7 ms·

Is “apple silicon” the port job here? Isn’t this more correctly described as a port of their existing ARM64 target to macOS?

jfk13 6y ago
Firefox on iOS is based on the system's Webkit engine; Firefox elsewhere is built on Gecko, so there's a vast difference in the codebase involved.
nguyenkien 6y ago
iOS browser is just Safari reskin (with different sync)
skrowl 6y ago
On iOS there are no web browsers other than Safari, per the app store rules. "Chrome" / "Firefox" / etc on iOS are just basically skins on top of Webkit. See 2.5.6 here - https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ This is why you don't get any of the features / extensions / etc of Chrome or Firefox on iOS. Apple does this so that the mobile web can never replace apps that they have a monopoly on and get a % from. If you could just visit netflix.com and have it install a Netflix SPA that worked as well as the native app, why would you ever install the native app? Edit after reading replies - lol, that programming of Apple users to believe "we need an app for every possible site".
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Apple does this so that the mobile web can never replace apps that they have a monopoly on and get a % from Or you know, because they disallow dynamic code execution of arbitrary downloaded code in apps, and JIT JS compilers do just that. >If you could just visit netflix.com and have it install a Netflix SPA that worked as well as the native app, why would you ever install the native app? It's like asking "why would you ever use a native app". Because it's faster, native, and much more convenient? Take the best desktop browser engine, e.g. Chrome, and put it inside a mobile browser app. Still, I (and most I guess) wouldn't use it to watch Netflix over individual apps.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I can't speak to the mobile/desktop distinction, but comparing "watching Netflix in Firefox on my desktop" with "watching Netflix on my LG WebOS TV", there's barely any difference. If anything, the browser version wins because of the superior input devices (kbd, mouse) attached to it compared with the TV. This suggests to me that there would be little difference when comparing mobile/desktop or app/browser, other than the netflix logo being the point of entry (and if you could run the SPA literally like an app, no difference at all).
    - coldtea 6y ago
      How many watch web-based Netflix on their Android phone, where Chrome is available, and "Safari" doesn't hold the marvel of web apps back? How many care to use web based apps over native apps in Android?
    - filleduchaos 6y ago
      > watching Netflix on my LG WebOS TV No offence but what do you think applications for Web OS are written with?
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Or you know, because they disallow dynamic code execution of arbitrary downloaded code in apps, and JIT JS compilers do just that. No, they explicitly disallow other implementations, whether they JIT or not. Since Apple's WebKit is missing so many features, this has the effect that GP noted. "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >No, they explicitly disallow other implementations, whether they JIT or not. Since Apple's WebKit is missing so many features, this has the effect that GP noted. So, do you know people who prefer web apps over native apps for their Android, where "other browsers" are not disallowed, and Chrome is available? I'm sure you'll find some. I doubt you'll find any significant percentage though. I, personally, never do, and haven't seen any doing it in the wild, except for things there's not an app for...
- dhritzkiv 6y ago
  Is there anything stopping Netflix from working in Safari on iOS? and then being installed as a bookmark to the Home Screen? I believe it's Netflix that prefers that users use the app.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Off the top of my head, mobile Safari can't handle push notifications for new content or downloading videos to watch later. I'm sure there are other problems with it as well.
    - dhritzkiv 6y ago
      Good points. Being able to download/cache content reliably would be welcome, on all browsers. However, I haven't seen a good example of using PWAs' storage APIs to cache video content, Safari or otherwise. Lack of push notifications in iOS Safari is a giant shortcoming. It's especially baffling since it exists for Safari on macOS. That being said, I can't say that Netflix's push notifications (in the app) are particularly useful (to me). They always spam me with newly released yet irrelevant in-house produced titles.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  Exactly. As we can see, everybody that uses Android watches Netflix on the web, and the Netflix Android app is left to languish with a measly 1B+ installs. There's clearly no reason why a long-running, DRM-heavy video streaming service like Netflix would want an actual native app on mobile devices.
floatboth 6y ago
Yes, "Apple Silicon" is the marketing name for macOS/ARM64. (Why did 3 other people interpret this comment as saying something about iOS?!)
- glandium 6y ago
  > (Why did 3 other people interpret this comment as saying something about iOS?!) Because originally, the comment also said "Firefox already works on apple silicon, on iOS".
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  > Yes, "Apple Silicon" is the marketing name for macOS/ARM64. Source?
twic 6y ago
This is a good question. On the one hand, the article says: > Of all the work needed to support the new hardware, porting Firefox to the 64-bit ARM architecture was not actually something we needed to do: we’ve supported 64-bit ARM on Android and Linux for years. On the other hand, it says: > Secondly, we needed to adapt and fix the various parts of the Firefox codebase that deal with low-level calling conventions and particularly the interfaces between the JavaScript and C++ (and nowadays Rust) parts of the code. I suppose MacOS on ARM has a different calling convention to both MacOS on x86-64 and Linux or Windows on ARM64. Also: > If the user visits such a site, Firefox will automatically download and install such a proprietary EME/CDM module. This presented a problem to us as we would be dependent on those third-party vendors to publish ARM64 versions of those decoders. So what do Windows or Linux users on ARM64 do? Do they just not get DRM?
- glandium 6y ago
  > So what do Windows or Linux users on ARM64 do? Do they just not get DRM? The Windows ARM64 build of Firefox comes with a copy of the 32-bits x86 Windows Firefox binaries to launch the win32 CDM. There is no support for things like this for Linux, and I don't think there's a native ARM64 Linux CDM (although I could be wrong. I mean, such a CDM likely exists, considering ARM64 Chromebooks)

jfk13 6y ago

Firefox on iOS is based on the system's Webkit engine; Firefox elsewhere is built on Gecko, so there's a vast difference in the codebase involved.

