4 ms·

The restrictions on JIT aside, my understanding is that there's also a separate rule that you can't have any web browser engine except the system version of Web

The restrictions on JIT aside, my understanding is that there's also a separate rule that you can't have any web browser engine except the system version of WebKit.

judge2020 5y ago
Well, yes, but i'm trying to make a case for why Apple would want to prevent other browser at all - that being how it would look like Apple is intentionally handicapping other browsers by not letting them use JIT, raising less-explainable antitrust concerns.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  One explanation could be that Apple doesn't want an "electron situation," where every app comes with it's own fully-loaded web browser, is a memory and CPU hog, and a security risk if the app is out of date. Like is currently happening on PCs. With WebKit, its update once, secure all apps everywhere.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    I'm curious if FirefoxOS had gone differently if Apple and others would've considered supporting a native-web approach for apps. (Albeit also tied to only one or a few blessed HTML and JS engines.)
    - JimDabell 5y ago
      That was the Apple party line when the iPhone was first released – the only Apple-blessed way to build iPhone applications was to build mobile-friendly web applications. There was a backlash – everybody complained and demanded native applications; the App Store was opened the year after. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
      - paulryanrogers 5y ago
        IIRC FirefoxOS did it differently. Apps were local bundles of web tech. Not only pinned links to open a browser.
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  It is totally about preventing alternatives to the App Store.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    That's the rule, but you have to wonder why. They don't get more money just because Google can't spend their own development resources on targeting and validating Blink/V8 for iOS.
    - an_opabinia 5y ago
      90% of the revenue is games. Mobile Chrome would only need to support idiosyncratic Unity and Unreal web targets for a significant chunk of that revenue.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Another explanation, less popular, is that Apple restricting to WebKit actually helps foster browser competition at the moment. Let me explain. Right now it's WebKit vs Blink (Chrome and all Chromium-based Browsers, including Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, Edge, etc.). If Blink were to be allowed on iPhones... you'd see Chrome become even more dominant. Firefox is dying on PC, has less than 1% mobile share, and is no competition in this case. Requiring WebKit is what prevents an even greater Chrome monoculture.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Apple was in critically bad place when windows dominated with Internet Explorer, and Adobe with its apps. These two companies dictated where the users would be, and Apple had to beg them to play nice. The iPhone was a whole new platform where Apple had 100% power on where it could go; opening the door to third party browsers to bring their domination to the platform from the start must have been seen as suicidal.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

The restrictions on JIT aside, my understanding is that there's also a separate rule that you can't have any web browser engine except the system version of WebKit.

judge2020 5y ago

Well, yes, but i'm trying to make a case for why Apple would want to prevent other browser at all - that being how it would look like Apple is intentionally handicapping other browsers by not letting them use JIT, raising less-explainable antitrust concerns.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
One explanation could be that Apple doesn't want an "electron situation," where every app comes with it's own fully-loaded web browser, is a memory and CPU hog, and a security risk if the app is out of date. Like is currently happening on PCs. With WebKit, its update once, secure all apps everywhere.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  I'm curious if FirefoxOS had gone differently if Apple and others would've considered supporting a native-web approach for apps. (Albeit also tied to only one or a few blessed HTML and JS engines.)
  - JimDabell 5y ago
    That was the Apple party line when the iPhone was first released – the only Apple-blessed way to build iPhone applications was to build mobile-friendly web applications. There was a backlash – everybody complained and demanded native applications; the App Store was opened the year after. https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
    - paulryanrogers 5y ago
      IIRC FirefoxOS did it differently. Apps were local bundles of web tech. Not only pinned links to open a browser.
an_opabinia 5y ago
It is totally about preventing alternatives to the App Store.
- judge2020 5y ago
  That's the rule, but you have to wonder why. They don't get more money just because Google can't spend their own development resources on targeting and validating Blink/V8 for iOS.
  - an_opabinia 5y ago
    90% of the revenue is games. Mobile Chrome would only need to support idiosyncratic Unity and Unreal web targets for a significant chunk of that revenue.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Another explanation, less popular, is that Apple restricting to WebKit actually helps foster browser competition at the moment. Let me explain. Right now it's WebKit vs Blink (Chrome and all Chromium-based Browsers, including Brave, Vivaldi, Opera, Edge, etc.). If Blink were to be allowed on iPhones... you'd see Chrome become even more dominant. Firefox is dying on PC, has less than 1% mobile share, and is no competition in this case. Requiring WebKit is what prevents an even greater Chrome monoculture.
makeitdouble 5y ago
Apple was in critically bad place when windows dominated with Internet Explorer, and Adobe with its apps. These two companies dictated where the users would be, and Apple had to beg them to play nice. The iPhone was a whole new platform where Apple had 100% power on where it could go; opening the door to third party browsers to bring their domination to the platform from the start must have been seen as suicidal.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]