4 ms·

The main thing stopping Chrome from being the only web browser people cared about supporting was that Safari was the only thing that worked on iphones, and if y

The main thing stopping Chrome from being the only web browser people cared about supporting was that Safari was the only thing that worked on iphones, and if you have to support 2 browsers you might as well go to 3 or 4. The cost calculation for support is 1 <<< 2 < Many. And that’s about to change - thanks EU. Safari is losing its protection, and soon enough the equivalent of “Have you tried turning it off and on again ?” is going to be “Have you tried installing Chrome ?” I actually think this is going to be one of the keystones in the dam holding back utter domination of the Web by a company that makes its money exploiting your privacy. Hope I’m wrong.

metadat 3y ago
> The main thing stopping Chrome from being the only web browser people cared about supporting was that Safari was the only thing that worked on iphones It's IE6 all over again.. so gross, right? but that's real life for you.
- mickael-kerjean 3y ago
  Chrome is far above what IE ever was. Just thinking about supporting old version of IE again makes me sweat and I'm glad those days are gone.
  - trog 3y ago
    Huh? Isn't the entire point of GP's comments that they are /not/ gone? Just because Chrome is a bit less terrible than IE6 in terms of user/dev experience (which, to me, is entirely a matter of more sophistication in software development and Internet stuff, and a keen and burning desire to sell ads) doesn't mean we're in a good position. A browser monoculture is good for nobody but Google. This feels like the exact same bad old days to me, where if you're not using the modern-day IE6, the web is a pain in the ass. That was my takeaway from the article and (as a Firefox user that also reaches for Chrome far too often) one I sympathise with.
philwelch 3y ago
A bitter irony if the EU’s attempt at anti-monopoly regulation leads to a browser monopoly.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Not if they go after Google next.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      Well, then maybe the DOJ will.
    - talldayo 3y ago
      Do the Gatekeeper regulations not also apply to Google as well? I'm confused.
Apocryphon 3y ago
I’ve never bothered with Chrome on Apple machines thanks to the iCloud Keychain. Surely there are other services that can create stickiness.
- bhaney 3y ago
  Apple published an official Chrome extension last year that integrates Chrome with iCloud Keychain. So that's one dump truck of dirt into their own moat.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Well, I would call that them giving up the ghost, but the ship sailed a long time ago to mix metaphors, when Apple canned Safari for Windows. Maybe this much ballyhooed trust in mobile Safari as the last bulwark against Chrome ubiquity is just an affectation of the HN set and not even something Apple cares about very much at all. Maybe you’ve all been placing your trust in a champion who’s uninterested in your fight. As for me, I’m glad that Orion is an alternative if I ever was to switch away from Safari.
    - fredski42 3y ago
      Apple has warned about power usage when using other renderers than WebKit. Orion also mentions this as an advantage for them as they are using WebKit. Awesome browser if you are in Apple’s garden btw. Kagi also mentions that WebKit is developed by both Apple and FOSS community. I wonder how much of that holds.. https://blog.kagi.com/orion-features https://blog.kagi.com/orion-features
  - weikju 3y ago
    Isn’t that for windows only?
echelon 3y ago
