5 ms·

Awash in revisionist histories about Apple's web efforts, a look at the evidence

39 points by freetonik 1y ago

drcongo 1y ago
This site has a category called "Browser choice must matter" which is nothing but a series of articles slating Apple and Safari. Nothing about Chrome's desktop dominance or Google's abusive practices at all :thinking-face:.
- cjpearson 1y ago
  The author was for a long time a developer on Chrome and now works at Microsoft on Edge. I would not expect them to lead an anti-Chrome crusade.
  - slightlyoff 1y ago
    The author here. It will seem odd to most, but my big concerns about Chrome relate to Android and ChromeOS. In neither environment did Chrome win share competitively. I think this has made them weaker and less useful, and that was mirrored in the tremendous difficulty we had in getting expansions of web capabilities done within the Chrome team, nevermind what I am documenting in this most recent post. Sadly, the CrOS problem will be partially resolved when Google trashes it with Android rebasing in upcoming releases. On the Android side, Google is still withholding WebAPK support from competitors (suppressing PWAs on Android) and has failed to follow Apple's lead on hotseat browser replacement when choice screens are shown in the EU. But neither of the bad effects are nearly as structural or impactful as Apple's out-and-out suppression of the web on mobile, because wealthy people carry iPhones and they have all the power: https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-crimes-against-the-internet-community/#apple's-unique-monopoly https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-crimes-against-the-i...
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  Because it's specifically about mobile browsers and not desktop as indicated in the category header and you can actually use a competing browser on Google operating system? :thinking-face:
- snickerdoodle14 1y ago
  Almost as if you can choose a browser on the desktop :thinking-face: Windows even asks you if you want to use something else other than Chrome if you're in the EU.
  - yardie 1y ago
    > Windows even asks you if you want to use something else other than Chrome if you're in the EU. And not by choice. It was a 2010 legal decision. Pretty confident that if the court didn't force Microsoft to do it they wouldn't give you that option.
    - snickerdoodle14 1y ago
      Unfortunately not, but the fact is choice exists everywhere and is even encouraged in some jurisdictions.
N_Lens 1y ago
Given that we’re in the information warfare era, it’s a given that Apple would be trying to sane-wash their anti-competitive practices (which they undoubtedly are), and drag their feet as much as possible on standards and interoperability. - sent from my iPhone
concinds 1y ago
The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there, it's night and day compared to desktop. It's no wonder that developing countries, where desktops had less penetration and mobile dominates, have much less of an "open web" to speak of, and far more things are done in apps/siloes. If we accept the premise that the mobile web shows us one potential future trajectory for the web, it's looking grim. And if so, Google's approach of trying to make the "Web Platform" match native platform capabilities (notifications, for example) is far healthier for the web than Apple's approach of gating features exclusive to native apps (it almost sounds self-evident when I put it that way). Beyond all the arguments and talking point, look at mobile web vs app usage and you can see the end-result of Apple's vision for the web: it's dead.
- bobajeff 1y ago
  It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos on mobile is part of a general trend to restrict more and more what people can do with their stuff. See Microsoft requiring an online account to use Windows. UEFI. DVD/Blu-ray players not allowing you to skip ads. Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. Cars sending your driving data to insurance companies.
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    > Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
    - 1y ago
djoldman 1y ago
I'm curious: what are the web standards/specifications that webkit does not implement, efficiently or at all, that prevent all but niche or insignificantly important functionality? For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? My quick and uninformed take is just: video. As a casual web developer, it feels very much like the CSS, HTML, and Web API specifications are well well beyond what is critical and deep into the "specifications capture" phase of how companies compete.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  > For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? Wasm, 3D acceleration, PWA, geolocalisation, USB access, sandboxed local storage and offline mode, accelerometer and touch support. If one thing, the web has declined in the past decade with a lot of things which could and should be on the web moving to phone apps where gatekeepers can take their toll because phone browsers are gimped.
- giobox 1y ago
  While it's easy to dismiss some of these as niche, many of them such as file system access and USB device support would completely change how some software could be delivered. By not supporting these, one is forced to make a native app in many cases. With support for some of these standards, entire classes of application could be delivered via cross platform web applications. Imagine being able to install firmware updates on USB devices just by visiting the manufacturers website, for one. While we can argue about safety, the file system access problem can be solved in the exact same way apple solved it for native apps, with permission dialogs etc and only exposing the selected items when attempting to access resources on the device. This is indeed the approach Chrome/Edge use today. If you look at the browser API specs Apple has chosen not to implement and Chrome/Edge has historically, it's hard not to feel Apple is trying to protect its own native app store at times. There are obvious self-interested reasons for Apple to protect it's own store/native app system; even "free" applications often generate revenue from in-app purchase transaction fees or subscriptions. If developers can more easily avoid shipping a native app, they can also more easily avoid paying Apple fees.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
WillAdams 1y ago
I just wish that Apple would make Safari available on Windows again, or that there was an easy way to have an up-to-date WebKit browser for Windows.
lapcat 1y ago
I have no wish to defend Apple. However, I have no wish to defend Google or Microsoft either. Collectively, those three have a monopolistic market share for operating systems and web browsers on both desktop and mobile. My fundamental problem with this author is his massive conflict of interest. He's not an outside observer but rather a Chromium engineer, former Google employee, current Microsoft employee. He talks about "competition" and "competitors" while basically ignoring the monopolistic landscape of the industry and the role of his own employers in that monopolization. Nobody has clean hands here, not Apple, not Google, not Microsoft. I don't see any of them really acting in the best interest of consumers. Let's not pretend, for example, that Chromium doesn't push a bunch of shit that consumers never wanted. Progress would be breaking up this triopoly, not allowing Blink/Chromium to dominate everything. The web "standards" bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers. I don't even want to hear about standards anymore. So-called standards now are just the monopolists coming to agreement among themselves. All we have here is the employee of one monopolist complaining about another monopolist. As far as I'm concerned, the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser. But people like the article author want web browser engines to become entire operating systems, which in effect excludes almost everyone from writing a web browser. That's not openness and freedom. It's inherently monopolistic.
- yerich 1y ago
  A "little indie developer" hasn't been able to write a web browser in several decades. An implementation of 2005-era CSS and JS would be a complex task surely requiring a fairly sizable team to implement. The fact is, all three major browser implementations are open-source and that has allowed any company to come in and release or embed their own browser with minimal effort. Chrome/Blink is dominant but that is not due to technical barriers that make it difficult for other companies to ship their own browsers. In fact it is now easier than ever to do so.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > A "little indie developer" hasn't been able to write a web browser in several decades. IMO that's a major problem. > The fact is, all three major browser implementations are open-source and that has allowed any company to come in and release or embed their own browser with minimal effort. And they're all beholden to Google's decisions, for example to wreck the web browser extension API. Of course you can fork the code, but forks become increasingly difficult to maintain as they diverge significantly from the original code. Google can make things extremely difficult for forks.

