5 ms·

Hmm. Over in the browser space, I'd say Google's shown significant, long-term investment in Chrome/Blink, especially compared to Apple's relative disinterest in

Hmm. Over in the browser space, I'd say Google's shown significant, long-term investment in Chrome/Blink, especially compared to Apple's relative disinterest in putting significant engineering resources on WebKit. Perhaps instead of this being about Apple vs. Google (or others), it's about companies investing in their core competencies and areas where they have a business interest.

madeofpalk 3y ago
I think people underestimate Safari. IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. Conviently, they were first in supporting the things I care about - like backdrop-filter and css scroll snap. Safari/Webkit/JSC is faster at executing javascript as well.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  Yes, as a user I prefer Safari to all be alternatives on macOS.
- MBCook 3y ago
  First to pass the Acid 3 CSS test suite too, IIRC.
- jimbob45 3y ago
  You could swap “Safari” for IE6 and tell the same story. I don’t know what it is about OS dominance that drives such disinterest in upgrading browsers outside of wanting to push native apps for that App Store revenue.
  - dwaite 3y ago
    You could also say that Chrome had a huge _interest_ in pushing for browser-alternatives to native Apps because of Chromebooks. Some of that died down once Android support was added. The position on many of these by other browser vendors were that they were harmful for the web. You will likely never see implementations of these non-standard API outside chromium-based browsers. The other thing which they are very slow to support is new codecs on the video tag. Presumably this is because they want to keep their "video playback" power metrics. the WebKit team is incredibly metrics-driven, which is one reason for their performance and power-efficiency.
- Widdershin 3y ago
  ARM Safari is an absurdly energy efficient browser as well. They’ve definitely made some significant missteps over the last few years, mostly around breaking storage APIs and being slow to fix it due to being part of the macOS release cadence.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Battery life is the key in why Apple doesn't want third-party browser engines. On Mac, they have to babysit the user by saying "your battery is dying because <x> app is using too much energy" because otherwise the user will bring it into the apple store complaining about their battery life. Forcing all apps to use WebKit has likely saved many MWh across the iPhone's lifetime. The only downside for Apple when they'll be forced to allow other browser engines is that they might need to make a more active alert for "using the most energy: Chrome".
    - echelon 3y ago
      There are plenty of apps on iPhone that suck battery. Those that make use of the camera and depth sensors, for instance. Or games. Apple doesn't want other browsers because they don't want runtimes. They don't want a way for someone else to build a marketplace on top of iPhone or to escape Apple's stringent review process and deploy on their own timelines.
      - DelightOne 3y ago
        A browser with features not broken by design? Scary.
    - thechao 3y ago
      If there are 1 billion iPhones running Safari for 2h/day, and the power efficiency saves 200mwh (just a random number), then Safari saves 400MWh/day, or ~150GWh/yr. This saves ~.1% of all the power used by the world.
- nvy 3y ago
  First and foremost in my browser evaluation criteria is "can I run ublock origin or similar on it?" Last time I tried, Safari was a no-go. The web without an ad blocker is incredibly bad.
  - manuelmoreale 3y ago
    You can run 1Blocker[0] on both Mac and iOS. You can also pair it with NextDNS[1] if you want even more blocking. [0] https://1blocker.com/ https://1blocker.com/ [1] https://nextdns.io/ https://nextdns.io/
    - nixass 3y ago
      You see, that's the problem here. Why should I be paying for simple thing like adblocker?
      - ch_sm 3y ago
        There are lots of free ones too.
      - madeofpalk 3y ago
        Do you find the piece of software useful?
      - mostlysimilar 3y ago
        If this thing is so simple to build perhaps you can build your own. That's free.
      - manuelmoreale 3y ago
        There’s a couple of things I don’t understand about your comment. 1) I don’t understand why it’s relevant. Parent commented about the lack of ad blocking and I simply shared a possible solution. 2) I don’t understand why complexity has to be factored in when it comes to pricing. Should something be free just because it’s simple? Someone has to work and maintain that software.
      - 3y ago
- realusername 3y ago
  > IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. You can also add quotes to "100%", as anything else in Safari, it was quite buggy and you had to use workarounds sometimes.
- rcme 3y ago
  The issue with Safari is that too many features just don’t work 100% correctly. Like WebRTC mic support has a number of bugs. Calling captureStream on a canvas produces a media stream that cannot be played back in Safari. Playing a lot of audio tags produces an audible popping sound on play. And there any many other issues I can’t think of off the top of my head.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Disinterest?.. Apple initiated the investments in WebKit. They both had to, f was dominant.
jbverschoor 3y ago
Disinterest?.. Apple initiated the investments in WebKit, and chrome was later on based on that.
- Grazester 3y ago
  Yeah...disinterest. Like you were once interested in something but not anymore is still disinterest.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  They did indeed fork khtml because they needed a web browser for OSX and renamed it WebKit. I’m not sure I would call that initiating the investments but I guess if you squint hard enough you could call it that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
josephcsible 3y ago
It's not that Apple is disinterested in WebKit now or just doesn't want to spend money on it. They intentionally want to keep it bad, so that Web apps won't be a viable alternative to native apps on iOS.
ksec 3y ago
Chrome fits the long term and Better, but apart from Chrome, What else? Not Android because it has a direct competition that is arguably doing much better ( More user switching to Apple than Android ) and is forced to improve in other to compete.

