5 ms·

You really think google would walk away from all those safari users, especially on mobile, by forcing chrome? This seems … unlikely.

by Joeri 5y ago

eitland 5y ago
Sorry, I forgot, at the moment Safari might - more or less voluntarily - be a more important defender of the free web than Mozilla. It just so happens that Mozilla and Firefox is still on top of my mind because of how good they were back before they changed management.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  I wonder. For phones/tablets, Apple doesn't want anyone using the web for apps, insisting on app store (and fees) for all transactions. If Google came along with a deal to switch to Chrome, would modern, post-Jobs Apple go along? Unless something had changed, they already accept cash to funnel Safari users to Google by default. And Google apps somewhat compete with Apple products. So... why not more cash, and make Chrome Safari's guts?
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    Because Safari's guts weakens the web as an app platform and strengthens their App Store, a favorable outcome for Apple. Adopting Chrome as the guts of Safari would defeat that benefit, and it'd be pretty hard to regain it. Safari's current "guts" - Webkit - can veto web hardware APIs and slow down broad support for PWA features, things that would help web apps compete with the App Store. Post-Jobs Apple is the company that was willing to replace Google Maps with their own app to gain more independent control from Google, and they were much further behind when they did that. I can't imagine that company ceding influence & control over their largest platform threat by ditching Webkit. That's my 2c of speculation.
- greiskul 5y ago
  How can Safari be a defender of the free web, when iOS explicitly prohibits any other engine? They are the new IE, in that they keep users hostage, but this time you can't even run a campaign to try to get users to use a new browser.
  - eitland 5y ago
    Late but I'm on the train on my way home now so: > How can Safari be a defender of the free web, when iOS explicitly prohibits any other engine? If you look at my post above you'll see that I mentioned that this is more or less voluntarily :) Maybe it is not their intention at all but as long as they exist it makes it harder for Google to pull the carpet underneath the free web and ad blockers in particular. > They are the new IE, in that they keep users hostage, but this time you can't even run a campaign to try to get users to use a new browser. No. Safari might be annoying in a number of ways, but the "new IE" title goes to Chrome. IE became the old IE not because they lagged behind from the start but because they "innovated" new non-standard features until they had crushed competition, then stopped development until their market share was rapidly shrinking because of both Firefox and Chrome. If you don't think Google will stop Chrome development as soon as they have crushed competition and "sadly" had to kill adblock then we have different views of Google. (Please note: I don't think individual engineers at Google will push this agenda but I am fairly sure that "maximize shareholder profit" will over the course of a few months or a couple of years push this agenda with a weight that will easily crush even the most idealistic team. See WhatsApp for a case study of how a company and an engineering culture I loved was crushed.)

You really think google would walk away from all those safari users, especially on mobile, by forcing chrome? This seems … unlikely.

by Joeri 5y ago

You really think google would walk away from all those safari users, especially on mobile, by forcing chrome? This seems … unlikely.

eitland 5y ago

Sorry, I forgot, at the moment Safari might - more or less voluntarily - be a more important defender of the free web than Mozilla. It just so happens that Mozilla and Firefox is still on top of my mind because of how good they were back before they changed management.

bbarnett 5y ago
I wonder. For phones/tablets, Apple doesn't want anyone using the web for apps, insisting on app store (and fees) for all transactions. If Google came along with a deal to switch to Chrome, would modern, post-Jobs Apple go along? Unless something had changed, they already accept cash to funnel Safari users to Google by default. And Google apps somewhat compete with Apple products. So... why not more cash, and make Chrome Safari's guts?
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  Because Safari's guts weakens the web as an app platform and strengthens their App Store, a favorable outcome for Apple. Adopting Chrome as the guts of Safari would defeat that benefit, and it'd be pretty hard to regain it. Safari's current "guts" - Webkit - can veto web hardware APIs and slow down broad support for PWA features, things that would help web apps compete with the App Store. Post-Jobs Apple is the company that was willing to replace Google Maps with their own app to gain more independent control from Google, and they were much further behind when they did that. I can't imagine that company ceding influence & control over their largest platform threat by ditching Webkit. That's my 2c of speculation.
greiskul 5y ago
How can Safari be a defender of the free web, when iOS explicitly prohibits any other engine? They are the new IE, in that they keep users hostage, but this time you can't even run a campaign to try to get users to use a new browser.
- eitland 5y ago
  Late but I'm on the train on my way home now so: > How can Safari be a defender of the free web, when iOS explicitly prohibits any other engine? If you look at my post above you'll see that I mentioned that this is more or less voluntarily :) Maybe it is not their intention at all but as long as they exist it makes it harder for Google to pull the carpet underneath the free web and ad blockers in particular. > They are the new IE, in that they keep users hostage, but this time you can't even run a campaign to try to get users to use a new browser. No. Safari might be annoying in a number of ways, but the "new IE" title goes to Chrome. IE became the old IE not because they lagged behind from the start but because they "innovated" new non-standard features until they had crushed competition, then stopped development until their market share was rapidly shrinking because of both Firefox and Chrome. If you don't think Google will stop Chrome development as soon as they have crushed competition and "sadly" had to kill adblock then we have different views of Google. (Please note: I don't think individual engineers at Google will push this agenda but I am fairly sure that "maximize shareholder profit" will over the course of a few months or a couple of years push this agenda with a weight that will easily crush even the most idealistic team. See WhatsApp for a case study of how a company and an engineering culture I loved was crushed.)