6 ms·

I wish one of the outcome would be to allow better web browsers than Safari on iOS.

dmitriid 6y ago
You mean "allow other browser engines. There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's. iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.
- simion314 6y ago
  >I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody forces you to install Google version. I understand the potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features then you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon. And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only those) harmful for a bunch of reasons, the primary of which is privacy.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way. And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers", but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently, or... The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google).
        simion314 6y ago
        >and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google and Apple wants that web apps can't compete with native apps, like Apple will make sure a web based streaming app will not be usable. Why location API is not good in browser but microphone and camera is fine?
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > and Apple wants that I love how you keep bashing Apple even if Mozilla fully agrees with Apple on this. Because only Apple bad, bad, bad. > Why location API is not good in browser but microphone and camera is fine? Just as camera and mic location access is hidden behind a specific permission dialog in case you didn't notice. For things like Bluetooth, HID, Serial API etc. both WebKit and Firefox (not just Apple, but both Apple and Mozilla) say that this is not enough. Moreover, things like HID that Google happily shipped? Well, that specification is so bad that Mozilla devs didn't even understand it: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#issuecomment-753864467 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is... Or look, Idle Detection API, currently in trial in Chrome. Firefox just openly says: "WebKit raised issues, we agree with them, here's the issues" https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/453 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/453 You will also find (if you only cared about this) that standards that Mozilla considers harmful (or at least thinks they have to be deferred) are mostly aligned with Apple's: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ But yeah. Only Apple bad.
agust 6y ago
I really wish this too. Unfortunately, I am not sure the anticompetitiveness of Apple's behaviour regarding web browser engines — and its implication on the entire app industry — has been brought to the attention of EU lawmakers... For those not familiar with this issue, Apple is totally blocking browsers (like Firefox and Chrome) to use their own engine on iOS, preventing them to give web application access to native features, like push notification. Because of course, Apple won't add these features to their own engine (WebKit). That way, they are forcing app developers to develop native iOS apps, which have to go through their App Store to be installed on iOS. By doing so, they can take the 30% commission fee on in-app purchases, and lock developers/companies in, because apps developed for iOS are not usable outside of Apple devices, of course.
finiteseries 6y ago
Web (Chrome) developers often go on and on about this, but I have yet to hear a single layman user complain about their iOS version of Chrome missing the ability to have the random news websites they’ve followed from Facebook send them native notifications, take up the entire viewport, or be “installed” to their home screen.
- agust 6y ago
  Sure. Users don't even know it would be possible, and don't care about the tech anyway. What they care about however is how much they pay for apps, how much they pay for in-app purchases, and being able to switch freely from one platform to another. Well, Apple's behaviour is impacting all this by forcing companies to develop native apps instead of web apps. Web apps (could) work anywhere, and cost a fraction of the cost of native apps.
  - finiteseries 6y ago
    This is clear, but only replaces the web developer’s perspective with the company’s, not the layman user’s. In-app purchases and App Store purchases in general are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, we’re talking about the difference between $9.99 & <$7 at the higher end assuming everything works out. That absolutely matters, but much more to the sellers than the users. We can imagine the thousands of needlessly native apps with a platform mandated 30% surcharge being transported onto the open web and into user devices free of interference. Hardware accelerated IG like filters writing to local disk in the background at 60fps, DRM protected 4k streaming with cheaper monthly subs, hobbyist forum sites on the home screen with PMs and replies pushing notifications alongside FB, the dream. But Abuelita is going to experience the millions of individual pages relying exclusively on advertising revenue already twisted and contorted into profitable positions being given the green light for Notifications, Geolocation, Bluetooth, NFC, Network Info, Ambient Light, Idleness, Proximity APIs etc while she’s just trying to read about how Joe Biden is destroying the fabric of America.
- pornel 6y ago
  To users it doesn't matter whether an app uses JS or Swift, only that it works smoothly and has all the features. It is in Apple's interest to keep web apps clunky, and forever less capable than their native platform. If "Add to Homescreen" wasn't added in the pre-AppStore era, I don't think it'd happen. This feature has clearly been mothballed. Homescreen web apps were given a second-rate build of WebKit that has been been consistently slower and buggier than standalone Safari (I don't know if they've fixed it recently. Homescreen webapps that I worked on all gave in to the AppStore eventually). Apple has the same fear as Microsoft had that powerful Web apps will make their native platform unnecessary. Microsoft made a mistake of abandoning Internet Explorer 6 entirely. Apple is smart enough to keep user-facing parts of their browser high quality, and only drag their feet on more advanced platform features. They forbid other browser engines, which magically makes Safari appear as technically capable as every other iOS browser.
wil421 6y ago
It sounds like a good idea but I would like to point out how the largest Ad company makes Chrome.
philliphaydon 6y ago
Noooooo. I don’t want to live in another IE era.
- speedgoose 6y ago
  Safari is the new IE already.
  - philliphaydon 6y ago
    No. But chrome is becoming the new IE.
ewindal 6y ago
I really hate this, too. iOS Firefox is the only browser that has auto-complete on URLs that I find usable, but it's an unstable piece of shit.

