3 ms·

> I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for Firefox is my daily driver, and I use their WebKit wrapper on iOS, and I have to agree.

> I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for Firefox is my daily driver, and I use their WebKit wrapper on iOS, and I have to agree. I'm not looking forward to a Blink monopoly in the browser space. The upshot is that we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS.

judge2020 4y ago
> closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS. What is native? If a website is explicitly testing for Firefox compatibility, they're probably also testing for Safari compatibility due to its increased market share.
- JohnTHaller 4y ago
  I know a fair few solo developers that don't test Safari compatibility because they don't own Apple hardware. And Safari only runs on Apple hardware (with the exception of Hackintosh).
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  It's not so much Safari compatibility, but WebKit compatibility. Anyone who wants their website to work on iOS has to test against mobile WebKit, regardless if their target users are on Chrome or Firefox. If these legislative changes go into effect, Webkit market penetration will plummet quickly to only those using Safari, and Apple will have less leverage to hold back on features that don't suit their App Store profits.
dmitriid 4y ago
> The upshot is that we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS Strange. Android is 70% market share. Chrome is something like 80% market share (all playforms). Where are these glorious "closer to native web apps" we keep hearing about?
- h0l0cube 4y ago
  I specified on iOS. It would at least be possible on iOS if other renderers could be used, and both Firefox and Google would certainly have their own incentive to make this happen. Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store. Firefox have existential reasons for product differentiation, though web apps won't get traction without broader support by all players.
  - iainmerrick 4y ago
    The parent was clearly alluding to “closer-to-native experiences” on Android. If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android. Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store. I’ll buy that, but it doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic about the way things might go.
    - h0l0cube 4y ago
      > If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android. I think I illustrated that the incentives are different > doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic I did say "we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS" (emphasis added) in my OP. Only because it would become possible, not because it would be likely
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        They are already supposedly possible on Android. So?
        h0l0cube 4y ago
        Better integration with OS features on iOS devices is still an upshot for people who want websites to do more useful things with their phones, if that becomes a possibility. Might not balance out the cost of having a browser hegemony, and it might not be something that’s specifically useful or interesting to you, but a small mercy nonetheless

judge2020 4y ago

> closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS. What is native? If a website is explicitly testing for Firefox compatibility, they're probably also testing for Safari compatibility due to its increased market share.

JohnTHaller 4y ago
I know a fair few solo developers that don't test Safari compatibility because they don't own Apple hardware. And Safari only runs on Apple hardware (with the exception of Hackintosh).
h0l0cube 4y ago
It's not so much Safari compatibility, but WebKit compatibility. Anyone who wants their website to work on iOS has to test against mobile WebKit, regardless if their target users are on Chrome or Firefox. If these legislative changes go into effect, Webkit market penetration will plummet quickly to only those using Safari, and Apple will have less leverage to hold back on features that don't suit their App Store profits.

dmitriid 4y ago

> The upshot is that we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS Strange. Android is 70% market share. Chrome is something like 80% market share (all playforms). Where are these glorious "closer to native web apps" we keep hearing about?

h0l0cube 4y ago
I specified on iOS. It would at least be possible on iOS if other renderers could be used, and both Firefox and Google would certainly have their own incentive to make this happen. Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store. Firefox have existential reasons for product differentiation, though web apps won't get traction without broader support by all players.
- iainmerrick 4y ago
  The parent was clearly alluding to “closer-to-native experiences” on Android. If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android. Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store. I’ll buy that, but it doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic about the way things might go.
  - h0l0cube 4y ago
    > If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android. I think I illustrated that the incentives are different > doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic I did say "we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS" (emphasis added) in my OP. Only because it would become possible, not because it would be likely
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      They are already supposedly possible on Android. So?
      - h0l0cube 4y ago
        Better integration with OS features on iOS devices is still an upshot for people who want websites to do more useful things with their phones, if that becomes a possibility. Might not balance out the cost of having a browser hegemony, and it might not be something that’s specifically useful or interesting to you, but a small mercy nonetheless