4 ms·

What's wrong with a wrapper around Safari? It's a capable and efficient browser. Firefox can wrap its bookmark sharing and whatever around it (I actually use Fi

by tgv 4y ago

What's wrong with a wrapper around Safari? It's a capable and efficient browser. Firefox can wrap its bookmark sharing and whatever around it (I actually use Firefox on iOS, though I don't bother with the profile sharing). We don't need Safari to be 100% Chrome compatible, right? That's just for lazy programmers and greedy marketeers.

nixass 4y ago
It's literally crap and lacks features. See Firefox on Android, compare it to iOS and update your post
- tgv 4y ago
  That's an absurd statement. I have an Android tablet, and Firefox on that is definitely less agreeable than on iOS. The way it handles tabs, searches, private windows, and data settings, are all inferior on Android. It does have more extensions.
  - daviddever23box 4y ago
    The only thing I need from Firefox on iOS is the ability to sync bookmarks and browser history, while providing some degree of sandboxing from the usual intrusions. What I DON’T need is multiple (versions of) sub-par browser engines, which this effort doesn’t seem to address: give me singletons of Gecko, Blink, and Webkit, each optimized for the platform in question. Even then, from a technical perspective, I’m not so certain that there’s ANY benefit to the user; I’d rather see some headway made on wasm3 support than to let Brussels or London dictate architectural considerations.
  - nixass 4y ago
    Firefox on Android is ten times more customizable, especially with addons - ads and privacy - iOS/Safari can hide in a hole. Anyway, the issue here seems to be that somw people think browsers on iOS are good, they're not, especially not against their Android versions
NonNefarious 4y ago
What's wrong is that you're stuck with the same shitty browser engine. If you encounter a problem with WebKit, you're screwed. Think it through.
- tgv 4y ago
  - kouteiheika 4y ago
    Hard disagree. The only thing bad here is Safari's engine. Okay, let me give you an example. One of many I have. I run a website. I have many gigabytes of audio files. I'd like to 1) not have to store multiple versions of the same files, and 2) I'd like to encode them using the most efficient codec available. This means I'd like to use Opus. Every browser supports it since *6 years* ago.... except Safari. Okay, they technically support it, but only in their own special snowflake container - `.caf`. So what I did recently - I wrote an on-the-fly demuxer which remuxes the standard Ogg container in which Opus audio comes in into `.caf` files on the fly. Yay, it works! Audio now plays on Safari! A single guy did something in one evening that a trillion dollar corporation can't do in 6 years. (Okay, fine, doing it on their side would probably take more effort and probably take, like, a week. But still.) ....except a new iOS update comes, and.... oops, users report that the audio stopped working?! Apple broke it, because of course they did; they only pretend to support Opus, otherwise they'd just properly support it like everyone else. But I'm stubborn. I tried to find a workaround and... I did. The trick was to decode the `.caf` file through `AudioContext::decodeAudioData`, remux it to `.wav` in JavaScript and then play it. Yay! Audio now works in Safari again! ....except I'm already looking forward when they break something else in the next update. There are many other issues I have or had with Safari, and... I just hate it with a burning passion. I never have issues with Firefox nor Chrome, but I always have to add weird workarounds for Safari bugs. I know the "intended" way of alleviating this pain is to just give in and let Apple extort 30% of my income and write a native app, but that's just not an option for me. I don't have the resources to write a native app nor the will to be subject to Apple's bullying.
    - 4y ago
II2II 4y ago
The issue is that the dominant engine developer uses their market position to push their competitors out of the market or to define their own web standards. The former is what happened with IE in the late 1990's. The latter is what is happening with the Blink and V8 engines today. As for 100% compatibility, most people will regard unexpected results as bugs or hindrances then switch to a compatible browser. You may be willing to deal with those incompatibilities. I may be willing to deal with those incompatibilities. Both of us are in the minority. Even technophiles who normally like playing with technology seem to stick to browsers based upon Chrome's engines (at least when given a choice) simply because too much of their life depends upon the browser.
- tgv 4y ago
  If Apple were forced to allow Chrome on iOS, Chrome's influence would grow even stronger. So why do you think that's an argument against wrappers around Safari?
  - Matl 4y ago
    Because Safari's not up to snuff and also because Firefox should also be able to compete. If you block browsers based on Chrome's dominance, Chrome effectively already won. What I predict would happen is that Apple starts investing heavily in WebKit to compete and Firefox would have a compelling offering there like it does on Android. Most people would stick with Safari because is is the default and they wouldn't even mostly be aware that it now may be worth switching due to say uBlock Origin. Safari would continue to serve them just fine.
    - Jcowell 4y ago
      If there’s one thing I’m certain of is that given the ability to use it’s own engine Firefox will still lose to Chrome. Willing to bet $100.
mgsk 4y ago
I can’t use Firefox plugins on iOS.
InCityDreams 4y ago
A Porsche wrapper around a VW Golf is not a Porsche.
- speedgoose 4y ago
  You do have Porsche wrappers around shared Volkswagen platforms though. Such as the Porsche Cayenne and the Volkswagen Touareg, the Porsche Macan and the Audi Q5, or the Porsche Taycan and the Audi étron GT.
  - daviddever23box 4y ago
    Right-it’s probably not the best analogy. It might be better to use the Ford engine analogy (Ford / Jaguar / Rover / BMW et al), where there are multiple brands / chassis using the same powertrain.

