7 ms·

It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lo

by leptons 10mo ago

It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it... https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement), specifically to force many developers to create a native app to use these APIs, so that Apple can force the developer to give them a percentage of any purchases made through the app. They can't force a developer to give them a cut of purchases made through a web browser, which is why they purposely hobble the Safari browser engine and then force all other browsers to use this engine. If you can't see how bad this is, then you've been taken over by the reality distortion field. It's spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against apple, among many other anti-competitive practices. Microsoft got sued and lost in an antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari with iOS but forbids any other browser engine but their Safari engine. Can you imagine if Microsoft forbade any other browser from being installed on Windows? It's time Apple was brought to justice over their abusive anti-competitive practices. Here's the whole DOJ suit against Apple: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

givinguflac 10mo ago
You seriously just link to a google search of people who agree with you?? Solid investigation. Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?
- leptons 10mo ago
  I included that link not as "research" but as proof that I am not the only one calling Safari "the new IE". It's been written about ad nauseum, and just because you think a google search is pointless doesn't mean my argument lacks merit - and if you were to do your own "research", I'd bet you would start with a google search. Thousands of people have written about it, so go see what they have to say, I am not the only one claiming it. >Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; It's a crap browser, and Apple implements things the way they want to, especially around touch interactions. So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks, it just does, and your trolling comment doesn't disprove it. >what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space? I don't care if they do or if they don't. All I want is an alternative to Safari on iOS. Is that really so bad?? https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
  - crazygringo 10mo ago
    > So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks You'll still have to debug it. Even when other browsers are allowed, Safari isn't going away. "Safari fucking sucks" isn't an argument that Apple is being anticompetitive. There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
    - leptons 10mo ago
      Of course I have to debug it, but I develop for standards, not Apple's wonky implementations of touch events and lots of other things. So I should not need Apple hardware to debug a web browser. I can't install Safari on Android or any other platform, so if there's a bug that only shows up in Safari, then I have to buy Apple hardware. I'd rather not give Apple one goddamned cent of my money, they have already mistreated us - we actually sued them in a class action lawsuit and won (2011 MBP). So no, I do not want to pay for an overpriced phone just to fix their stupid proprietary bugs. Everything works great on Chrome and Firefox and Opera and a bunch of other mobile browsers. >There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect. Google doesn't prevent Apple from offering Safari for Android, Apple just wouldn't be able to make money offering it through Google's app store the same way they can extort iOS developers that sell anything through the native app. "Chrome sucks too" is very subjective. I've never had a problem with it. I'm curious what you think sucks about Chrome. Firefox - well, I used to use it a while ago, but not so much anymore. I will fix bugs there and they are easy and free to fix. I can't say the same about Apple's Safari. Apple used to make Safari for Windows, but it sucked so badly, and they figured they couldn't make any money from it, so they discontinued it. So they could definitely make Safari for other platforms, but they would rather force developers to buy an iPhone instead. Fuck that. I'm sorry iPhone users, but you'll forever be second class citizens in my product sphere, and you can blame Apple for that, until they allow other browser engines.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - 10mo ago
- xp84 10mo ago
  I don’t really agree with allowing one monopolistic company to behave anticompetitively because we’re scared of their only competitor, another monopolist. They’re both menaces to consumer rights.
ChadNauseam 10mo ago
I suspect it might have been motivated by antitrust concerns, but safari is really not that bad. Check out Interop 2025: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0]) > And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement) Can you give an example? [0]: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-install-api-is-ready-for-testing/ https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-insta...
- kelthuzad 10mo ago
  >> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement) >Can you give an example? Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial... Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    > Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too. > Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
    - kelthuzad 10mo ago
      You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.
troupo 10mo ago
> https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie Which is of course bullshit --- start quote --- The allegation that Safari is holding back web development by its lack of support for key features is not new, but it’s not true, either. Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds. ...even though Chrome is not the standard, it’s treated as such by many web developers. https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... --- end quote ---
otterley 10mo ago
I’m truly curious: as either a user or a developer, how are you impacted by Apple’s behavior and decisions with respect to its web browser engine policy? What is it preventing you from accomplishing?
- leptons 10mo ago
  Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster. No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so. So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to. Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it?? https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
  - otterley 10mo ago
    It’s not alleged in the complaint that Apple cripples Safari in order to incentivize developers to build apps instead. Respectfully, did you read it? Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
    - leptons 10mo ago
      >Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? That seems like victim blaming. Apple is the tyrant here. > If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them? Because then have to hire an iOS developer and pay for everything to develop an app, which Apple can then use to extort a percentage of sales for anything purchased through the app. Or I have to write the app myself, and I'm already working 18 hours a day. FUCK THAT. Not going to happen. Apple users will always be second class citizens to me as long as Apple treats other browsers like second class citizens and forbids other browser engines. Making an iOS app isn't a clear pathway to riches, so Apple users will just have to use a more clunky wifi experience. That's just the way it is.
kalleboo 10mo ago
> But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it... You mean that Chrome is the new IE https://google.com/search?q=chrome+is+the+new+ie https://google.com/search?q=chrome+is+the+new+ie

by leptons 10mo ago

givinguflac 10mo ago

You seriously just link to a google search of people who agree with you?? Solid investigation. Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?

