Remix.run Logo
▲ TheDong 7 hours ago

First let us install other browser engines on iOS, and then we can talk.

Safari has the most obscene monopoly of any browser ever. IE 6 came pre-installed on windows machines, but you could always install Mosaic or such.

Google Chromebooks come with Chrome as the only default browser, but you can still run Firefox on Chromebooks just fine (even in two different ways, the supported android app version, and the semi-supported linux terminal + launching firefox that way).

Heck, iOS's monopolistic behavior is so bad that multiple regions (the EU + Japan) have already ruled against their behavior, though in reality Apple has complied in a way that makes it impossible to actually make a second browser engine for iOS still (going against the spirit of the law, but the courts haven't caught up to them yet).

Safari is also an awful browser in that it requires someone to buy an expensive machine to see if their site works on it.

I can run a windows trial copy in a VM to see if my site works in IE, I can run Chrome or Firefox on linux to verify if my site works in them. I can install a free android emulator on any common OS to see that my site renders right in those.

But Apple doesn't give me a legal way to freely run an iOS simulator nor even a macOS VM on my linux machine, I have to pay money, to buy their hardware to see if my site will work on Safari.

And even worse, Safari is the browser with the largest number of rendering bugs and quirks currently, while also having a huge number of users (since iOS users can't install another browser), so any web developers are basically forced to shell out for apple hardware.

▲Lammy 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

And lest anybody say it's not possible, I personally use a jailbreak tweak for this on my iPhone 11 / iOS 18 / Dopamine 3.0 that works flawlessly:

- https://github.com/guacforlife/ReynardDefault

- https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser

▲simondotau an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The health of the web as an open platform is defined by browser diversity, not browser choice. As the only major platform that hasn’t been functionally taken over by Chrome/chromium, iOS represents the last real defensive line against Google owning the web.

Remember, you are a web developer, not a chrome platform developer. Don’t be complicit in Google’s slow-moving coup.

The only people who complain about Safari are lazy web developers who fail to appreciate what it means for the web to be an open platform. Testing your website on two browser engines (and accepting that not everything is going to work perfectly in both) is literally the lowest bar expected of you.

▲vrganj an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Safari is a dirty monopolist on mobile just as much as Chrome is on desktop.

▲simondotau an hour ago | parent [-]

I reject your assertion because it promulgates the lie of "browser choice". The health of the web as an open platform is defined by browser diversity, not browser choice.

A bit of forced diversity is wildly preferable over another collapse towards monoculture.

▲bigyabai 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> The health of the web as an open platform is defined by browser diversity, not browser choice.

Says who? I certainly don't agree with that statement, the "web as an open platform" was unrecognizable when proprietary clients were the norm.

▲vrganj 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

But there is no browser diversity on mobile. I'd like to use Firefox on iOS.

▲ 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲srcreigh 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agree that it should be easier to test on safari from other platforms.

But no way is it a good idea to let other browser engines onto the OS.

I can’t make it website owners problem that their site doesn’t work on non-Google browser. Apple can.

Safari sucks but it’s the only thing stopping Chrome from taking over everything.

Im happy if Google never has that amount of control. We don’t know how bad it could have been, we have enough privacy issues already.

▲thunderbong 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

IMHO, that also should be addressed from the legal perspective very strongly. But forcing Safari for every Apple owner is certainly not the solution.

▲GeekyBear 28 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Allowing Google to use their control of the web to kill the most effective method of blocking ads is the solution?

No.

People need to stop using Chrome and Chromium based browsers and use browsers based on implementations of the web standards that are out of Google's control.

Firefox on Android supports the full version of uBlock Origin.

Chrome on Android doesn't support it.

▲simondotau 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's ridiculous. You can't solve a monoculture with the legal system. The only solution is forced diversity, and to that end, I congratulate Apple for being the last guardian of the web as a truly open platform.

▲xoa 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>IMHO, that also should be addressed from the legal perspective very strongly

Then do that FIRST (or at the same time). Don't give us, yet AGAIN, the tired bs song and dance about how you'll make things worse first and then totally someday address the other part properly, and oops what a surprise that turns out to be too hard nevermind.

>But forcing Safari for every Apple owner is certainly not the solution.