39 points by freetonik 1y ago

This site has a category called "Browser choice must matter" which is nothing but a series of articles slating Apple and Safari. Nothing about Chrome's desktop dominance or Google's abusive practices at all :thinking-face:.

cjpearson 1y ago
The author was for a long time a developer on Chrome and now works at Microsoft on Edge. I would not expect them to lead an anti-Chrome crusade.
- slightlyoff 1y ago
  The author here. It will seem odd to most, but my big concerns about Chrome relate to Android and ChromeOS. In neither environment did Chrome win share competitively. I think this has made them weaker and less useful, and that was mirrored in the tremendous difficulty we had in getting expansions of web capabilities done within the Chrome team, nevermind what I am documenting in this most recent post. Sadly, the CrOS problem will be partially resolved when Google trashes it with Android rebasing in upcoming releases. On the Android side, Google is still withholding WebAPK support from competitors (suppressing PWAs on Android) and has failed to follow Apple's lead on hotseat browser replacement when choice screens are shown in the EU. But neither of the bad effects are nearly as structural or impactful as Apple's out-and-out suppression of the web on mobile, because wealthy people carry iPhones and they have all the power: https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-crimes-against-the-internet-community/#apple's-unique-monopoly https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-crimes-against-the-i...
StopDisinfo910 1y ago
Because it's specifically about mobile browsers and not desktop as indicated in the category header and you can actually use a competing browser on Google operating system? :thinking-face:
snickerdoodle14 1y ago
Almost as if you can choose a browser on the desktop :thinking-face: Windows even asks you if you want to use something else other than Chrome if you're in the EU.
- yardie 1y ago
  > Windows even asks you if you want to use something else other than Chrome if you're in the EU. And not by choice. It was a 2010 legal decision. Pretty confident that if the court didn't force Microsoft to do it they wouldn't give you that option.
  - snickerdoodle14 1y ago
    Unfortunately not, but the fact is choice exists everywhere and is even encouraged in some jurisdictions.

N_Lens 1y ago

Given that we’re in the information warfare era, it’s a given that Apple would be trying to sane-wash their anti-competitive practices (which they undoubtedly are), and drag their feet as much as possible on standards and interoperability. - sent from my iPhone

concinds 1y ago

The one piece from this author that I found most persuasive is the analysis of mobile web vs app usage share. The web is practically dead on mobile. Users spend practically no time there, it's night and day compared to desktop. It's no wonder that developing countries, where desktops had less penetration and mobile dominates, have much less of an "open web" to speak of, and far more things are done in apps/siloes. If we accept the premise that the mobile web shows us one potential future trajectory for the web, it's looking grim. And if so, Google's approach of trying to make the "Web Platform" match native platform capabilities (notifications, for example) is far healthier for the web than Apple's approach of gating features exclusive to native apps (it almost sounds self-evident when I put it that way). Beyond all the arguments and talking point, look at mobile web vs app usage and you can see the end-result of Apple's vision for the web: it's dead.

