5 ms·

The biggest question imo is why does Mozilla not do this

majima 3mo ago
i think it's because it will not pass AppStore review
nar001 3mo ago
If you want to have a browser with a different engine you need a whole different developer account org, you need to maintain two different code bases and you need to very specifically set everything up to pass all of Apple's tests, which are incredibly onerous in time and work, so it doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do so for such a small market share (hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them)
- 05 3mo ago
  > hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them It’s more likely that Google is trying to boycott EU initiatives to the extent it can since giving them any support would only turn the public opinion more favorable towards more US tech regulation, and that’s very much against Google’s own interests.
  - wolvoleo 3mo ago
    Also, Google is quite comfortable with the current duopoly in the EU market which works in their favour. The last thing they want is chrome becoming even more dominant on the mobile market there.
cognitiveinline 3mo ago
Long read, but it exactly explains why: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/
- touwer 3mo ago
  Thx!
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Thank you!
jeroenhd 3mo ago
One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world. Creating a separate app would work, but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone). Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are. Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store (which is what the Github repo linked is doing), which is an amount paid per user that downloads an app outside of the app store. Epic has promised to cover that cost (out of spite, probably) for one of the major alternative stores, but if they go back on their promises you're suddenly paying Apple so people can use your free app on the phones they bought. There are also other issues (Apple's arbitrary testing requirements, for one); Apple has once again succeeded in implementing the law in such a way that it's impossible to exercise your rights. Until the next big Apple lawsuit about this, I don't expect browser companies to bother with a non-Safari overlay.
- ghusto 3mo ago
  Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough. > but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone) You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care? > Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are. They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence. > Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.
mpaco 3mo ago
There has been some work on porting Gecko to iOS, but there doesn't seem to have been any progress in over a year: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907
ghusto 3mo ago
I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.
- lmorchard 3mo ago
  The Firefox repo gets 100-300 changesets per day, up to 1000 commits per week. Around 100-150 contributors land those in any given week. That's activity comparable to Linux or Chromium. And, the release schedule is accelerating from a four-week cadence to a two-week cadence this fall. Just because other efforts and initiatives are flasher or noisier doesn't mean Firefox isn't the main priority.
inigyou 3mo ago
Maybe they don't have the legal budget to sue Apple.
dadoum 3mo ago
This is based on Firefox's own iOS work, but their target is BrowserEngineKit, not making a web browser destined to jailbroken/TrollStore devices on older firmwares.

i think it's because it will not pass AppStore review

If you want to have a browser with a different engine you need a whole different developer account org, you need to maintain two different code bases and you need to very specifically set everything up to pass all of Apple's tests, which are incredibly onerous in time and work, so it doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do so for such a small market share (hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them)

05 3mo ago
> hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them It’s more likely that Google is trying to boycott EU initiatives to the extent it can since giving them any support would only turn the public opinion more favorable towards more US tech regulation, and that’s very much against Google’s own interests.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Also, Google is quite comfortable with the current duopoly in the EU market which works in their favour. The last thing they want is chrome becoming even more dominant on the mobile market there.

cognitiveinline 3mo ago

Long read, but it exactly explains why: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/ https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/

touwer 3mo ago
Thx!
wolvoleo 3mo ago
Thank you!

jeroenhd 3mo ago

One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world. Creating a separate app would work, but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone). Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are. Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store (which is what the Github repo linked is doing), which is an amount paid per user that downloads an app outside of the app store. Epic has promised to cover that cost (out of spite, probably) for one of the major alternative stores, but if they go back on their promises you're suddenly paying Apple so people can use your free app on the phones they bought. There are also other issues (Apple's arbitrary testing requirements, for one); Apple has once again succeeded in implementing the law in such a way that it's impossible to exercise your rights. Until the next big Apple lawsuit about this, I don't expect browser companies to bother with a non-Safari overlay.

ghusto 3mo ago
Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough. > but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone) You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care? > Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are. They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence. > Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.

mpaco 3mo ago

There has been some work on porting Gecko to iOS, but there doesn't seem to have been any progress in over a year: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907

ghusto 3mo ago

I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.

lmorchard 3mo ago
The Firefox repo gets 100-300 changesets per day, up to 1000 commits per week. Around 100-150 contributors land those in any given week. That's activity comparable to Linux or Chromium. And, the release schedule is accelerating from a four-week cadence to a two-week cadence this fall. Just because other efforts and initiatives are flasher or noisier doesn't mean Firefox isn't the main priority.

inigyou 3mo ago

Maybe they don't have the legal budget to sue Apple.

dadoum 3mo ago

This is based on Firefox's own iOS work, but their target is BrowserEngineKit, not making a web browser destined to jailbroken/TrollStore devices on older firmwares.