leptons 10mo ago
I included that link not as "research" but as proof that I am not the only one calling Safari "the new IE". It's been written about ad nauseum, and just because you think a google search is pointless doesn't mean my argument lacks merit - and if you were to do your own "research", I'd bet you would start with a google search. Thousands of people have written about it, so go see what they have to say, I am not the only one claiming it. >Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; It's a crap browser, and Apple implements things the way they want to, especially around touch interactions. So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks, it just does, and your trolling comment doesn't disprove it. >what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space? I don't care if they do or if they don't. All I want is an alternative to Safari on iOS. Is that really so bad?? https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
- crazygringo 10mo ago
  > So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks You'll still have to debug it. Even when other browsers are allowed, Safari isn't going away. "Safari fucking sucks" isn't an argument that Apple is being anticompetitive. There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
  - leptons 10mo ago
    Of course I have to debug it, but I develop for standards, not Apple's wonky implementations of touch events and lots of other things. So I should not need Apple hardware to debug a web browser. I can't install Safari on Android or any other platform, so if there's a bug that only shows up in Safari, then I have to buy Apple hardware. I'd rather not give Apple one goddamned cent of my money, they have already mistreated us - we actually sued them in a class action lawsuit and won (2011 MBP). So no, I do not want to pay for an overpriced phone just to fix their stupid proprietary bugs. Everything works great on Chrome and Firefox and Opera and a bunch of other mobile browsers. >There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect. Google doesn't prevent Apple from offering Safari for Android, Apple just wouldn't be able to make money offering it through Google's app store the same way they can extort iOS developers that sell anything through the native app. "Chrome sucks too" is very subjective. I've never had a problem with it. I'm curious what you think sucks about Chrome. Firefox - well, I used to use it a while ago, but not so much anymore. I will fix bugs there and they are easy and free to fix. I can't say the same about Apple's Safari. Apple used to make Safari for Windows, but it sucked so badly, and they figured they couldn't make any money from it, so they discontinued it. So they could definitely make Safari for other platforms, but they would rather force developers to buy an iPhone instead. Fuck that. I'm sorry iPhone users, but you'll forever be second class citizens in my product sphere, and you can blame Apple for that, until they allow other browser engines.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 10mo ago
xp84 10mo ago
I don’t really agree with allowing one monopolistic company to behave anticompetitively because we’re scared of their only competitor, another monopolist. They’re both menaces to consumer rights.

ChadNauseam 10mo ago

I suspect it might have been motivated by antitrust concerns, but safari is really not that bad. Check out Interop 2025: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025 They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0]) > And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement) Can you give an example? [0]: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-install-api-is-ready-for-testing/ https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-insta...

kelthuzad 10mo ago
>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement) >Can you give an example? Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial... Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.
- troupo 10mo ago
  > Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too. > Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
  - kelthuzad 10mo ago
    You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.

troupo 10mo ago

> https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie Which is of course bullshit --- start quote --- The allegation that Safari is holding back web development by its lack of support for key features is not new, but it’s not true, either. Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds. ...even though Chrome is not the standard, it’s treated as such by many web developers. https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_the_we.html https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th... --- end quote ---

otterley 10mo ago

I’m truly curious: as either a user or a developer, how are you impacted by Apple’s behavior and decisions with respect to its web browser engine policy? What is it preventing you from accomplishing?

leptons 10mo ago
Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster. No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so. So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to. Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it?? https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
- otterley 10mo ago
  It’s not alleged in the complaint that Apple cripples Safari in order to incentivize developers to build apps instead. Respectfully, did you read it? Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
  - leptons 10mo ago
    >Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? That seems like victim blaming. Apple is the tyrant here. > If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them? Because then have to hire an iOS developer and pay for everything to develop an app, which Apple can then use to extort a percentage of sales for anything purchased through the app. Or I have to write the app myself, and I'm already working 18 hours a day. FUCK THAT. Not going to happen. Apple users will always be second class citizens to me as long as Apple treats other browsers like second class citizens and forbids other browser engines. Making an iOS app isn't a clear pathway to riches, so Apple users will just have to use a more clunky wifi experience. That's just the way it is.

kalleboo 10mo ago

> But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it... You mean that Chrome is the new IE https://google.com/search?q=chrome+is+the+new+ie https://google.com/search?q=chrome+is+the+new+ie