| |
| ▲ | crazygringo 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web I think that's the hypothetical part, it's not reality. Safari continues to be a fully modern browser. It doesn't release new features quite as fast as Chrome, but it does generally adopt them. If Apple were attempting to put a "stranglehold on innovations on the web", Safari's feature set would look very different. But that's not what's happening. Like I said, Apple does lots of anticompetitive things. I'm not blind to what they do with the app store. I just don't think that the single browser engine policy is motivated by this, or has much effect on it, given how Apple does keep maintaining Safari as a modern browser. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 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 | | |
| ▲ | ChadNauseam 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 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-insta... | | |
| ▲ | concinds 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it's just not true. Interop 2025 is a subset of web features, but Apple gets a veto on which features get included in each Interop round, and vetoes heavily. It doesn't reflect interoperability in general. Safari also consistently starts out the worst each year, and improves the slowest. They don't support notifications correctly, they have a semi-broken implementation. Only a subset of sites will work, even though they'll work perfectly on Chrome or Firefox or even minor browsers. Even if you put the site on the homescreen. | |
| ▲ | leptons 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Safari is the worst browser by far, especially on iOS. Apple also does things their own way, ignoring standards, so that I have to have a real actual iPhone to debug their platform-specific problems, especially around touch interactions. >Can you give an example? Web Bluetooth API, and lots of others. My product could use bluetooth but we're forced to work around Apple's Safari limitations and use Wifi instead, which drains the battery faster. We do not want to write a specific app for iOS (which costs us money to build and maintain), which then allows Apple to extort us for a percentage of sales through the app. Bluetooth would be the better option, but Wifi works although is a bit more cumbersome to deal with. So sorry Apple fans, you have to use wifi with our product because Apple reasons. I am going to open a bottle of champagne when the DOJ finally forces Apple to allow other browsers on iOS. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline | |
| ▲ | jauntywundrkind 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Personally my feel is Safari at least isn't dead in the water any more, does ship some stuff. It's much better than 2 years ago. 4 years ago it was a travesty. But there's still all sorts of wonkiness they just makes Safari non viable. If you don't PWA install, your storage gets cleared alarmingly quickly. If you do install it's still cleared wicked fast. Notifications seem to have incredibly unreliable delivery issues and require PWA installs to work at all. The features are closer to parity than before but the base functionality is still sabotaged deeply. 'The user is secure' with Apple is amazing doublespeak (the second meaning being securely in Apple's pocket with no where to go). It's worth noting that Interop participants meet and decide via unanimous consent what they are going to work on each year. The anti-trust case against Apple would be far stronger if they didn't show up & find some stuff to work on, to agree to. And with apologies as I break out the tin foil hat, showing up also gives them some leverage to shape what doesn't get worked on too. | |
| ▲ | kelthuzad 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> 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 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome". The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant. BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about. | | |
| ▲ | kelthuzad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome". There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge. >BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about. So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds. Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships". > The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once. > And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard"). [1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ | | |
| ▲ | kelthuzad 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds. It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact. >There's no broader argument. There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely. >You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1][1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "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." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938 >and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xp84 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed. | | |
| ▲ | troupo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) Yes > but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed. Note that Firefox's position is literally exactly the same as Apple's on these Chrome-only features: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | givinguflac 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | leptons 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | kalleboo 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > 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 | |
| ▲ | otterley 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. So then why doesn't Firefox support the Web Bluetooth API either? How can you jump to the conclusion that the lack of Safari support is about apps? The reality is that the Web Bluetooth API is a draft. Not ratified. Not on the formal standards track. And Firefox doesn't even intend to implement it, due to security and privacy concerns around it and the fact that is it not ratified. But go on assuming it's all about being anticompetitive... > It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it? I just did a Ctrl+F for Bluetooth and everything relates to smartwatches, not web APIs. There are only two references to Safari, none of which say anything about standards. The phrase "web standard" appears nowhere. The document is 88 pages long, and it's not immediately obvious to me where any of what you're talking about is spelled out. I hope you'll understand I'm not going to spend my afternoon reading the whole thing. | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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? |
|
| |
| ▲ | troupo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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_th... --- end quote --- |
| |
