6 ms·

Firefox is not in a position where it is the only browser allowed to run on a platform. On iOS, you’re either doing a native app, sharing 30% of your income wi

by pilif 6mo ago

Firefox is not in a position where it is the only browser allowed to run on a platform. On iOS, you’re either doing a native app, sharing 30% of your income with Apple, or you’re restricted to Safari’s feature set. No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit

mort96 6mo ago
Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. Going through some of the list from the top: * Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it. * Protocol Handling: This is non-standard. * File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it! * Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly. * Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API. * Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard. I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too. In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.
- leptons 6mo ago
  >Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. You missed the point completely. Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead. I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed. This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
  - burnerthrow008 6mo ago
    > They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). Why don’t you encourage them to get an Android? What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Chrome after you nag them with dark patterns? > I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. Sorry, not following you: Apple is forcing you to give them 30% of nothing? How exactly is that a problem? > Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. Yes, how dare Apple look after their [checks notes] customers by preventing devs from using the features that would most annoy their customers?!? Such a greedy thing for a company to do, to give customers what they want! The only true purpose of a company ought to make it easy to slurp up customer data and monetize eyeballs!
    - jasonlotito 6mo ago
      > What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Firefox 100% guaranteed people would. I know this for a fact. You somehow have proof of the negative for some reason. Maybe you can share that. Regardless, just because you are satisfied with iOS as a platform doesn't mean others don't continue to wish for improvements. Can I ask which version of iOS was perfect in our mind?
      - genthree 6mo ago
        > Can I ask which version of iOS was perfect in our mind? 6.
      - ymolodtsov 6mo ago
        What fact? Have you checked Firefox's market share even on desktop?
        6mo ago
- mh2266 6mo ago
  > Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I would rather prefer web pages do not gain the ability to make my phone vibrate.
bspinner 6mo ago
> No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit Your statement is true only outside of EU countries.
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  Specifically due to regulations that Apple incited.
- cromka 6mo ago
  Is any popular browser actually available with non-WebKit browser in EU? So far I wasn't able to confirm this.
  - omnimus 6mo ago
    No it's not. The percentage of people who actually can use alt stores is so small that nobody will really dedicate money to make browser build for iOS. Why would they when Apple would just make the work impossible anyway. It's pure malicious compliance from Apple. Anybody defending Apple on this is simply delusional.
    - cromka 6mo ago
      Alt stores and web engine stuff are two separate things: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... Browsers with alternative engines can be offered in regular AppStore. That's why I wonder why isn't this a thing. At the end of the day, browser makers probably want to reduce confusion and complexity of maintaining two vastly different applications under the same name. This most likely isn't a case of malicious compliance, you got yourself carried away here I think.
      - neomantra 6mo ago
        I think the main technological limitation is that other browsers cannot just-in-time compile (JIT) JavaScript or any other embedded language. Except in the EU. ETA: your link includes JIT; I’m pointing out that that’s why they don’t exist outside of the EU. Non-JIT browsers would just not be very performant.
raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from loot boxes and other pay to win game mechanics - cry my a river for those companies. The other companies that are making money from mobile are usually front end for services that don’t monetize directly through in app purchases or give you the option of not paying through the App Store. The first million in revenue is 15% not 30% But also if it is just Apple, why do the same companies create apps for Android? Let’s say in this world where there was an alternative browser engine that supported everything that you wanted, how much uptake do you think you would have for your app if someone had to download an alternate browser first? Did I also mention that in the US at least you can link out to your own payment system?
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- jakeydus 6mo ago
  Also let’s not forget that Google’s app store fees are also 30%
Klonoar 6mo ago
A significant amount of apps can get the 10% rule rather than 30%. It doesn’t necessarily change the point in the end but it is worth noting.

by pilif 6mo ago

mort96 6mo ago

Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. Going through some of the list from the top: * Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it. * Protocol Handling: This is non-standard. * File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it! * Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly. * Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API. * Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard. I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too. In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.

leptons 6mo ago
>Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. You missed the point completely. Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead. I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed. This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
- burnerthrow008 6mo ago
  > They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). Why don’t you encourage them to get an Android? What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Chrome after you nag them with dark patterns? > I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. Sorry, not following you: Apple is forcing you to give them 30% of nothing? How exactly is that a problem? > Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. Yes, how dare Apple look after their [checks notes] customers by preventing devs from using the features that would most annoy their customers?!? Such a greedy thing for a company to do, to give customers what they want! The only true purpose of a company ought to make it easy to slurp up customer data and monetize eyeballs!
  - jasonlotito 6mo ago
    > What makes you think that people who prefer an iOS device over Android would even install Firefox 100% guaranteed people would. I know this for a fact. You somehow have proof of the negative for some reason. Maybe you can share that. Regardless, just because you are satisfied with iOS as a platform doesn't mean others don't continue to wish for improvements. Can I ask which version of iOS was perfect in our mind?
    - genthree 6mo ago
      > Can I ask which version of iOS was perfect in our mind? 6.
    - ymolodtsov 6mo ago
      What fact? Have you checked Firefox's market share even on desktop?
      - 6mo ago
mh2266 6mo ago
> Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I would rather prefer web pages do not gain the ability to make my phone vibrate.

bspinner 6mo ago

> No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit Your statement is true only outside of EU countries.

bigyabai 6mo ago
Specifically due to regulations that Apple incited.
cromka 6mo ago
Is any popular browser actually available with non-WebKit browser in EU? So far I wasn't able to confirm this.
- omnimus 6mo ago
  No it's not. The percentage of people who actually can use alt stores is so small that nobody will really dedicate money to make browser build for iOS. Why would they when Apple would just make the work impossible anyway. It's pure malicious compliance from Apple. Anybody defending Apple on this is simply delusional.
  - cromka 6mo ago
    Alt stores and web engine stuff are two separate things: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... Browsers with alternative engines can be offered in regular AppStore. That's why I wonder why isn't this a thing. At the end of the day, browser makers probably want to reduce confusion and complexity of maintaining two vastly different applications under the same name. This most likely isn't a case of malicious compliance, you got yourself carried away here I think.
    - neomantra 6mo ago
      I think the main technological limitation is that other browsers cannot just-in-time compile (JIT) JavaScript or any other embedded language. Except in the EU. ETA: your link includes JIT; I’m pointing out that that’s why they don’t exist outside of the EU. Non-JIT browsers would just not be very performant.

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago

It came out in the Epic trial that 90% of App Store revenue comes from loot boxes and other pay to win game mechanics - cry my a river for those companies. The other companies that are making money from mobile are usually front end for services that don’t monetize directly through in app purchases or give you the option of not paying through the App Store. The first million in revenue is 15% not 30% But also if it is just Apple, why do the same companies create apps for Android? Let’s say in this world where there was an alternative browser engine that supported everything that you wanted, how much uptake do you think you would have for your app if someone had to download an alternate browser first? Did I also mention that in the US at least you can link out to your own payment system?

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
jakeydus 6mo ago
Also let’s not forget that Google’s app store fees are also 30%

Klonoar 6mo ago

A significant amount of apps can get the 10% rule rather than 30%. It doesn’t necessarily change the point in the end but it is worth noting.