4 ms·

I mean some of these changes are excellent... like the ability to use your own non-WebKit/Safari browser.

nerdjon 3y ago
That one on paper I don't mind, I mean I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS. But yes, that is a good change that should have happened a long time ago. Same with the game streaming one.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  > I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS. Aren't you just describing... competition? If Apple's browser product is superior, users will use it. If those users want a feature Chrome has, Apple can either implement the feature or ignore it. That's no different than things are today, if you wanted to avoid a Chrome hegemony then we should have invested in a better cross-platform delivery mechanism than Electron. We didn't get one. Apple's support to WebKit and Safari is entirely compulsory. I agree that it's a positive impact on the web as a Firefox user, but I'd also argue Apple's ends did not justify their means. The development of Safari is very distinctly neglected to increase demand for native (read: taxable) APIs.
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    My problem here is Google, we can't deny they have used their position in Search, Gmail, Maps and others to push users towards Chrome with constant reminders to use their tools. I mean if I sign into Google on my iPhone I basically instantly get an email about setting up my iPhone with google or something, which is ridiculous. Competition in this space is great but Google has far too much control of the browser market for my comfort and we are seeing the harm of that with third party cookies, tracking, AMP, and other things. And again I welcome this particular change, I am just worried about what it will mean as Google pushes harder.
    - darkwizard42 3y ago
      Apple is just as guilty of this. They regularly push users into Apple Maps for any address or location bit, can't even change the default app to which it would open. In fact, if I highlight and copy the address and then go into Google Maps, I get asked to grant permission to copy and paste every time...
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      You're not wrong, but unfortunately I'm hard pressed to treat Apple any differently now. Apple also uses their position on the web, desktop and mobile to set unfathomably destructive standards for modern computing. AdSense and the App Store are two sides of the same con; circular marketplaces where the players scramble and the house always wins. They both feed back into terrible UX decisions and encourage the darkest, most manipulative side of either company. It'll be different regulation that comes for Google, but you can take solemn certainty in knowing they're up next. My biggest concern is that Microsoft won't receive enough scrutiny, but on the other hand I can barely trust them not to capsize Windows over the next decade. Regardless, 10 years from now I hope we'll have a more competitive and vibrant future for local compute and the web. It's a shame (but not unexpected) that regulation has to draw the line.
s3p 3y ago
I don't know.. what if every app suddenly becomes 200MB bigger and devs throw Chrome instances in just about everything? They could bring electron to iOS and make an app that's not even native. Not to mention it would be objectively worse from a tracking/privacy point of view. Chrome has never been on the side of user privacy and I'm scared that continues with its introduction to iOS.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  If we see that on iOS it would honestly be an indictment against Apple's native APIs more than anything.
- darkwizard42 3y ago
  I think providing more choice will help Apple stay competitive though. If that happens, then users will find Apple's native browser/apps to be faster. A win for customers overall and insurance for Apple to not drop the ball! As far as tracking/privacy, I suspect Apple's next move would be to provide greater restriction of your device information and browsing information secure (another win for customers that isn't really granularly provided today).
wharvle 3y ago
1) As a "technical" user who started using Firefox when it was called Phoenix (then Firebird, then Firefox)—this is of zero value to me. Might be to (frankly, a very few) others, but I will see no personal benefit from this. I have zero need for more browser engines on my phone & tablet. 2) The main market effect is probably gonna be that Google is able to cross-promote and "whoopsie" bugs its way into having even more market share for its engine. Don't love that, but it won't personally harm me unless Safari market share gets low enough that dev shops drop from "test on Chrome and Safari" to "test on Chrome... and that's it". 3) Where this might really, really suck is if they have to permit non-browsers to bundle Web and/or JS engines. I very much do not want that and it's likely to make my experience noticeably worse, if that happens. Dunno if that's required by the changes, though.

That one on paper I don't mind, I mean I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS. But yes, that is a good change that should have happened a long time ago. Same with the game streaming one.

smoldesu 3y ago
> I don't particularly enjoy the idea of Google being able to have even more of a stranglehold on the Browser market by them pushing Chrome heavily on iOS. Aren't you just describing... competition? If Apple's browser product is superior, users will use it. If those users want a feature Chrome has, Apple can either implement the feature or ignore it. That's no different than things are today, if you wanted to avoid a Chrome hegemony then we should have invested in a better cross-platform delivery mechanism than Electron. We didn't get one. Apple's support to WebKit and Safari is entirely compulsory. I agree that it's a positive impact on the web as a Firefox user, but I'd also argue Apple's ends did not justify their means. The development of Safari is very distinctly neglected to increase demand for native (read: taxable) APIs.
- nerdjon 3y ago
  My problem here is Google, we can't deny they have used their position in Search, Gmail, Maps and others to push users towards Chrome with constant reminders to use their tools. I mean if I sign into Google on my iPhone I basically instantly get an email about setting up my iPhone with google or something, which is ridiculous. Competition in this space is great but Google has far too much control of the browser market for my comfort and we are seeing the harm of that with third party cookies, tracking, AMP, and other things. And again I welcome this particular change, I am just worried about what it will mean as Google pushes harder.
  - darkwizard42 3y ago
    Apple is just as guilty of this. They regularly push users into Apple Maps for any address or location bit, can't even change the default app to which it would open. In fact, if I highlight and copy the address and then go into Google Maps, I get asked to grant permission to copy and paste every time...
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    You're not wrong, but unfortunately I'm hard pressed to treat Apple any differently now. Apple also uses their position on the web, desktop and mobile to set unfathomably destructive standards for modern computing. AdSense and the App Store are two sides of the same con; circular marketplaces where the players scramble and the house always wins. They both feed back into terrible UX decisions and encourage the darkest, most manipulative side of either company. It'll be different regulation that comes for Google, but you can take solemn certainty in knowing they're up next. My biggest concern is that Microsoft won't receive enough scrutiny, but on the other hand I can barely trust them not to capsize Windows over the next decade. Regardless, 10 years from now I hope we'll have a more competitive and vibrant future for local compute and the web. It's a shame (but not unexpected) that regulation has to draw the line.

s3p 3y ago

I don't know.. what if every app suddenly becomes 200MB bigger and devs throw Chrome instances in just about everything? They could bring electron to iOS and make an app that's not even native. Not to mention it would be objectively worse from a tracking/privacy point of view. Chrome has never been on the side of user privacy and I'm scared that continues with its introduction to iOS.

smoldesu 3y ago
If we see that on iOS it would honestly be an indictment against Apple's native APIs more than anything.
darkwizard42 3y ago
I think providing more choice will help Apple stay competitive though. If that happens, then users will find Apple's native browser/apps to be faster. A win for customers overall and insurance for Apple to not drop the ball! As far as tracking/privacy, I suspect Apple's next move would be to provide greater restriction of your device information and browsing information secure (another win for customers that isn't really granularly provided today).

wharvle 3y ago

1) As a "technical" user who started using Firefox when it was called Phoenix (then Firebird, then Firefox)—this is of zero value to me. Might be to (frankly, a very few) others, but I will see no personal benefit from this. I have zero need for more browser engines on my phone & tablet. 2) The main market effect is probably gonna be that Google is able to cross-promote and "whoopsie" bugs its way into having even more market share for its engine. Don't love that, but it won't personally harm me unless Safari market share gets low enough that dev shops drop from "test on Chrome and Safari" to "test on Chrome... and that's it". 3) Where this might really, really suck is if they have to permit non-browsers to bundle Web and/or JS engines. I very much do not want that and it's likely to make my experience noticeably worse, if that happens. Dunno if that's required by the changes, though.