nguyenkien 6y ago

iOS browser is just Safari reskin (with different sync)

skrowl 6y ago

On iOS there are no web browsers other than Safari, per the app store rules. "Chrome" / "Firefox" / etc on iOS are just basically skins on top of Webkit. See 2.5.6 here - https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ This is why you don't get any of the features / extensions / etc of Chrome or Firefox on iOS. Apple does this so that the mobile web can never replace apps that they have a monopoly on and get a % from. If you could just visit netflix.com and have it install a Netflix SPA that worked as well as the native app, why would you ever install the native app? Edit after reading replies - lol, that programming of Apple users to believe "we need an app for every possible site".

coldtea 6y ago
>Apple does this so that the mobile web can never replace apps that they have a monopoly on and get a % from Or you know, because they disallow dynamic code execution of arbitrary downloaded code in apps, and JIT JS compilers do just that. >If you could just visit netflix.com and have it install a Netflix SPA that worked as well as the native app, why would you ever install the native app? It's like asking "why would you ever use a native app". Because it's faster, native, and much more convenient? Take the best desktop browser engine, e.g. Chrome, and put it inside a mobile browser app. Still, I (and most I guess) wouldn't use it to watch Netflix over individual apps.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I can't speak to the mobile/desktop distinction, but comparing "watching Netflix in Firefox on my desktop" with "watching Netflix on my LG WebOS TV", there's barely any difference. If anything, the browser version wins because of the superior input devices (kbd, mouse) attached to it compared with the TV. This suggests to me that there would be little difference when comparing mobile/desktop or app/browser, other than the netflix logo being the point of entry (and if you could run the SPA literally like an app, no difference at all).
  - coldtea 6y ago
    How many watch web-based Netflix on their Android phone, where Chrome is available, and "Safari" doesn't hold the marvel of web apps back? How many care to use web based apps over native apps in Android?
  - filleduchaos 6y ago
    > watching Netflix on my LG WebOS TV No offence but what do you think applications for Web OS are written with?
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > Or you know, because they disallow dynamic code execution of arbitrary downloaded code in apps, and JIT JS compilers do just that. No, they explicitly disallow other implementations, whether they JIT or not. Since Apple's WebKit is missing so many features, this has the effect that GP noted. "2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >No, they explicitly disallow other implementations, whether they JIT or not. Since Apple's WebKit is missing so many features, this has the effect that GP noted. So, do you know people who prefer web apps over native apps for their Android, where "other browsers" are not disallowed, and Chrome is available? I'm sure you'll find some. I doubt you'll find any significant percentage though. I, personally, never do, and haven't seen any doing it in the wild, except for things there's not an app for...
dhritzkiv 6y ago
Is there anything stopping Netflix from working in Safari on iOS? and then being installed as a bookmark to the Home Screen? I believe it's Netflix that prefers that users use the app.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Off the top of my head, mobile Safari can't handle push notifications for new content or downloading videos to watch later. I'm sure there are other problems with it as well.
  - dhritzkiv 6y ago
    Good points. Being able to download/cache content reliably would be welcome, on all browsers. However, I haven't seen a good example of using PWAs' storage APIs to cache video content, Safari or otherwise. Lack of push notifications in iOS Safari is a giant shortcoming. It's especially baffling since it exists for Safari on macOS. That being said, I can't say that Netflix's push notifications (in the app) are particularly useful (to me). They always spam me with newly released yet irrelevant in-house produced titles.
filleduchaos 6y ago
Exactly. As we can see, everybody that uses Android watches Netflix on the web, and the Netflix Android app is left to languish with a measly 1B+ installs. There's clearly no reason why a long-running, DRM-heavy video streaming service like Netflix would want an actual native app on mobile devices.

floatboth 6y ago

Yes, "Apple Silicon" is the marketing name for macOS/ARM64. (Why did 3 other people interpret this comment as saying something about iOS?!)

glandium 6y ago
> (Why did 3 other people interpret this comment as saying something about iOS?!) Because originally, the comment also said "Firefox already works on apple silicon, on iOS".
CyberRabbi 6y ago
> Yes, "Apple Silicon" is the marketing name for macOS/ARM64. Source?

twic 6y ago

This is a good question. On the one hand, the article says: > Of all the work needed to support the new hardware, porting Firefox to the 64-bit ARM architecture was not actually something we needed to do: we’ve supported 64-bit ARM on Android and Linux for years. On the other hand, it says: > Secondly, we needed to adapt and fix the various parts of the Firefox codebase that deal with low-level calling conventions and particularly the interfaces between the JavaScript and C++ (and nowadays Rust) parts of the code. I suppose MacOS on ARM has a different calling convention to both MacOS on x86-64 and Linux or Windows on ARM64. Also: > If the user visits such a site, Firefox will automatically download and install such a proprietary EME/CDM module. This presented a problem to us as we would be dependent on those third-party vendors to publish ARM64 versions of those decoders. So what do Windows or Linux users on ARM64 do? Do they just not get DRM?

glandium 6y ago
> So what do Windows or Linux users on ARM64 do? Do they just not get DRM? The Windows ARM64 build of Firefox comes with a copy of the 32-bits x86 Windows Firefox binaries to launch the win32 CDM. There is no support for things like this for Linux, and I don't think there's a native ARM64 Linux CDM (although I could be wrong. I mean, such a CDM likely exists, considering ARM64 Chromebooks)