3 ms·

Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser engines and preventing Google from commandeering web standards and “embrace, extend, extinguish”ing

Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser engines and preventing Google from commandeering web standards and “embrace, extend, extinguish”ing them. If Chrome was allowed on iOS be sure Google would dump unlimited money to get people to use it. Websites would further go down the path of only testing on Chrome, and Google would continue stuffing their browser full of oftentimes needless features. And they’d continue all their other disgusting practices like AMP even less fettered than before. The literal only hedge against this right now is Safari. I thank the powers that be that Apple doesn’t let other engines on. That, and, Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of performance. It’s not even close. And answer this: how would allowing other engines increase privacy? WebKit does more for privacy than almost any other, and allows installing privacy extensions and wrappers like Firefox. Without that, you’d have people using Chrome more than using Firefox.. a regression in privacy.

cmeacham98 6y ago
> That, and, Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of performance. It’s not even close. How is it fair to make this statement about iOS where no other engine is even allowed? Maybe Chrome(ium) and/or Firefox would be faster than Webkit on iOS if they were actually allowed to develop for it, or maybe Safari would be the best. It's impossible to know because Apple prevents any competition here.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Because it’s the same engine on Mac and it’s far, far faster (and less battery consuming). Sure, opening it may incentivize Chrome to compete, but I doubt much more than they already are incentivized in general.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  We have MacOS to see this is true to a huge degree there. The related and overlapping iOS wouldn’t change things that much.
jefftk 6y ago
> Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of performance. It’s not even close. link?
fragile_frogs 6y ago
> Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser engines How is only allowing ONE browser engine good for diversity? If anything it hinders diversity and progress on iOS. > Websites would further go down the path of only testing on Chrome If only it would be possible to test Safari on a non Apple device, Apple is partial it fault here > And answer this: how would allowing other engines increase privacy? Because then there could be competition between Safari, Firefox, Brave etc. Answer this: why do you let Apple dictate what Apps you can install on a ($700 - $1100) phone that you own?
- nwienert 6y ago
  If you define diversity as market share, explain how v8 won’t gain market share if allowed on iOS. And v8 already has way too much. Anyone paying attention can see there is a massive battle over web standards right now between Apple and Google, King Kong vs Godzilla (the other players aren’t in the same league), with the former being the one consistently fighting for privacy, and the latter for ever more invasive ads. To me arguing for letting v8 on iOS is like saying why don’t we weaken King Kong so we can add a few more firefighters. It just doesn’t make sense. You don’t weaken the fighter thats lower in share (and stands against invasive advertising) because you feel bad for the local police not getting a chance. It’s actually exactly why I’m happy to pay 700 - and if they opened it to other engines I’d value it less. You can’t have a black and white view of freedom. Sometimes freedom is having an imperfect yet big and tough player that stands for what you want, against a worse option. The implementation is less free technically, but the outcome is more free dramatically (balance of power over the direction and control of the web and privacy). I’d prefer a world where Chrome had a lot less market share, and then I’d not mind if it was more open. But we don’t live in that world. I’ll take the trade off.

cmeacham98 6y ago

> That, and, Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of performance. It’s not even close. How is it fair to make this statement about iOS where no other engine is even allowed? Maybe Chrome(ium) and/or Firefox would be faster than Webkit on iOS if they were actually allowed to develop for it, or maybe Safari would be the best. It's impossible to know because Apple prevents any competition here.

nwienert 6y ago
Because it’s the same engine on Mac and it’s far, far faster (and less battery consuming). Sure, opening it may incentivize Chrome to compete, but I doubt much more than they already are incentivized in general.
skinnymuch 6y ago
We have MacOS to see this is true to a huge degree there. The related and overlapping iOS wouldn’t change things that much.

jefftk 6y ago

> Safari is miles ahead of any other engine in terms of performance. It’s not even close. link?

fragile_frogs 6y ago

> Which is actually a good thing for the diversity of browser engines How is only allowing ONE browser engine good for diversity? If anything it hinders diversity and progress on iOS. > Websites would further go down the path of only testing on Chrome If only it would be possible to test Safari on a non Apple device, Apple is partial it fault here > And answer this: how would allowing other engines increase privacy? Because then there could be competition between Safari, Firefox, Brave etc. Answer this: why do you let Apple dictate what Apps you can install on a ($700 - $1100) phone that you own?

nwienert 6y ago
If you define diversity as market share, explain how v8 won’t gain market share if allowed on iOS. And v8 already has way too much. Anyone paying attention can see there is a massive battle over web standards right now between Apple and Google, King Kong vs Godzilla (the other players aren’t in the same league), with the former being the one consistently fighting for privacy, and the latter for ever more invasive ads. To me arguing for letting v8 on iOS is like saying why don’t we weaken King Kong so we can add a few more firefighters. It just doesn’t make sense. You don’t weaken the fighter thats lower in share (and stands against invasive advertising) because you feel bad for the local police not getting a chance. It’s actually exactly why I’m happy to pay 700 - and if they opened it to other engines I’d value it less. You can’t have a black and white view of freedom. Sometimes freedom is having an imperfect yet big and tough player that stands for what you want, against a worse option. The implementation is less free technically, but the outcome is more free dramatically (balance of power over the direction and control of the web and privacy). I’d prefer a world where Chrome had a lot less market share, and then I’d not mind if it was more open. But we don’t live in that world. I’ll take the trade off.