can be thankful that Apple's rules force web developers to care about one additional browser.
    - NightlyDev 7y ago
      Lucky us. We web developers really want to care about specific browsers like it's 2006 again. IE6 must have been a great inspiration for Apple judging by their behaviour when it comes to Web.
TheKarateKid 7y ago
> Always ostensibly to protect users but always also conveniently putting webapps at a permanent disadvantage to native apps. This isn't always a bad thing though. For example, Safari has prohibited some obnoxious behavior that Chrome has allowed: Autoplaying videos, tab suspension, push notifications. These hog CPU and destroy battery life, worsening the user experience. Remember, making everything a web app is Google's agenda because they benefit most from it.
- estreeper 7y ago
  I would just point out there are very valid use cases for these things, i.e. push notifications are very useful to me (from certain apps). The problem is one of consent.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  MacOS Safari autoplays YouTube videos with now way to disable...
  - Gaelan 7y ago
    Interesting. I can tell Safari to not autoplay videos on YouTube in its preferences, but that doesn't seem to do anything. Seems more like a bug on Safari's part and/or workaround on Google's part than anything deliberate.
    - dzhiurgis 7y ago
      You mean Safari team accidentally forgot to test a video feature on a largest video website?
    - TheKarateKid 7y ago
      Safari uses some sort of algorithm to determine whether you actually want the autoplay to happen. For example I've noticed that if you play a video on a website during that session, it will allow autoplay from scripts on that page (not 3rd party) for the rest of that session. Same for unmuting an autoplaying video. This is all undocumented though and through personal observations, as Apple seemed to stop posting Safari documentation years ago.

fpoling 7y ago

Apple disallows third-party web rendering engines. Google Chrome on iOS uses own networking stack. It is still a significant restriction, but it is rather understandable. Without it it could be just Blink everywhere at this point.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Without it it could be just Blink everywhere at this point. In what reality-distortioned universe is that worse than having a crippled web?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Please don't call anything that's not Blink "a crippled web".
  - jamiesonbecker 7y ago
    I believe that OP is saying it would be preferable to have blink-everywhere than to have a deliberately-crippled Apple web browser with all other choices banned.
    - soapdog 7y ago
      I'm the OP and I am a Mozilla volunteer. I prefer a web with many engines, I want it to have WebKit, Blink, Gecko and more.
      - jamiesonbecker 7y ago
        Agreed. There is no choice with IOS: you choose the same WebKit that they've chosen, or Safari. One engine and version, or one browser using that one engine.
        millstone 7y ago
        Android is a web monoculture too. Non-Blink browsers on Android are at <1%.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        searchableguy 7y ago
        You can install any browser you want from playstore or outside of playstore. There are no restrictions on what you can and cannot have on your phone on android.
        fpoling 7y ago
        Yet non-default browsers on Android are non-existent. So in practice Android has the same web-engine mono-culture as iPhone. Given how successfully Google was able to ensure Blink domination on desktop and even more so on Android it is very understandable what Apple has done. And for me having at least 2 web engines on mobile is better than 1.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        In what reality-distortioned world is that worse than 0%? Also, several of those Blink-based browsers include additional non-Google-approved features, like Mozilla's own Firefox Focus, Samsung Browser, Edge, and Brave. I'd hardly call that a monoculture just because they share the same lineage.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Then you also prefer not to have those options banned.
cageface 7y ago
So it's not about what's best for the user but what's best for Apple? I wouldn't call that "understandable". All this is doing is contributing to webkit monoculture.
- Spivak 7y ago
  There's some irony that Apple forcing the use of Safari on iOS is creating a monoculture when, were the restriction lifted, everyone would be using Chrome.
  - cageface 7y ago
    If so it would be because users chose it and it would also help keep Firefox in the game which important to the long term health of the web.
  - zimpenfish 7y ago
    > everyone would be using Chrome. I'd be amazed if there were more than a tiny fraction of iOS/iPadOS users (of which there are hundreds of millions) who weren't perfectly ok with Mobile Safari for their everyday usage. [I'm probably the "target market" for Chrome (backend, occasionally frontend developer) and there's no way I'd have it on my phone. I only suffer the GMail app because they've made IMAP usage of gmail unreliable.]
    - kitsunesoba 7y ago
      It doesn’t matter what users choose, devs would badger users into using Chrome for their own convenience. It’d be the return of the “viewed best in” badges from the late 90s and early 00s.
- TheKarateKid 7y ago
  Remember, making everything a web app is Google's agenda because they benefit most from it.
  - NightlyDev 7y ago

wildduck 7y ago

One can always rely on cordova/phonegap type of app with a C++ plugin to address this issue. Personally, not having web app storing large amount of data is a good thing.

tomp 7y ago

Technically it's disallowing third-party JITs / executable data. Which is a good thing all-in-all.

saagarjha 7y ago
Eh, I'm not completely sold on that.
madeofpalk 7y ago
Actually the guidelines specifically ban non-webkit rendering engines. > 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
- tyree731 7y ago
  At a minimum we can be thankful that Apple's rules force web developers to care about one additional browser.
  - NightlyDev 7y ago
    Lucky us. We web developers really want to care about specific browsers like it's 2006 again. IE6 must have been a great inspiration for Apple judging by their behaviour when it comes to Web.

TheKarateKid 7y ago

> Always ostensibly to protect users but always also conveniently putting webapps at a permanent disadvantage to native apps. This isn't always a bad thing though. For example, Safari has prohibited some obnoxious behavior that Chrome has allowed: Autoplaying videos, tab suspension, push notifications. These hog CPU and destroy battery life, worsening the user experience. Remember, making everything a web app is Google's agenda because they benefit most from it.

estreeper 7y ago
I would just point out there are very valid use cases for these things, i.e. push notifications are very useful to me (from certain apps). The problem is one of consent.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
MacOS Safari autoplays YouTube videos with now way to disable...
- Gaelan 7y ago
  Interesting. I can tell Safari to not autoplay videos on YouTube in its preferences, but that doesn't seem to do anything. Seems more like a bug on Safari's part and/or workaround on Google's part than anything deliberate.
  - dzhiurgis 7y ago
    You mean Safari team accidentally forgot to test a video feature on a largest video website?
  - TheKarateKid 7y ago
    Safari uses some sort of algorithm to determine whether you actually want the autoplay to happen. For example I've noticed that if you play a video on a website during that session, it will allow autoplay from scripts on that page (not 3rd party) for the rest of that session. Same for unmuting an autoplaying video. This is all undocumented though and through personal observations, as Apple seemed to stop posting Safari documentation years ago.