3 ms·

Don't forget that batteries will drain immediately, another often-stated argument for why Safari needs to be the only available browser.

Spivak 4y ago
I don't know if that's a good reason but it's definitely a true reason. Chrome on Android devours power. The thing people are worried about is being forced to use Chrome and Chrome being a worse experience than Safari. If web developers en masse say "oh thank god finally we can drop support for Safari" then we're in a worse situation for everyone involved. We've done nothing but trade a lack of choice for a different lack of choice and ensured that the already dim situation for web apps being ported to non-Chrome browsers will get even worse.
- luckylion 4y ago
  Would Safari on Android (and with the same features) eat less battery though? I agree in general regarding it being better if multiple engines are available. On the other hand, when I build something, and I'm developing it on Firefox, it usually just works on chromium-based Browsers. Safari tends to be the odd one out that has some weird behavior, although it's much less common and much less bad than it was in the IE days. Also: not having to buy a Mac every few years just so I can test things in Safari sounds sweet, too. Web developers wouldn't drop support for Safari as long as a significant amount of users use it (and especially not if those users are premium users, which they tend to be: higher disposable income, better trained to pay for things etc), so I don't think that's an actual risk. At least for anything I'm involved with: we'll drop Firefox before we drop Safari, and we pretty much keep Firefox only because some developers and some PMs are using it.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    > Would Safari on Android (and with the same features) eat less battery though? Yes, probably. WebKit browsers on other platforms like GNOME Web/Epiphany on Linux is easier on battery than Chrome or Firefox. WebKit is generally speaking more efficient than Blink and Gecko.
dontlaugh 4y ago
The difference in battery usage is very noticeable on macOS.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  I use Brave and don't notice a difference at all. Is it only supposed to be happening on Chrome/Firefox, or any non-Safari browser?
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    I use Firefox and it's fine on the battery. I have used Arc browser for a bit. It's Chromium-based. It didn't seem to have a bad effect on the battery. I haven't used Chrome in a few years now, but it used to be a major CPU, memory and battery hog. I don't know how it fares these days.
  - acdha 4y ago
    It’s a Chrome problem with Firefox somewhere in the middle. It’s like 4 hours battery life difference on an M1, too, and since I use a hosts file for ad blocking I don’t think it’s just that.

Spivak 4y ago

I don't know if that's a good reason but it's definitely a true reason. Chrome on Android devours power. The thing people are worried about is being forced to use Chrome and Chrome being a worse experience than Safari. If web developers en masse say "oh thank god finally we can drop support for Safari" then we're in a worse situation for everyone involved. We've done nothing but trade a lack of choice for a different lack of choice and ensured that the already dim situation for web apps being ported to non-Chrome browsers will get even worse.

luckylion 4y ago
Would Safari on Android (and with the same features) eat less battery though? I agree in general regarding it being better if multiple engines are available. On the other hand, when I build something, and I'm developing it on Firefox, it usually just works on chromium-based Browsers. Safari tends to be the odd one out that has some weird behavior, although it's much less common and much less bad than it was in the IE days. Also: not having to buy a Mac every few years just so I can test things in Safari sounds sweet, too. Web developers wouldn't drop support for Safari as long as a significant amount of users use it (and especially not if those users are premium users, which they tend to be: higher disposable income, better trained to pay for things etc), so I don't think that's an actual risk. At least for anything I'm involved with: we'll drop Firefox before we drop Safari, and we pretty much keep Firefox only because some developers and some PMs are using it.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  > Would Safari on Android (and with the same features) eat less battery though? Yes, probably. WebKit browsers on other platforms like GNOME Web/Epiphany on Linux is easier on battery than Chrome or Firefox. WebKit is generally speaking more efficient than Blink and Gecko.

dontlaugh 4y ago

The difference in battery usage is very noticeable on macOS.

gnicholas 4y ago
I use Brave and don't notice a difference at all. Is it only supposed to be happening on Chrome/Firefox, or any non-Safari browser?
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  I use Firefox and it's fine on the battery. I have used Arc browser for a bit. It's Chromium-based. It didn't seem to have a bad effect on the battery. I haven't used Chrome in a few years now, but it used to be a major CPU, memory and battery hog. I don't know how it fares these days.
- acdha 4y ago
  It’s a Chrome problem with Firefox somewhere in the middle. It’s like 4 hours battery life difference on an M1, too, and since I use a hosts file for ad blocking I don’t think it’s just that.