| ▲ | aryonoco 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Safari is the modern IE. the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari. The only reason Apple has banned alternative engines and continues to hold back on major web technologies is anticompetitive behaviour. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, I think Chrome is the modern IE. It has huge market share, to the point where developers often just ignore the other browsers or at best treat them as P2. Just like they did when IE was dominant. I'm torn on this honestly. Safari (particularly mobile Safari) is literally the only thing keeping the web from becoming Chrome-only. While I would love to see Safari-alternative engines on the iPhone, I fear that the "open web" in terms of browser compatibility is cooked the day that happens: Commercial web developers are supremely lazy and their product managers are, too. They will consider the web Chrome-only from that day forward and simply refuse to lift a finger for other browsers. I think when IE6 died, on one hand it was a relief for web developers, who (very quickly) deleted all the code needed to maintain compatibility, but on the other hand, it made the web worse by bringing us closer to browser monopoly. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Chrome is the IE in that it’s all the web devs target or test and the browser that every enterprise just uses as the assumed target. Safari is the late-stage IE that doesn’t add any features or modern standards that its (supposed) competitors add. Although Apple seems to have different and more strategic reasons than MS did. Apple just hates the Web because they can’t effectively tollbooth it, whereas I think MS just didn’t care about investing in IE after 2001 or so. |
| |
| ▲ | crazygringo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Safari is the modern IE. That's not true. It's not even available on most computers. IE was about Microsoft not following web standards and abusing its monopoly position; Safari is a minor browser by overall market share and is broadly standards-compliant. > the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari. So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those? | | |
| ▲ | kelthuzad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those? Says who? "Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others. To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457849 | |
| ▲ | realusername 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Safari is a minor browser by overall market share and is broadly standards-compliant. It's officially compliant but in practice there's a lot of buggy implementations in Safari and you'll spend lots of time on workarounds and debugging. It's also the last non-evergreen browser being tied to the OS so it's the slowest to update, compounding that effect. > So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those? Personally I think that's because it's still not that convenient even on Android even if better. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If those are the extent of complaints, then I think Safari's doing just fine. That's nothing like the next IE, and shows that PWA still have their own problems regardless of Apple. | | |
| ▲ | kelthuzad 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's interesting how the "Apple can do no wrong" shareholders and "I will hate on PWAs no matter what" types, curiously converge and keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been addressed ad nauseam, even in this thread. Every technology has its "own problems" regardless of Apple, but it certainly doesn't help when Apple, being one of the biggest companies in the world, persistently engages in its sabotage. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | avar 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Steve Jobs himself envisioned a
> web app future as the future of[...]
I'm not putting cynical motivations past Apple, but you're reading too much (or too little?) into what Jobs said at the time.His remarks at the time of the initial iPhone release (with the benefit of hindsight) were clearly because they weren't ready to expose any sort of native API's. Pissing on you and telling you it's raining was typical Jobs reality distortion field marketing, and not an indication that he actually believed it was raining. | |
| ▲ | otterley 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other. If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it. | | |
| ▲ | greiskul 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie Just read the summary that Gemini provides for a good quick understanding, and follow up the multiple articles about it. Then please don't come back and say that there is nothing concrete about this evidence, that is just people speculating about a behavior that Apple has been engaging repeatedly and continuously for over a decade. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Look, I agree that Safari sucks, but with or without the AI overview (which I don’t believe is Gemini, rather that is a very cheap and dumb model that’s been told to summarize a few top results), linking to a search is not a strong debating technique. I could link to a search for “Safari has the best technology” and it would have the same zero value. | |
| ▲ | otterley 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is you that needs to cite the evidence, not some LLM, and with hard facts coupled with evidence of intent, not just referring to mere opinions. You claim to know something with certainty, so one can reasonably expect you have the expertise and data to prove it. If you come to the kitchen claiming to be a chef, you’d better come with sharp knives, not photos of them. | |
| ▲ | givinguflac 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seriously, you expect people to click a Google search link for people who agree with you- and then read what the LLM has to say?? When did HN become a garbage dump where people don’t do their own research and/or thinking? | | |
| ▲ | otterley 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | About 10 years ago, by my reckoning. The less people know about a subject, the more strongly opinionated and certain they are about it. It’s not just HN, though; it’s a very human condition. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | michaelt 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves. Unfortunately, the makers of a certain browser also control several major web properties, and regularly make 'mistakes' that break compatibility with competing browsers, while releasing a set of apps that 'forget' users' browser selections on a monthly basis. Personally, I'd much prefer apple allowed a browser engine with proper ad blocking support. But I do worry that the moment they do so, the almost-monopoly browser market would become a total monopoly. | |
| ▲ | n8cpdx 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Safari exclusivity is the only reason we aren’t living in a 100% “this site built for chrome” world. I think folks must forget the IE days and how bad that was. There is zero percent chance developers are wasting a second making sure their sites actually work cross platform if not for iOS (and iOS more moneyed user base). | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | We were in a “built for Netscape” world right before IE had its brief window of innovation in versions 4-5. The fact that people were building to IE though was only painful for a few specific reasons:
1. the versions of IE targeted were exclusive to Windows (Mac IE was way different, so it wasn’t that useful for when the site had targeted Windows IE) 2. IE stopped all development of useful UI or web standards features, meaning if you needed the compatibility you were stuck with a stagnant browser 3. Due to #2, of course web devs hands were tied when it comes to adopting things like HTML5, <video> tags etc. Users would have needed to switch between the two constantly — Firefox for cool new sites and IE for their bank, school, government, whatever. I would posit that none of the above seems true about Chromium. They do continue developing it, they add new web standards the most aggressively of anyone, and it’s available on basically every platform except the one Apple bans it from.
