7 ms·

I’m not going to say I think Apple should be able to lock out competing browsers, I know this is going to happen. But God I don’t want this. The iPhone is basi

• herpdyderp 10mo ago
  I don’t see any reason why Google wouldn’t abandon web features left and right, given how they do that with everything else.
  • anticensor 10mo ago
    Because they themselves use them?
    • brokencode 10mo ago
      Also because they know what happened to Microsoft when they did that with IE.
      • MBCook 10mo ago
        Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform… It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome. Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then. See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.
        • brokencode 10mo ago
          Then it’d be time for round two of antitrust, and I doubt the judge and regulators would feel so understanding about Google keeping Chrome if that is the landscape.
          • Max-Limelihood 10mo ago
            I think they might be, but only as long as it stays open-source (assuming we mean it works on Chromium and not Chrome). Honestly, I fundamentally don't have a problem with an open-source browser having a monopoly, because the open-source nature means that if things get bad you can always just fork it and make something better.
          • MBCook 10mo ago
            I think that would’ve good. But… 1. The US isn’t doing this. They have a case but aren’t calling for breakup 2. We all know howling anti-trust and appeals take If Google gets handed the web (let’s say) this year by Apple being forced to allow them, it could be a decade+ before the Google side gets tackled. And I’m afraid of how much damage they can do in that timeframe. I think fixing Google’s ownership over Chrome before forcing other browsers on iOS would be less harmless than forcing iOS to allow other browsers than doing Google. I’m totally good with doing both. I worried about the effects of the order they’re done in. And I am only saying this about browser engines. This should not be taken to say Apple should be able to do some of the other nonsense they’ve been doing for 10+ years abusing their position.
• gigel82 10mo ago
  I'm sure if Apple keeps innovating and adopting some of the Web standards they'll outcompete other engines. But let's be realistic, they 100% are blocking other engines and not adopting standards in their own because they want that sweet sweet 30% cut when developers can't publish PWAs and are forced into the "app" model.
  • cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
    WebKit's progress has been significant in recent years, it's just been more focused on things like improving CSS instead of things like an API that tells the developer how many beers the user has in their fridge.
    • kelthuzad 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      • cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
        It depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, Google tends to focus on somewhat niche features that will benefit a small slice of web apps. In contrast, the things Apple works on are those that benefit everything from static blog sites to huge commercial web apps. I wish Google were more like Apple in this regard, because the primitives from which everything web is built are still overwhelmingly crude, which results in the half-ton-truck-built-on-a-golf-cart frameworks and apps the web has become famous for. Making the web reasonable to develop for without a dependency tree that looks like a spiral fractal would do way more to make it flourish as a platform than things like access to the GPU and USB devices.
• torben-friis 10mo ago
  I don’t see that as a threat honestly. safari being the default app pretty much guarantees its place unless google comes up with a killer feature for iOS chrome. And they are unlikely to make that push considering apple demands the app to be distributed only in Japan. Besides, the mobile web is becoming more and more of a niche platform, since the web is becoming centralised as time passes and most main sites redirect to their own apps. And that’s without considering direct web search being replaced by AI search,which google seems convinced is the way forward.
  • MBCook 10mo ago
    It was the default on the Mac and it’s nowhere near the most popular there. Google pushes Chrome HARD.
    • cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
      Yep. I've even been seeing Chrome TV ads lately (on Amazon Prime Video). They're marketing it pretty hard despite being dominant. Also, it's wise to not underestimate the power of developers ceasing to test against non-Blink browsers and taking a page from their IE-era past selves with "Best Viewed in Chrome" and "Browser outdated! Download Chrome" badges. There are few user motivators stronger than things not working.
    • ribosometronome 10mo ago
      Similarly, Edge is the default on Windows. Chrome has 75% of the market share.
    • ndiddy 10mo ago
      Yeah it's fun how Google displays a full-page ad for Chrome every few times I do a Google search on iOS Safari that I have to dismiss before seeing the results.
    • benoau 10mo ago
      Yeah but the solution to that is to be good at breaking monopolies, not allowing one to stop another.
• lukeschlather 10mo ago
  That ship has already sailed. And Apple is part of the problem. Recently I used Microsoft Edge because Facetime doesn't support Firefox. I couldn't get audio working so switched to Google Meet (which does work in Firefox.)
• baby 10mo ago
  Safari is so bad, I want a real chrome experience on iOS
  • lokar 10mo ago
    Can you explain how? Poor standards implementation? Performance? UX?
    • vips7L 10mo ago
      I’d like the extension ecosystem from chrome or Firefox. I miss having real Firefox with real Ublock like on Android.
      • lokar 10mo ago
        I find the “use reader automatically “ setting helps a lot
      • basisword 10mo ago
        The extension ecosystem that Google has been locking down? You can get the same UBlock extension on Safari and Chrome now (on Safari desktop and iOS).
