6 ms·

Because this article decided not to do so, lets be very clear to give credit where it is due: The Open Web Advocacy group, who has been working for years with r

by nchmy 3y ago

Because this article decided not to do so, lets be very clear to give credit where it is due: The Open Web Advocacy group, who has been working for years with regulators around the world, and led this particular fight with an open letter to Tim Cook. It received 5500+ signatures in 3 days. Here is their debrief post about it: https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apple-backs-off-killing-web-apps/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apple-backs-off-killing-w... The fight isn't over though. WebKit is still garbage, so we need to keep pushing until other browser Engines have full capabilities!

lakpan 3y ago
I don’t think WebKit is garbage. That title belongs to Gecko. Apple picked up their slack with Safari a long time ago. They do have faults with these decisions to intentionally break or not support some features for years, like Push Notificafions.
- brimstedt 3y ago
  Would you mind elaborating? I still find Firefox superior to safari.
- nottorp 3y ago
  They're all garbage, but you can at least run uBlock Origin in Firefox. Looking forward to being able to do that on my phone too.
  - ezfe 3y ago
    Wipr on my iPhone blocks all my ads, INCLUDING YouTube
    - nottorp 3y ago
      I don't trust commercial apps for something like this, sorry. Gotta be public code and public block lists. Also "Wipr blocks all ads ... EU cookie and GDPR notices". That's another no. I want to see those notices so I can make an opinion on how predatory a web site is by how complex they have made their cookie dialog.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        With a content blocker, you don’t have to trust it, no data is being sent. It’s like a hosts file.
      - ezfe 3y ago
        Okay
- jespertheend 3y ago
  Whether it's garbage or not ultimately doesn't matter much. What's more important is the fact that it's the only choice for users on iOS right now. WebKit will never have an incentive to get improved without healthy competition.
  - burnerthrow008 3y ago
    That's right, it doesn't matter! What's important is that pretty soon Chrome will be the only choice for iOS users as websites migrate over to requiring it, just like they started requiring IE back in the day. I, for one, am eagerly anticipating unlocking the full monetization potential of the web with the demise of functional adblockers like uBO! No longer will Google be forced to support adblockers to remain competitive with Webkit and Gekko! Developers rejoice! Thank you open-web-advocacy.org for finally killing off all browser competition! You are doing god's work, son.
    - hu3 3y ago
      Mozilla and Google managed to reverse browser monopolies by just being better. Why can't Apple? Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat?
      - burnerthrow008 3y ago
        > Mozilla and Google managed to reverse browser monopolies by just being better. Mozilla has reversed a browser monopoly? When? Do you mean back in the late 90's when Mozilla's predecessor (Netscape) lost their monopoly to IE? I guess that's technically true they reversed a monopoly back then... but that's not exactly helping your argument. Google did it not by creating a good web browser, but by forcing their browser on users of the most heavily-trafficked search site and video steaming site (by breaking features for those who used a different browser). You know, the very same anti-competitive arguments that so many people are wringing their hands about. > Why can't Apple? Safari already is a better browser... for users. I'm sorry that it doesn't have let you do the same tracking bullshit that you can do in Chrome, but having Bluetooth and serial number APIs is not something I want in my browser. I'm ever so sorry that it breaks all the cross-site tracking cookies. The reason Apple can't reverse a monopoly with a better browser is that: 1. Safari is for iOS and MacOS only. By definition it won't ever rise above the user base of those OSs, which are a small minority in almost all markets. That is also why you don't have to worry about it become it's own monopoly, like Chrome did. 2. Safari won't add all the user tracking