4 ms·

Cross browser compatibility is already such a slog. This is going to make that much worse. Maybe that's OK given WebKit's firm grip on things. I've been using

Cross browser compatibility is already such a slog. This is going to make that much worse. Maybe that's OK given WebKit's firm grip on things. I've been using Arc browser since December and it's... strange? But good. Lots of interesting ideas.

malermeister 4y ago
Why would that make it worse? It's not like they would use new rendering engines, they'd just use the same ones they're already using on desktop. You should make sure your site is compatible with those engines anyways.
- nicce 4y ago
  It depends. Power efficiency on Safari with iOS is quite optimized and many features are integrated to iOS. E.g. some authentication workflows to Apple services.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Why does that matter, though? Web developers don't assume the entire world is "Safari on iOS". They have to handle all the various desktop browsers, as well as everything that runs on Android. If it's not possible to do a particular Apple-specific authentication workflow in Firefox on iOS, then users will fall back to whatever else is already implemented for other platforms. If users don't like how Firefox or Chrome on iOS drain their battery, then they'll stop using them and go back to Safari. Giving people more choice doesn't hurt.
    - nicce 4y ago
      > Why does that matter, though? Web developers don't assume the entire world is "Safari on iOS". They have to handle all the various desktop browsers, as well as everything that runs on Android. My comment might have been in wrong place, but the point was that it is difficult to be competitive with Firefox or Chrome on iOS if Safari integrates better on Apple systems. And what if implementing these impacts other platforms.
sangnoir 4y ago
> This is going to make that much worse. Or it could make things better when everyone starts ignoring mobile Safari /s

4 ms·

Cross browser compatibility is already such a slog. This is going to make that much worse. Maybe that's OK given WebKit's firm grip on things. I've been using

by spandrew 4y ago

malermeister 4y ago
Why would that make it worse? It's not like they would use new rendering engines, they'd just use the same ones they're already using on desktop. You should make sure your site is compatible with those engines anyways.
- nicce 4y ago
  It depends. Power efficiency on Safari with iOS is quite optimized and many features are integrated to iOS. E.g. some authentication workflows to Apple services.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Why does that matter, though? Web developers don't assume the entire world is "Safari on iOS". They have to handle all the various desktop browsers, as well as everything that runs on Android. If it's not possible to do a particular Apple-specific authentication workflow in Firefox on iOS, then users will fall back to whatever else is already implemented for other platforms. If users don't like how Firefox or Chrome on iOS drain their battery, then they'll stop using them and go back to Safari. Giving people more choice doesn't hurt.
    - nicce 4y ago
      > Why does that matter, though? Web developers don't assume the entire world is "Safari on iOS". They have to handle all the various desktop browsers, as well as everything that runs on Android. My comment might have been in wrong place, but the point was that it is difficult to be competitive with Firefox or Chrome on iOS if Safari integrates better on Apple systems. And what if implementing these impacts other platforms.
sangnoir 4y ago
> This is going to make that much worse. Or it could make things better when everyone starts ignoring mobile Safari /s