| ▲ | ChadNauseam 5 hours 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 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 4 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 4 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/ |
|
|
|