bullshit you want because that is the whole proposition of Apple's ecosystem. You seem to have forgotten what a browser is: It's a user agent. It's supposed to work for the user. But if website owners have the option to steer everyone to the browser that lets them reach into the operating system and pull out the device serial number, they'll do that. > Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat? 1. We often let minority players do things that we would not let a monopolist do. For example, Spotify is a gatekeeper to music streaming in the EU (I have to license to them if I want to stream my music to any significant number of EU customers), but the DMA does not apply because they are too small. Apple is a small minority player in the browser market, too. 2. Building a Chrome-only website (and enforcing that with DRM) today is a non-starter because it means shutting out the small but lucrative Apple customer base. But if iOS users have the option to use Chrome, websites can force visitors to use Chrome instead. Maybe Google will even pay higher ad rates to sites when the customer is a "verified real person". Google will have a hard time determining who a real person when they aren't using Chrome... but I'm sure that won't incentivize websites to steer users to Chrome, right? 3. If users don't like Safari they have the freedom to pick a different platform. If users don't like Chrome, they have a degraded experience with the primary purpose of a web browser: To visit certain websites. When Safari is dead and your web browser has become a TV, you can thank the standup folks at Open Web Advocacy organization. It would be so simple to add a provision to the DMA that website owners are not allowed to steer users to a different web browser... yet they don't. Funny, isn't it? I guess this isn't really about anti-competitive behavior after all.
- Someone1234 3y ago
  Professionally, since we dropped IE11 two years ago, we've run into far more bugs with WebKit than both Chromium-based and Firefox combined. Within the last six months we had a bunch of cross-site cookies break because webKit was handling SameSite outside of spec.
nottorp 3y ago
There were news that the EU has begun to ask for developers' opinions about the death of PWAs too. Apple doesn't want the EU to ask for developers' opinions.
- agust 3y ago
  For sure Apple doesn't want anyone to know how it has crippled the web for over a decade, prevented browser competition, and just tried to kill web apps once and for good, that's why they tried to sneak this change without even making it public before two weeks after it was introduced in iOS beta.
  - tsbinz 3y ago
    As absurd as it is, Apple forcing people to use Webkit/Safari is, at the moment, good for the browser landscape. You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported, if iOS didn't force Safari on people this would be way more common as people would flock to chrome and websites decide it isn't worth it to support other browsers. I use Firefox on my non-work machines ... in an ideal world, enough people would do that to prevent the "best in Internet Explorer" web of the dark ages, but I'll take getting forced to use Webkit on my phone over that, even if I'd prefer a "true" Firefox.
    - sircastor 3y ago
      > You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported Is Webkit really so far diverged from Blink that the rendering result is different? I realize that Webkit doesn't support a bunch of stuff that Google pushed into Blink (like Web bluetooth, for instance), but I thought the end result wasn't that different.
      - agust 3y ago
        Blink was forked 12 years ago, and the size of the team behind Chrome is probably at least ten times the size of the team behind Safari. So yes, there are major differences between two, and it's not just additional advanced APIs like Web Bluetooth. WebKit is lagging behind in all areas and ridden with bugs.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
robertoandred 3y ago
Nah, that open web advocacy place uses slimy tactics to muddy the situation while omitting details. Just look at that article you linked to: calling PWAs "web apps" is super misleading.
fsflover 3y ago
Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39563982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39563982