You mean "allow other browser engines. There are exactly three browser engines of any note: Safari's, Chrome's and Firefox's. iOS allows other browsers and doesn't allow other engines. And considering things like this: https://webapicontroversy.com/ https://webapicontroversy.com/ I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone.

simion314 6y ago
>I'm not entirely sure I want Chrome anywhere near my phone There are more browsers that use Chromium engine and nobody forces you to install Google version. I understand the potential issue of a Chrome dominance but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features then you will no longer be forced to use an inferior browser.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > but Apple could listen for actual developers want and implement those features Did you even visit the link? Developers may want the moon. And yet both Mozilla and Apple consider those (and not only those) harmful for a bunch of reasons, the primary of which is privacy.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Apple could be smart and implement what real developers need and not what advertisers want. But good performance, and better APIs would mean you could avoid using native apps.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      Once again: real developers may want a lot of things. I've seen developers want bluetooth and location APIs in the browser. And yet, both Apple and Mozilla (note: not just Apple) consider these APIs harmful as currently presented and specified and haven't found/can't find a way to implement them in a non-harmful way. And these APIs are the most visible. There are many other APIs and features that don't make their way into WebKit not because Apple "doesn't listen to real developers", but because the specs are extremely poorly written, or contain known bugs, or can't be implemented efficiently, or... The scary thing is, these days Firefox devs are increasingly often on WebKit's side (because whatever your opinion of Apple is, WebKit devs want the same thing that Firefox devs want: a safer web web for people with properly implemented features). Whereas Chrome just plows through (because Google's raison d'etre is the Web, and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google).
      - simion314 6y ago
        >and Google wants to subsume and replace the web with all things Google and Apple wants that web apps can't compete with native apps, like Apple will make sure a web based streaming app will not be usable. Why location API is not good in browser but microphone and camera is fine?
        dmitriid 6y ago
        > and Apple wants that I love how you keep bashing Apple even if Mozilla fully agrees with Apple on this. Because only Apple bad, bad, bad. > Why location API is not good in browser but microphone and camera is fine? Just as camera and mic location access is hidden behind a specific permission dialog in case you didn't notice. For things like Bluetooth, HID, Serial API etc. both WebKit and Firefox (not just Apple, but both Apple and Mozilla) say that this is not enough. Moreover, things like HID that Google happily shipped? Well, that specification is so bad that Mozilla devs didn't even understand it: https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#issuecomment-753864467 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/459#is... Or look, Idle Detection API, currently in trial in Chrome. Firefox just openly says: "WebKit raised issues, we agree with them, here's the issues" https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/453 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/453 You will also find (if you only cared about this) that standards that Mozilla considers harmful (or at least thinks they have to be deferred) are mostly aligned with Apple's: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ But yeah. Only Apple bad.

agust 6y ago

I really wish this too. Unfortunately, I am not sure the anticompetitiveness of Apple's behaviour regarding web browser engines — and its implication on the entire app industry — has been brought to the attention of EU lawmakers... For those not familiar with this issue, Apple is totally blocking browsers (like Firefox and Chrome) to use their own engine on iOS, preventing them to give web application access to native features, like push notification. Because of course, Apple won't add these features to their own engine (WebKit). That way, they are forcing app developers to develop native iOS apps, which have to go through their App Store to be installed on iOS. By doing so, they can take the 30% commission fee on in-app purchases, and lock developers/companies in, because apps developed for iOS are not usable outside of Apple devices, of course.

finiteseries 6y ago

Web (Chrome) developers often go on and on about this, but I have yet to hear a single layman user complain about their iOS version of Chrome missing the ability to have the random news websites they’ve followed from Facebook send them native notifications, take up the entire viewport, or be “installed” to their home screen.

agust 6y ago
Sure. Users don't even know it would be possible, and don't care about the tech anyway. What they care about however is how much they pay for apps, how much they pay for in-app purchases, and being able to switch freely from one platform to another. Well, Apple's behaviour is impacting all this by forcing companies to develop native apps instead of web apps. Web apps (could) work anywhere, and cost a fraction of the cost of native apps.
- finiteseries 6y ago
  This is clear, but only replaces the web developer’s perspective with the company’s, not the layman user’s. In-app purchases and App Store purchases in general are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, we’re talking about the difference between $9.99 & <$7 at the higher end assuming everything works out. That absolutely matters, but much more to the sellers than the users. We can imagine the thousands of needlessly native apps with a platform mandated 30% surcharge being transported onto the open web and into user devices free of interference. Hardware accelerated IG like filters writing to local disk in the background at 60fps, DRM protected 4k streaming with cheaper monthly subs, hobbyist forum sites on the home screen with PMs and replies pushing notifications alongside FB, the dream. But Abuelita is going to experience the millions of individual pages relying exclusively on advertising revenue already twisted and contorted into profitable positions being given the green light for Notifications, Geolocation, Bluetooth, NFC, Network Info, Ambient Light, Idleness, Proximity APIs etc while she’s just trying to read about how Joe Biden is destroying the fabric of America.
pornel 6y ago
To users it doesn't matter whether an app uses JS or Swift, only that it works smoothly and has all the features. It is in Apple's interest to keep web apps clunky, and forever less capable than their native platform. If "Add to Homescreen" wasn't added in the pre-AppStore era, I don't think it'd happen. This feature has clearly been mothballed. Homescreen web apps were given a second-rate build of WebKit that has been been consistently slower and buggier than standalone Safari (I don't know if they've fixed it recently. Homescreen webapps that I worked on all gave in to the AppStore eventually). Apple has the same fear as Microsoft had that powerful Web apps will make their native platform unnecessary. Microsoft made a mistake of abandoning Internet Explorer 6 entirely. Apple is smart enough to keep user-facing parts of their browser high quality, and only drag their feet on more advanced platform features. They forbid other browser engines, which magically makes Safari appear as technically capable as every other iOS browser.

wil421 6y ago

It sounds like a good idea but I would like to point out how the largest Ad company makes Chrome.

philliphaydon 6y ago

Noooooo. I don’t want to live in another IE era.

speedgoose 6y ago
Safari is the new IE already.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  No. But chrome is becoming the new IE.

ewindal 6y ago

I really hate this, too. iOS Firefox is the only browser that has auto-complete on URLs that I find usable, but it's an unstable piece of shit.