Safari shouldn't be protected, but rather Chrome/Google should be regulated. Just as Apple and their iPhone/Safari/App Store monopoly are being regulated by governments worldwide. These giants get to push every society and their citizens and businesses into funnels while wrapped in straight jackets. Once regulation starts to catch up, we'll see open computing, proper competition, untaxed airwaves, mobile and device rights, and healthy market shares again.
Voultapher 3y ago
There is an argument to be made that Firefox is what is stopping Google getting hit with anti-trust, by being a competitor on paper. Unclear how much damage Google will do before getting slapped, WEI might have made it if Mozilla wasn't in the picture.
idle_zealot 3y ago
I can see the argument that allowing users to run Chrome on iPhones may hurt browser engine diversity, but I don't see how that translates to giving Google more dominance. Most alternative browsers are based on Chromium, and strip out Google shit. Even in the bleak potential future where running a non-blink browser is untenable, non-Chrome browsers will exist and stymy Google's attacks on the free web. That's not to say that there's nothing to be concerned about; engine diversity is valuable all on its own, and Google won't stop attempting to capture the web for as long as it exists and hasn't yet succeeded. This is one of those "patient monster vs eternally vigilant guards" deals where the monster is guaranteed eventual victory unless it is destroyed or victory is rendered impossible.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Orion is based on WebKit and not specifically Blink, at least.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  Google can (and has) ignored web standards/pushed their own features. They are limited in what they can do today because every iPhone uses uses WebKit. e.g. Google _could_ do whatever they want today, but they'd miss out on iPhone uses. Even assuming that Google is benevolent, it makes less sense for developers to target alternative web browsers if they don't have sufficient market share. Today most businesses support Chrome and WebKit (because they want those iPhone uses). If Chrome is dominant then it becomes self-reinforcing. The market share for other browsers is minimal, so nobody is going to develop/test for other browsers, so the experience on other browsers becomes worse, so users are forced to use Chrome, so the market share for other browsers drops further.
gigel82 3y ago
If Apple hadn't stopped investing (for real) in Safari 10 years ago, maybe people would choose it based on the merits. It would be stupid to keep "protecting" Safari when it's clear to anyone the reason why so many web features were kept back from it were precisely to keep web apps from competing with the sweet sweet 30% store tax. I'm a Firefox daily user and will continue that until the browser becomes truly unusable, at which point I'll give Ungoogled Chromium another go.
imustbeevil 3y ago
I might be misreading you, but Chrome has worked on iPhones for 10+ years. I've never used Safari. https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/28/first_look_googles_chrome_browser_comes_to_ipad_iphone https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/28/first_look_google...
- glandium 3y ago
  Chrome on iPhone is based on WebKit, like Safari, not Blink, like Chrome everywhere else.
thefz 3y ago
> And that’s about to change - thanks EU Lol, the EU law is there to protect you from a monopoly, not to force one. The mental gymnastics are in the circus territory for this one.
- novariation 3y ago
  Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years to think that regulations can't result in outcomes that are opposite to what was intended ? I'm not sure it will backfire, but it's absolutely not mental gymnastics to think it could.
- drcongo 3y ago
  You've heard of unintended consequences right?