bobajeff 1y ago
It doesn't seem right to blame this on just Apple. In developing countries Android is more common. The reason I think things are more locked down in apps/silos on mobile is part of a general trend to restrict more and more what people can do with their stuff. See Microsoft requiring an online account to use Windows. UEFI. DVD/Blu-ray players not allowing you to skip ads. Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. Cars sending your driving data to insurance companies.
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  > Nintendo being able to brick your Switch remotely. This was wildly exaggerated; Switches cannot be bricked remotely. Nintendo can ban you from online services, but that has been around... for decades. The warning in the Terms of Service is saying that if you use unauthorized tools, there's no guarantee of compatibility. Updates as far back as the Wii had this warning. https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FYdNU73Ew9qIdV4PwhOvPbznnlmkmkSlheBxuBfiV89s.jpg%3Fwidth%3D640%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D8c66be69d57245b5d9c581570d1f290e17c719e9 https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
  - 1y ago

djoldman 1y ago

I'm curious: what are the web standards/specifications that webkit does not implement, efficiently or at all, that prevent all but niche or insignificantly important functionality? For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? My quick and uninformed take is just: video. As a casual web developer, it feels very much like the CSS, HTML, and Web API specifications are well well beyond what is critical and deep into the "specifications capture" phase of how companies compete.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
> For that matter, what critical new functionality has been introduced in the web standards/specifications over the last 20 years that was not possible to implement prior? Wasm, 3D acceleration, PWA, geolocalisation, USB access, sandboxed local storage and offline mode, accelerometer and touch support. If one thing, the web has declined in the past decade with a lot of things which could and should be on the web moving to phone apps where gatekeepers can take their toll because phone browsers are gimped.
giobox 1y ago
While it's easy to dismiss some of these as niche, many of them such as file system access and USB device support would completely change how some software could be delivered. By not supporting these, one is forced to make a native app in many cases. With support for some of these standards, entire classes of application could be delivered via cross platform web applications. Imagine being able to install firmware updates on USB devices just by visiting the manufacturers website, for one. While we can argue about safety, the file system access problem can be solved in the exact same way apple solved it for native apps, with permission dialogs etc and only exposing the selected items when attempting to access resources on the device. This is indeed the approach Chrome/Edge use today. If you look at the browser API specs Apple has chosen not to implement and Chrome/Edge has historically, it's hard not to feel Apple is trying to protect its own native app store at times. There are obvious self-interested reasons for Apple to protect it's own store/native app system; even "free" applications often generate revenue from in-app purchase transaction fees or subscriptions. If developers can more easily avoid shipping a native app, they can also more easily avoid paying Apple fees.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

WillAdams 1y ago

I just wish that Apple would make Safari available on Windows again, or that there was an easy way to have an up-to-date WebKit browser for Windows.

lapcat 1y ago

I have no wish to defend Apple. However, I have no wish to defend Google or Microsoft either. Collectively, those three have a monopolistic market share for operating systems and web browsers on both desktop and mobile. My fundamental problem with this author is his massive conflict of interest. He's not an outside observer but rather a Chromium engineer, former Google employee, current Microsoft employee. He talks about "competition" and "competitors" while basically ignoring the monopolistic landscape of the industry and the role of his own employers in that monopolization. Nobody has clean hands here, not Apple, not Google, not Microsoft. I don't see any of them really acting in the best interest of consumers. Let's not pretend, for example, that Chromium doesn't push a bunch of shit that consumers never wanted. Progress would be breaking up this triopoly, not allowing Blink/Chromium to dominate everything. The web "standards" bodies are a joke now because of the dominance of these few companies over web browsers. I don't even want to hear about standards anymore. So-called standards now are just the monopolists coming to agreement among themselves. All we have here is the employee of one monopolist complaining about another monopolist. As far as I'm concerned, the web standards should be so simple that a little indie developer could write a full-fledged web browser. But people like the article author want web browser engines to become entire operating systems, which in effect excludes almost everyone from writing a web browser. That's not openness and freedom. It's inherently monopolistic.

yerich 1y ago
A "little indie developer" hasn't been able to write a web browser in several decades. An implementation of 2005-era CSS and JS would be a complex task surely requiring a fairly sizable team to implement. The fact is, all three major browser implementations are open-source and that has allowed any company to come in and release or embed their own browser with minimal effort. Chrome/Blink is dominant but that is not due to technical barriers that make it difficult for other companies to ship their own browsers. In fact it is now easier than ever to do so.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > A "little indie developer" hasn't been able to write a web browser in several decades. IMO that's a major problem. > The fact is, all three major browser implementations are open-source and that has allowed any company to come in and release or embed their own browser with minimal effort. And they're all beholden to Google's decisions, for example to wreck the web browser extension API. Of course you can fork the code, but forks become increasingly difficult to maintain as they diverge significantly from the original code. Google can make things extremely difficult for forks.