4 ms·

Honestly, I could link you a lot of articles, but... just look at the page on caniuse and see what Firefox and Chrome implement, yet Safari just doesn't bother

Honestly, I could link you a lot of articles, but... just look at the page on caniuse and see what Firefox and Chrome implement, yet Safari just doesn't bother with. https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+118,safari+17.0,firefox+118&compareCats=HTML5,JS,JS%20API,Other,Security,SVG https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+118,safari+17.0,firefox+... The main ones of note here really are the AV1 support, OGG Video and WebCodecs though. These aren't "new" technologies; most of them just are objectively good pieces of tech that have been battletested for years now. They just barely see any use because Apple doesn't want to implement them and the iOS browser market can't just be handwaved away. That's Apple refusing to implement certain technologies that make the ecosystem worse for everyone else. That's why I say Safari sucks. I didn't include CSS in that list but if you enable it, you'll see a similar thing; Firefox and Chrome are both more or less up-to-date (with Chrome running away with certain APIs which is yeah, an issue), while Apple just doesn't support large chunks of it. Similarly, while not listed on caniuse, their IndexedDB implementation is an infamously buggy mess that often introduces regressions with each update (and back when Web SQL was a thing, their implementation was once again implemented in a way that made it useless; they'd wipe it entirely after a week, meaning nobody ended up using Web SQL). That one is also compounded by the fact that the Safari release cycle is infamously just... too slow, since Apple insists on tying it to entire OS updates (which means you aren't just supporting the most recent version of iOS but probably the ones from 5 versions ago as well because not everyone can run the latest version of iOS). This isn't "bad webdevs"; it's Apple being a bad actor and using an external method of leverage (the App Store) to force webdevs to not be able to use actually good technologies.

llm_nerd 3y ago
>The main ones of note here really are the AV1 support Apple devices -- in fact, most devices -- don't have AV1 hardware support. Meaning playing AV1 content will have a greater impact on battery life or provide a worse experience. That's why Apple doesn't support it. Any reasonable technology stack is going to sniff what the client supports and serve up AV1 to so equipped clients (which hopefully have hardware support), h265, whatever. That falls in the realm of "complete and utter non-issue". Google doesn't care about your experience (this has been shown time and time again). They'll toss whatever corpse of a solution they want over the wall and let it bake in the sun of exposure. Further, notably your comparison includes loads of partials and nones for Firefox as well. Do you also hold that Firefox sucks? Because again, Chrome is Internet Explorer. Google sticks anything and everything in Chrome because it serves Google. >they'd wipe it entirely after a week This is actually a telling comment. At the time vendors discovered that they could circumvent cookie blocking/clearing by just stuffing everything into WebSQL. Again, Google just tossed it over the wall and loads of "bad webdevs" exploited it and went wailing and gnashing that Safari did this or Safari did that, why can't they just circumvent your privacy controls like they could on Chrome.

llm_nerd 3y ago

>The main ones of note here really are the AV1 support Apple devices -- in fact, most devices -- don't have AV1 hardware support. Meaning playing AV1 content will have a greater impact on battery life or provide a worse experience. That's why Apple doesn't support it. Any reasonable technology stack is going to sniff what the client supports and serve up AV1 to so equipped clients (which hopefully have hardware support), h265, whatever. That falls in the realm of "complete and utter non-issue". Google doesn't care about your experience (this has been shown time and time again). They'll toss whatever corpse of a solution they want over the wall and let it bake in the sun of exposure. Further, notably your comparison includes loads of partials and nones for Firefox as well. Do you also hold that Firefox sucks? Because again, Chrome is Internet Explorer. Google sticks anything and everything in Chrome because it serves Google. >they'd wipe it entirely after a week This is actually a telling comment. At the time vendors discovered that they could circumvent cookie blocking/clearing by just stuffing everything into WebSQL. Again, Google just tossed it over the wall and loads of "bad webdevs" exploited it and went wailing and gnashing that Safari did this or Safari did that, why can't they just circumvent your privacy controls like they could on Chrome.