metadat 3y ago

> The main thing stopping Chrome from being the only web browser people cared about supporting was that Safari was the only thing that worked on iphones It's IE6 all over again.. so gross, right? but that's real life for you.

mickael-kerjean 3y ago
Chrome is far above what IE ever was. Just thinking about supporting old version of IE again makes me sweat and I'm glad those days are gone.
- trog 3y ago
  Huh? Isn't the entire point of GP's comments that they are /not/ gone? Just because Chrome is a bit less terrible than IE6 in terms of user/dev experience (which, to me, is entirely a matter of more sophistication in software development and Internet stuff, and a keen and burning desire to sell ads) doesn't mean we're in a good position. A browser monoculture is good for nobody but Google. This feels like the exact same bad old days to me, where if you're not using the modern-day IE6, the web is a pain in the ass. That was my takeaway from the article and (as a Firefox user that also reaches for Chrome far too often) one I sympathise with.

philwelch 3y ago

A bitter irony if the EU’s attempt at anti-monopoly regulation leads to a browser monopoly.

Apocryphon 3y ago
Not if they go after Google next.
- paulmd 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    Well, then maybe the DOJ will.
  - talldayo 3y ago
    Do the Gatekeeper regulations not also apply to Google as well? I'm confused.

Apocryphon 3y ago

I’ve never bothered with Chrome on Apple machines thanks to the iCloud Keychain. Surely there are other services that can create stickiness.

bhaney 3y ago
Apple published an official Chrome extension last year that integrates Chrome with iCloud Keychain. So that's one dump truck of dirt into their own moat.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  Well, I would call that them giving up the ghost, but the ship sailed a long time ago to mix metaphors, when Apple canned Safari for Windows. Maybe this much ballyhooed trust in mobile Safari as the last bulwark against Chrome ubiquity is just an affectation of the HN set and not even something Apple cares about very much at all. Maybe you’ve all been placing your trust in a champion who’s uninterested in your fight. As for me, I’m glad that Orion is an alternative if I ever was to switch away from Safari.
  - fredski42 3y ago
    Apple has warned about power usage when using other renderers than WebKit. Orion also mentions this as an advantage for them as they are using WebKit. Awesome browser if you are in Apple’s garden btw. Kagi also mentions that WebKit is developed by both Apple and FOSS community. I wonder how much of that holds.. https://blog.kagi.com/orion-features https://blog.kagi.com/orion-features
- weikju 3y ago
  Isn’t that for windows only?

echelon 3y ago

Safari shouldn't be protected, but rather Chrome/Google should be regulated. Just as Apple and their iPhone/Safari/App Store monopoly are being regulated by governments worldwide. These giants get to push every society and their citizens and businesses into funnels while wrapped in straight jackets. Once regulation starts to catch up, we'll see open computing, proper competition, untaxed airwaves, mobile and device rights, and healthy market shares again.

Voultapher 3y ago

There is an argument to be made that Firefox is what is stopping Google getting hit with anti-trust, by being a competitor on paper. Unclear how much damage Google will do before getting slapped, WEI might have made it if Mozilla wasn't in the picture.

idle_zealot 3y ago

I can see the argument that allowing users to run Chrome on iPhones may hurt browser engine diversity, but I don't see how that translates to giving Google more dominance. Most alternative browsers are based on Chromium, and strip out Google shit. Even in the bleak potential future where running a non-blink browser is untenable, non-Chrome browsers will exist and stymy Google's attacks on the free web. That's not to say that there's nothing to be concerned about; engine diversity is valuable all on its own, and Google won't stop attempting to capture the web for as long as it exists and hasn't yet succeeded. This is one of those "patient monster vs eternally vigilant guards" deals where the monster is guaranteed eventual victory unless it is destroyed or victory is rendered impossible.

Apocryphon 3y ago
Orion is based on WebKit and not specifically Blink, at least.
shepherdjerred 3y ago
Google can (and has) ignored web standards/pushed their own features. They are limited in what they can do today because every iPhone uses uses WebKit. e.g. Google _could_ do whatever they want today, but they'd miss out on iPhone uses. Even assuming that Google is benevolent, it makes less sense for developers to target alternative web browsers if they don't have sufficient market share. Today most businesses support Chrome and WebKit (because they want those iPhone uses). If Chrome is dominant then it becomes self-reinforcing. The market share for other browsers is minimal, so nobody is going to develop/test for other browsers, so the experience on other browsers becomes worse, so users are forced to use Chrome, so the market share for other browsers drops further.

gigel82 3y ago

If Apple hadn't stopped investing (for real) in Safari 10 years ago, maybe people would choose it based on the merits. It would be stupid to keep "protecting" Safari when it's clear to anyone the reason why so many web features were kept back from it were precisely to keep web apps from competing with the sweet sweet 30% store tax. I'm a Firefox daily user and will continue that until the browser becomes truly unusable, at which point I'll give Ungoogled Chromium another go.

imustbeevil 3y ago

I might be misreading you, but Chrome has worked on iPhones for 10+ years. I've never used Safari. https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/28/first_look_googles_chrome_browser_comes_to_ipad_iphone https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/28/first_look_google...

glandium 3y ago
Chrome on iPhone is based on WebKit, like Safari, not Blink, like Chrome everywhere else.

thefz 3y ago

> And that’s about to change - thanks EU Lol, the EU law is there to protect you from a monopoly, not to force one. The mental gymnastics are in the circus territory for this one.

novariation 3y ago
Have you been living under a rock for the last 20 years to think that regulations can't result in outcomes that are opposite to what was intended ? I'm not sure it will backfire, but it's absolutely not mental gymnastics to think it could.
drcongo 3y ago
You've heard of unintended consequences right?