by tgv 4y ago

nixass 4y ago

It's literally crap and lacks features. See Firefox on Android, compare it to iOS and update your post

tgv 4y ago
That's an absurd statement. I have an Android tablet, and Firefox on that is definitely less agreeable than on iOS. The way it handles tabs, searches, private windows, and data settings, are all inferior on Android. It does have more extensions.
- daviddever23box 4y ago
  The only thing I need from Firefox on iOS is the ability to sync bookmarks and browser history, while providing some degree of sandboxing from the usual intrusions. What I DON’T need is multiple (versions of) sub-par browser engines, which this effort doesn’t seem to address: give me singletons of Gecko, Blink, and Webkit, each optimized for the platform in question. Even then, from a technical perspective, I’m not so certain that there’s ANY benefit to the user; I’d rather see some headway made on wasm3 support than to let Brussels or London dictate architectural considerations.
- nixass 4y ago
  Firefox on Android is ten times more customizable, especially with addons - ads and privacy - iOS/Safari can hide in a hole. Anyway, the issue here seems to be that somw people think browsers on iOS are good, they're not, especially not against their Android versions

NonNefarious 4y ago

What's wrong is that you're stuck with the same shitty browser engine. If you encounter a problem with WebKit, you're screwed. Think it through.

tgv 4y ago
- kouteiheika 4y ago
  Hard disagree. The only thing bad here is Safari's engine. Okay, let me give you an example. One of many I have. I run a website. I have many gigabytes of audio files. I'd like to 1) not have to store multiple versions of the same files, and 2) I'd like to encode them using the most efficient codec available. This means I'd like to use Opus. Every browser supports it since *6 years* ago.... except Safari. Okay, they technically support it, but only in their own special snowflake container - `.caf`. So what I did recently - I wrote an on-the-fly demuxer which remuxes the standard Ogg container in which Opus audio comes in into `.caf` files on the fly. Yay, it works! Audio now plays on Safari! A single guy did something in one evening that a trillion dollar corporation can't do in 6 years. (Okay, fine, doing it on their side would probably take more effort and probably take, like, a week. But still.) ....except a new iOS update comes, and.... oops, users report that the audio stopped working?! Apple broke it, because of course they did; they only pretend to support Opus, otherwise they'd just properly support it like everyone else. But I'm stubborn. I tried to find a workaround and... I did. The trick was to decode the `.caf` file through `AudioContext::decodeAudioData`, remux it to `.wav` in JavaScript and then play it. Yay! Audio now works in Safari again! ....except I'm already looking forward when they break something else in the next update. There are many other issues I have or had with Safari, and... I just hate it with a burning passion. I never have issues with Firefox nor Chrome, but I always have to add weird workarounds for Safari bugs. I know the "intended" way of alleviating this pain is to just give in and let Apple extort 30% of my income and write a native app, but that's just not an option for me. I don't have the resources to write a native app nor the will to be subject to Apple's bullying.
  - 4y ago

II2II 4y ago

The issue is that the dominant engine developer uses their market position to push their competitors out of the market or to define their own web standards. The former is what happened with IE in the late 1990's. The latter is what is happening with the Blink and V8 engines today. As for 100% compatibility, most people will regard unexpected results as bugs or hindrances then switch to a compatible browser. You may be willing to deal with those incompatibilities. I may be willing to deal with those incompatibilities. Both of us are in the minority. Even technophiles who normally like playing with technology seem to stick to browsers based upon Chrome's engines (at least when given a choice) simply because too much of their life depends upon the browser.

tgv 4y ago
If Apple were forced to allow Chrome on iOS, Chrome's influence would grow even stronger. So why do you think that's an argument against wrappers around Safari?
- Matl 4y ago
  Because Safari's not up to snuff and also because Firefox should also be able to compete. If you block browsers based on Chrome's dominance, Chrome effectively already won. What I predict would happen is that Apple starts investing heavily in WebKit to compete and Firefox would have a compelling offering there like it does on Android. Most people would stick with Safari because is is the default and they wouldn't even mostly be aware that it now may be worth switching due to say uBlock Origin. Safari would continue to serve them just fine.
  - Jcowell 4y ago
    If there’s one thing I’m certain of is that given the ability to use it’s own engine Firefox will still lose to Chrome. Willing to bet $100.

mgsk 4y ago

I can’t use Firefox plugins on iOS.

InCityDreams 4y ago

A Porsche wrapper around a VW Golf is not a Porsche.

speedgoose 4y ago
You do have Porsche wrappers around shared Volkswagen platforms though. Such as the Porsche Cayenne and the Volkswagen Touareg, the Porsche Macan and the Audi Q5, or the Porsche Taycan and the Audi étron GT.
- daviddever23box 4y ago
  Right-it’s probably not the best analogy. It might be better to use the Ford engine analogy (Ford / Jaguar / Rover / BMW et al), where there are multiple brands / chassis using the same powertrain.