        • vips7L 10mo ago
          Good thing I mentioned Firefox. Ublock on safari and iOS is not the same.
          • basisword 10mo ago
            Yes, it's not the same as the one available still on Firefox. But you said "I’d like the extension ecosystem from chrome or Firefox". I'm pointing out that the Chrome one has been limited and now runs the same UBlock version that Safari runs.
            • vips7L 10mo ago
• concinds 10mo ago
  I can't wait until regulators do their job and take away Apple's dictatorial control, in all areas, and all these doom-and-gloom predictions on all these tangential issues end up proving ludicrous. What kind of control would Chrome have over the web? Adding APIs doesn't force the billions of websites to adopt them. So what if a website adds WebBluetooth? You don't want the web to have that anyway, and if you keep using Safari, you still won't have it. Happy you! If scrappy Firefox on open platforms could save the web from 95% IE, then why are we all dependent on Apple, alone, to save us from ~60% Chrome? It's learned helplessness and Stockholm syndrome. I wonder how our species survived before the trillion-dollar company started taking such good care of us!
  • bigfudge 10mo ago
    That was almost 20 years ago though. Things are really different now and it's hard to imagine Firefox saving anything these days. Sadly, the only entities powerful enough to control FANGs are FANGs (although fingers crossed the EU holds it's nerve and EU nations belatedly act on the realisation that being beholden to US tech giants is a massive strategic blunder, akin to relying so heavily on US military satellite data for Ukraine).
    • concinds 10mo ago
      Yes, new problems will require new solutions. I'm calling out the logic of paternalism and dependency, an impotent hope pinned on a "benevolent" corporation retaining absolute control forever.
    • chongli 10mo ago
      I don't have much faith in Firefox saving us, given its organizational turnover and cultural issues. I have much more faith in a new entrant, like Ladybird. I should be able to use Ladybird on iOS. Why not?
      • ethbr1 10mo ago
        The problem with "new entrant" is that only revolutionary features convince users to switch en mass. Tabs/stability (Firefox vs IE). V8 (Chrome vs Firefox). Anything else is a battle of attrition, where the deepest pocketed competitor in terms of advertising spend wins. Or Google, because it flood all its own advertising channels. And Chrome still barely only won.
• hparadiz 10mo ago
  Firefox exists.
  • s3p 10mo ago
    And its userbase is essentially just HN users unfortunately
    • MBCook 10mo ago
      And it’s trying to get them to run away as fast as possible. Firefox is not going to save us again. It’s arguably part of the problem in a different way.
      • Max-Limelihood 10mo ago
        It's amazing how you can literally start a nonprofit to code a billion-dollar browser, give it away for free, and let people modify it however they want and then HN users will still find a way to act like this is being evil and exploitative. It's as if they care more about whining than they do about their supposed open-source principles.
        • majorchord 10mo ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
    • hdgvhicv 10mo ago
      HN users are almost entirely Google users
• kmeisthax 10mo ago
  While this excuse works today, we should not forget that this policy also meant disinviting Mozilla from the mobile browser party about a decade ago. I'd argue a good chunk of Mozilla's downfall was them chasing the pipe dream of Boot2Gecko, and that was specifically because they couldn't ship Gecko on iOS. The reason why we have a Chrome/Safari hegemony is because Apple insisted on everything being Safari on their device platforms. This combined with Android shipping WebKit for years meant that the only mobile browser engine that mattered was WebKit. Chrome is a different engine now, but it was forked from WebKit, and it used to have a lot of the same quirks. Hell, Microsoft switched to Blink specifically because Electron - their own web app shell - couldn't run on EdgeHTML. The fact that this change practically means Chrome displacing Safari is... not really all that meaningful. They're both forks of the same code. The single-engine dystopia you worry about is already here. I daily-drive Firefox, and the amount of shit Google deliberately breaks on Gecko is obvious. Like, YouTube tabs freeze up every few hours because they get stuck in garbage collection, and I have to manually kill whatever processes are running YouTube before I can watch another video. That sort of thing.
  • MBCook 10mo ago
    I would argue that the root of the problem is that Google was not broken up. I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web. I’m not saying it’s smart we got here. I’m not saying it’s good we got here. I’m not saying we should be here. All I’m saying is we ARE here. And given that (effective screw up) I fear this will make things drastically worse.
    • Max-Limelihood 10mo ago
      > I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web. Does it? It might give them perverse incentives in some cases, but in others it perfectly aligns their incentives by letting them internalize their externalities. The whole selling point of Chrome to executives, and the reason it's introduced so many nice features, is that consolidating means they have an incentive to invest in things that make their websites work better (a better Chrome means a better Google/Gmail/YouTube/Drive).