madeofpalk 3y ago

I think people underestimate Safari. IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. Conviently, they were first in supporting the things I care about - like backdrop-filter and css scroll snap. Safari/Webkit/JSC is faster at executing javascript as well.

fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
Yes, as a user I prefer Safari to all be alternatives on macOS.
MBCook 3y ago
First to pass the Acid 3 CSS test suite too, IIRC.
jimbob45 3y ago
You could swap “Safari” for IE6 and tell the same story. I don’t know what it is about OS dominance that drives such disinterest in upgrading browsers outside of wanting to push native apps for that App Store revenue.
- dwaite 3y ago
  You could also say that Chrome had a huge _interest_ in pushing for browser-alternatives to native Apps because of Chromebooks. Some of that died down once Android support was added. The position on many of these by other browser vendors were that they were harmful for the web. You will likely never see implementations of these non-standard API outside chromium-based browsers. The other thing which they are very slow to support is new codecs on the video tag. Presumably this is because they want to keep their "video playback" power metrics. the WebKit team is incredibly metrics-driven, which is one reason for their performance and power-efficiency.
Widdershin 3y ago
ARM Safari is an absurdly energy efficient browser as well. They’ve definitely made some significant missteps over the last few years, mostly around breaking storage APIs and being slow to fix it due to being part of the macOS release cadence.
- judge2020 3y ago
  Battery life is the key in why Apple doesn't want third-party browser engines. On Mac, they have to babysit the user by saying "your battery is dying because <x> app is using too much energy" because otherwise the user will bring it into the apple store complaining about their battery life. Forcing all apps to use WebKit has likely saved many MWh across the iPhone's lifetime. The only downside for Apple when they'll be forced to allow other browser engines is that they might need to make a more active alert for "using the most energy: Chrome".
  - echelon 3y ago
    There are plenty of apps on iPhone that suck battery. Those that make use of the camera and depth sensors, for instance. Or games. Apple doesn't want other browsers because they don't want runtimes. They don't want a way for someone else to build a marketplace on top of iPhone or to escape Apple's stringent review process and deploy on their own timelines.
    - DelightOne 3y ago
      A browser with features not broken by design? Scary.
  - thechao 3y ago
    If there are 1 billion iPhones running Safari for 2h/day, and the power efficiency saves 200mwh (just a random number), then Safari saves 400MWh/day, or ~150GWh/yr. This saves ~.1% of all the power used by the world.
nvy 3y ago
First and foremost in my browser evaluation criteria is "can I run ublock origin or similar on it?" Last time I tried, Safari was a no-go. The web without an ad blocker is incredibly bad.
- manuelmoreale 3y ago
  You can run 1Blocker[0] on both Mac and iOS. You can also pair it with NextDNS[1] if you want even more blocking. [0] https://1blocker.com/ https://1blocker.com/ [1] https://nextdns.io/ https://nextdns.io/
  - nixass 3y ago
    You see, that's the problem here. Why should I be paying for simple thing like adblocker?
    - ch_sm 3y ago
      There are lots of free ones too.
    - madeofpalk 3y ago
      Do you find the piece of software useful?
    - mostlysimilar 3y ago
      If this thing is so simple to build perhaps you can build your own. That's free.
    - manuelmoreale 3y ago
      There’s a couple of things I don’t understand about your comment. 1) I don’t understand why it’s relevant. Parent commented about the lack of ad blocking and I simply shared a possible solution. 2) I don’t understand why complexity has to be factored in when it comes to pricing. Should something be free just because it’s simple? Someone has to work and maintain that software.
    - 3y ago
realusername 3y ago
> IIRC "back in the day" they were the first to get 100% in supporting all of ES6. You can also add quotes to "100%", as anything else in Safari, it was quite buggy and you had to use workarounds sometimes.
rcme 3y ago
The issue with Safari is that too many features just don’t work 100% correctly. Like WebRTC mic support has a number of bugs. Calling captureStream on a canvas produces a media stream that cannot be played back in Safari. Playing a lot of audio tags produces an audible popping sound on play. And there any many other issues I can’t think of off the top of my head.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Disinterest?.. Apple initiated the investments in WebKit. They both had to, f was dominant.

jbverschoor 3y ago

Disinterest?.. Apple initiated the investments in WebKit, and chrome was later on based on that.

Grazester 3y ago
Yeah...disinterest. Like you were once interested in something but not anymore is still disinterest.
WastingMyTime89 3y ago
They did indeed fork khtml because they needed a web browser for OSX and renamed it WebKit. I’m not sure I would call that initiating the investments but I guess if you squint hard enough you could call it that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

josephcsible 3y ago

It's not that Apple is disinterested in WebKit now or just doesn't want to spend money on it. They intentionally want to keep it bad, so that Web apps won't be a viable alternative to native apps on iOS.

ksec 3y ago

Chrome fits the long term and Better, but apart from Chrome, What else? Not Android because it has a direct competition that is arguably doing much better ( More user switching to Apple than Android ) and is forced to improve in other to compete.