by nchmy 3y ago

lakpan 3y ago

I don’t think WebKit is garbage. That title belongs to Gecko. Apple picked up their slack with Safari a long time ago. They do have faults with these decisions to intentionally break or not support some features for years, like Push Notificafions.

brimstedt 3y ago
Would you mind elaborating? I still find Firefox superior to safari.
nottorp 3y ago
They're all garbage, but you can at least run uBlock Origin in Firefox. Looking forward to being able to do that on my phone too.
- ezfe 3y ago
  Wipr on my iPhone blocks all my ads, INCLUDING YouTube
  - nottorp 3y ago
    I don't trust commercial apps for something like this, sorry. Gotta be public code and public block lists. Also "Wipr blocks all ads ... EU cookie and GDPR notices". That's another no. I want to see those notices so I can make an opinion on how predatory a web site is by how complex they have made their cookie dialog.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      With a content blocker, you don’t have to trust it, no data is being sent. It’s like a hosts file.
    - ezfe 3y ago
      Okay
jespertheend 3y ago
Whether it's garbage or not ultimately doesn't matter much. What's more important is the fact that it's the only choice for users on iOS right now. WebKit will never have an incentive to get improved without healthy competition.
- burnerthrow008 3y ago
  That's right, it doesn't matter! What's important is that pretty soon Chrome will be the only choice for iOS users as websites migrate over to requiring it, just like they started requiring IE back in the day. I, for one, am eagerly anticipating unlocking the full monetization potential of the web with the demise of functional adblockers like uBO! No longer will Google be forced to support adblockers to remain competitive with Webkit and Gekko! Developers rejoice! Thank you open-web-advocacy.org for finally killing off all browser competition! You are doing god's work, son.
  - hu3 3y ago
    Mozilla and Google managed to reverse browser monopolies by just being better. Why can't Apple? Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat?
    - burnerthrow008 3y ago
      > Mozilla and Google managed to reverse browser monopolies by just being better. Mozilla has reversed a browser monopoly? When? Do you mean back in the late 90's when Mozilla's predecessor (Netscape) lost their monopoly to IE? I guess that's technically true they reversed a monopoly back then... but that's not exactly helping your argument. Google did it not by creating a good web browser, but by forcing their browser on users of the most heavily-trafficked search site and video steaming site (by breaking features for those who used a different browser). You know, the very same anti-competitive arguments that so many people are wringing their hands about. > Why can't Apple? Safari already is a better browser... for users. I'm sorry that it doesn't have let you do the same tracking bullshit that you can do in Chrome, but having Bluetooth and serial number APIs is not something I want in my browser. I'm ever so sorry that it breaks all the cross-site tracking cookies. The reason Apple can't reverse a monopoly with a better browser is that: 1. Safari is for iOS and MacOS only. By definition it won't ever rise above the user base of those OSs, which are a small minority in almost all markets. That is also why you don't have to worry about it become it's own monopoly, like Chrome did. 2. Safari won't add all the user tracking bullshit you want because that is the whole proposition of Apple's ecosystem. You seem to have forgotten what a browser is: It's a user agent. It's supposed to work for the user. But if website owners have the option to steer everyone to the browser that lets them reach into the operating system and pull out the device serial number, they'll do that. > Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat? 1. We often let minority players do things that we would not let a monopolist do. For example, Spotify is a gatekeeper to music streaming in the EU (I have to license to them if I want to stream my music to any significant number of EU customers), but the DMA does not apply because they are too small. Apple is a small minority player in the browser market, too. 2. Building a Chrome-only website (and enforcing that with DRM) today is a non-starter because it means shutting out the small but lucrative Apple customer base. But if iOS users have the option to use Chrome, websites can force visitors to use Chrome instead. Maybe Google will even pay higher ad rates to sites when the customer is a "verified real person". Google will have a hard time determining who a real person when they aren't using Chrome... but I'm sure that won't incentivize websites to steer users to Chrome, right? 3. If users don't like Safari they have the freedom to pick a different platform. If users don't like Chrome, they have a degraded experience with the primary purpose of a web browser: To visit certain websites. When Safari is dead and your web browser has become a TV, you can thank the standup folks at Open Web Advocacy organization. It would be so simple to add a provision to the DMA that website owners are not allowed to steer users to a different web browser... yet they don't. Funny, isn't it? I guess this isn't really about anti-competitive behavior after all.
Someone1234 3y ago
Professionally, since we dropped IE11 two years ago, we've run into far more bugs with WebKit than both Chromium-based and Firefox combined. Within the last six months we had a bunch of cross-site cookies break because webKit was handling SameSite outside of spec.

nottorp 3y ago

There were news that the EU has begun to ask for developers' opinions about the death of PWAs too. Apple doesn't want the EU to ask for developers' opinions.

agust 3y ago
For sure Apple doesn't want anyone to know how it has crippled the web for over a decade, prevented browser competition, and just tried to kill web apps once and for good, that's why they tried to sneak this change without even making it public before two weeks after it was introduced in iOS beta.
- tsbinz 3y ago
  As absurd as it is, Apple forcing people to use Webkit/Safari is, at the moment, good for the browser landscape. You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported, if iOS didn't force Safari on people this would be way more common as people would flock to chrome and websites decide it isn't worth it to support other browsers. I use Firefox on my non-work machines ... in an ideal world, enough people would do that to prevent the "best in Internet Explorer" web of the dark ages, but I'll take getting forced to use Webkit on my phone over that, even if I'd prefer a "true" Firefox.
  - sircastor 3y ago
    > You already have websites that say browsers that aren't chromium aren't supported Is Webkit really so far diverged from Blink that the rendering result is different? I realize that Webkit doesn't support a bunch of stuff that Google pushed into Blink (like Web bluetooth, for instance), but I thought the end result wasn't that different.
    - agust 3y ago
      Blink was forked 12 years ago, and the size of the team behind Chrome is probably at least ten times the size of the team behind Safari. So yes, there are major differences between two, and it's not just additional advanced APIs like Web Bluetooth. WebKit is lagging behind in all areas and ridden with bugs.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

robertoandred 3y ago

Nah, that open web advocacy place uses slimy tactics to muddy the situation while omitting details. Just look at that article you linked to: calling PWAs "web apps" is super misleading.

fsflover 3y ago

Related discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39563982 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39563982