• Jach 10mo ago
  People didn't mind when IE was muscling in and adding useful new features. They abandoned Netscape because the features made the web better. It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem. They would still add features, but too much relied on ActiveX -- which wasn't necessarily evil, there's a grand vision there of component re-use across the OS and varied applications, the same was done with Java Applets and even Shockwave/Flash, but it sucked more and they were all plagued with security problems. Then MS stopped innovating pretty much entirely, and wouldn't even play catch up for a long time, whether with their out-of-browser plugins (oh Silverlight...) or the browser itself. No support for tabs for a long time, or popup blocking (later ad blocking), they had terrible performance... And as various "web standards" advanced to make things nicer for the users and developers, and add capabilities that didn't require an external plugin, they drug their heels on that too. Eventually, the hell that was IE was a combination of hostile user experience, security problems, performance problems, and developer pain in finding workarounds or other support because it was so far behind on everything. It had nothing to do with their power to dictate or experiment with new features. The extent of the hostile user experience that leaked outside the browser itself was the "only works on IE" problem that forced people to use IE for that site, on the whole it was comparable to the "only works with Flash or Java applets" problems and not as bad as the experience of the browser itself. For the most part these days, the two parts of that hell that remain relevant are the hostile user experience and the developer pains parts, and Mobile Safari is the successor to both for over a decade now. No one supports IE11 anymore (let alone older IEs) but they still have to support Mobile Safari. I have fonder memories of dealing with IE11 (and earlier) support/workarounds over Mobile Safari's crap. My view is more power to actual Chromium-based browsers on mobile even if I personally use Firefox on PC and android despite their user experience shortcomings (at least they're not very hostile). The only part of hell I'd be worried about is that of a hostile user experience, which can be worked around by individual users if they are allowed choices.
  • userbinator 10mo ago
    It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem. Only for those misguided "push the web forward" idiots who just wanted the latest shiny shit, aided by Google's plans to control the Internet itself. Plain HTML worked well enough for everything else. Google's weapon is change. They have the resources to outcompete everyone else by churning the "standards" as much as they want. The less people think that constant change is necessary, the better the web will be.
• windexh8er 10mo ago
  [flagged]
• zmmmmm 10mo ago
  so you support a hegemony because you are opposed to hegemonies?
• idonotknowwhy 10mo ago
  100% agreed, and I've been explaining this to people for the past year. I have an iPhone now and miss Firefox for Android (with Ublock, sponsorblock, etc). But this painful restriction is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the new IE6. At a few startups I've worked for, the devs all use chrome exclusively, and only test in chrome during development. The only reason they consider other browsers, is because of Safari on iOS. Sometimes it's driven by support calls / complains from iOS users after a release. If Chrome's engine is allowed on iOS, that means support can just tell the users to install Chrome (like they do now if anyone has issues on Windows in other browsers). This means Firefox will usually work as well. Many years ago, I was able to swap banks when my bank's website stopped working in Opera 12. If all the major banks / websites target Chrome-only, we'll have no choice but to use it. And then we'll have no control as Google push new restrictions into Chrome.
• pdyc 10mo ago
  problem is apple also handicaps safari so web apps cannot compete with its apps ecosystem like deleting storage if you dont use it for a week or so in the name of security. It makes sense if there is storage pressure but if app is used rarely than you cannot have first class local experience you are forced to rely on server.
• eklavya 10mo ago
  Pretty damning evaluation of apple's capabilities to be sure that they won't be able to compete on merit! I don't believe that. So much apple software is absolutely loved.
  • MBCook 10mo ago
    I love Safari. I’ve used it since the day I bought a Mac not long after it was released. Back when they still bundled IE 5.5. I don’t think they can compete. Apple doesn’t release Safari on Windows (any more, god it was bad) and that basically kills their chance at desktop relevance. But even if they did my point is Google has way WAY WAY too much leverage and is already in an effective near monopoly position due to making Chromium. iOS is the only reasonably sized bastion left. And that’s entirely due to Apple’s policy, whether one thinks it’s right or wrong. The stakes are way too tilted. The market can’t function. And we’re about to see it “freed”, which is basically handing it to Google for a total monopoly. And I don’t like that future. Whatever I think of all the other issues with both Apple and Google right now and what has happened in the past.
• nisegami 10mo ago
  Can't the same entities compelling Apple to do this also compel Google to do or not do things?
  • MBCook 10mo ago
    Do you see them doing that on a short term? The best I saw was the case against Google in the US and they decided not to call for breakup. I don’t see the EU trying to unbundle everything they do.
• kayart_dev 10mo ago
  Although I partially agree with you, Firefox on Android is a wonderful mobile browser (with some weird stuff though). I would love to have the same Firefox on my iOS but it's currently just impossible.