3 ms·
The assumption people seem to make is that third party browsers will get the sort of system-privileged access that they have on desktops: - Always-running daem
by dwaite 4y ago
The assumption people seem to make is that third party browsers will get the sort of system-privileged access that they have on desktops:
- Always-running daemons to perform internal bookkeeping tasks, provide network access, which are not reaped by lack of user focus or the needs of other applications
- Ability to download, generate and run arbitrary native code (for running Javascript and WebAssembly)
- Ability to register arbitrary URLs, see installed third-party applications and execute them arbitrarily
- Ability to modify the Home Screen to install additional applications (such as native-wrapped PWAs)
Without full system level access, Apple's store restrictions don't matter. You are not going to see resourcing to port Gecko or Blink to iOS if it means the javascript and webassembly engines are interpreted, push notifications only work when the browser is in the foreground, SPA applications can't be added to the Home Screen, etc.
And by full system access, I mean _more_ access than Safari currently has. After all, many of the features people complain about MobileSafari not shipping are features that are also not supported by the underlying OS.
- irae 4y agoBrilliantly said. This is a way better argument than Apple itself is presenting. But it does boil down to the same thing: Security. If you allow Chrome to be installed as a regular app (even if Apple allows JIT), it will not work. Therefore for a viable Chrome Browser Apple would have to provide APIs they probably stripped from the OS itself and putting it back will for sure hinder security.