Mind you I don’t really want Google to own it, because they are way too damn big even without Chrome… but honestly it’s no IE situation. |
| |
| ▲ | Tagbert 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Safari has long been better for battery than Chrome but people still install Chrome on their MacBooks. | | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yep. Chrome's mindshare and momentum is incredibly difficult to overcome, and outside of technology-oriented circles users generally don't develop associations between specific programs and poor battery life unless it gets the fans blaring like you're running Cyberpunk 2077 with setting cranked to max or something. It's similar to how the overwhelming majority of people driving cars aren't going to make note of the difference in driving dynamics between CVT and automatic transmissions unless one severely underperforms compared to the other. It either runs or it doesn't and that's where the distinction ends for people who treat their car/computer/phone as an appliance. |
| |
| ▲ | crazygringo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > people will figure that out and adapt for themselves No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person. > Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there. > Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves >No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person. Yes they will, Apple has made it very easy to see. To check iOS app power usage, go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app for the last 24 hours or 10 days, showing usage time and background activity, allowing you to identify power-hungry apps and manage settings like Background App Refresh to improve battery life. So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it? >The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there. If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Javascript is already very much sandboxed. And there have been plenty of exploits that already target Safari. So saying other browsers are the problem is like blaming the victim (of Apple's anti-competitive practices). >Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are. If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS. The real reason Apple disallows other browser engines on Safari is so they can force developers to create native apps where they can get a cut of any purchase made through the app. The problems with Apple's anti-competitive practices have been spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against them: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline | | |
| ▲ | otterley 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Apple made it very clear that their security concerns related to third party browsing engines are about difficult-to-contain threats posed by JIT compilation. (JITs require non-text memory pages to be executable.) Apple doesn’t allow other apps to use such technology, so they’re consistent in that respect. Apple even disables JIT for Safari itself when you put an iPhone in lockdown mode, at no small cost to performance, in an effort to harden the device even more. Do you have a rebuttal to that? | | |
| ▲ | concinds 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. Safari is a less secure browser than Chrome, architecturally. Took far longer to ship sandboxing. Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation. Takes far longer to fix reported vulnerabilities, and consistently "fixes" them superficially and incorrectly, requiring another fix. Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation. Those are interesting facts, but are ultimately a red herring. How will enabling JIT for other browser engines, absent the detailed vetting Apple is requiring to provide a Web Browser Engine entitlement, yield a more secure outcome? > Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it. You are, of course, welcome to choose an alternative. If you prefer Android, by all means, use it! | | |
| ▲ | concinds 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The "vetting" is irrelevant because the other engines will continue to not exist. By design. I am currently forced to use a less secure browser due to Apple's restrictions, which invalidates your original claim. Your skillful dodging of that point is why it's so frustrating to have any conversation about Apple. There really are cult-like aspects. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it? It's easy to see, but seeing doesn't mean the user will do anything about it. I guarantee that for the average user, their list goes something like Instagram/TikTok/FaceBook/Twitter, and they haven't uninstalled any of those yet due to battery drain... | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check? > If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution. > There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Yes there is -- JavaScript. > Javascript is already very much sandboxed. ...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser. > If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS. That's a non-sequitur. | | |
| ▲ | leptons 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check? It does not matter. The functionality is there. If a user can't figure it out then they have other problems that having a smartphone won't fix for them. >No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution. You mean Javascript interpreters inside a web browser? lol. You mean like Safari is allowed to do? So only Apple can allow Apple apps to do this? I'm not sure you're thinking this through. Apples rule is a made-up rule designed to keep competition out, and force developers to write native apps so Apple can extort the developers by taking a percentage of purchases made through the native app. >Yes there is -- JavaScript. That's the dumbest possible argument you could make. Javascript has been very much sandboxed and secure for a very long time. There have been flaws in Safari that allowed remote code execution had nothing to do with Javascript, so good luck moving that goalpost somewhere else. >...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser. I'm not recommending my users use H@ck0rbR0Ws3R, I'm recommending they use Google Chrome, specifically because it supports the APIs my company needs to use for our product (on Android at least). Okay Tim Apple, the DOJ is coming for you. You can explain this all to them when they come knocking, and they will. |
|
|
|
|