Objectively it is a solution though. Because it's been done, and it's been more effective than nothing, while meanwhile nothing has happened from a legal or political angles. If a better solution can be done down the road great, but a hack dealing with a problem non-optimally can absolutely be better then just having the problem completely unaddressed. And count me skeptical that any government is going to have the will or capability to actually address what a lot of us already hate about not just the Chrome monopoly but that entire approach (I don't in fact want my web browser to be a full lowest common denominator operating system with low level hardware access thanks). I dislike much of what Apple does now but I'm glad their selfish interests have happened not to align that way either. Until monopoly lock-in gets better addressed, one of the main ways to push back is via another monopoly lock-in that has different incentives.

▲HumblyTossed 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But no way is it a good idea to let other browser engines onto the OS.

It's my device. I should be able to whatever the hell I want with it.

▲simondotau an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You bought it knowing that you couldn’t.

▲ApolloFortyNine an hour ago | parent [-]

If the one other competitor didn't allow it, then would we be allowed to complain in your mind?

This argument is terrible, we're lucky the one other competitor, for now, allows installing what you want or people like you would argue everything is fine.

▲simondotau 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

If nobody makes the product you want, we call that a business opportunity.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲bloppe 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But no way is it a good idea to let other browser engines onto the OS.

Easy. Just legislate that the only browser allowed on iPhones is Firefox. That way, Chrome can't monopolize the web, and iPhone users get to have a decent browser.

▲freecodeio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

if someone told me you have to use ie6 so chrome doesn't take over every browser, then I'll just use chrome

▲SoftTalker 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

At the time the roles were reversed. The spin was "use Chrome to break the IE browser monopoly." And Chrome was a better browser, and much faster. It worked.

▲simondotau 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Firefox broke the IE monopoly. Chrome rode Firefox's coat-tails with exclusive access to advertising space on the #1 website in the world.

▲srcreigh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not if ie6 is your only option

▲leptons 6 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>But no way is it a good idea to let other browser engines onto the OS.

And giving Apple a monopoly is a better idea? What kind of crack are you smoking? Oh, yeah, the apple fanboi crack.

>Safari sucks but it’s the only thing stopping Chrome from taking over everything.

Forcing users to use the Safari browser engine when they install Firefox or anything else is not the way to protect anyone from anything. It's abusive in its own way. And Apple is not going to save anyone from Google. People are still using Google services through Safari, because they are services Apple either sucks at or doesn't offer.

>Im happy if Google never has that amount of control. We don’t know how bad it could have been, we have enough privacy issues already.

So you're fine giving over all control to Apple. Apple already has way too much control. Being on the W3C board, they use their power to block any browser API that could make web browsers more capable, which would cut into their native app mafia racket where they charge 30% of any purchase done through an app. They don't offer any alternatives, or any changes - they just squash anything they see as competitive to native apps. That's how fucked up they are. They are literally holding back progress for no good reason - not security, not for privacy, it's purely for their own greed.

▲bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm getting some serious "Microsoft has to protect Internet Explorer from evil competitors like Netscape" vibes from this comment.

Safari simply sucks. If WebKit was any good, then Apple wouldn't have to worry about allowing third-party engines onto iOS. The situation on Mac tells us everything we need to know.

▲robotnikman 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Safari is also an awful browser in that it requires someone to buy an expensive machine to see if their site works on it.

I remember a long time ago they used to make a Windows version of Safari you could download and install, but at some point they stopped.

▲2III7 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For testing one could use any other webkit browser. Most of them have similar rendering quirks to Safari.

▲wongarsu 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Anecdotally that's not enough. I've deal with multiple quirks that only happen in Safari but not in linux-based webkit browsers

▲oneplane an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

They still have webkit builds for Windows and Linux etc, and you still don't need to buy anything special to run it. I think they also have a (mostly?) headless one, and a mini-browser which is intended to test the engine (so it doesn't have things like bookmarks or profiles or anything like that, a good fit). Similar options exist for FireFox and Chromium so it's not really a Safari/Webkit special. Usually gets used when you use a standard containerised browser testing CI step.

Either way, if someone is still manually testing their website instead of using a standard automated testing system you're probably not really in a league where this matters anyway.. and if they are, you probably have a device farm already.

Not sure where the "my thing is so important, I have to test it on a real device, but I can't pay for it" niche is.

▲ch_sm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I‘m a long-time Safari user, and I still prefer it, but I nonetheless concur with everything you said in this post.

▲floorsthelimit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I only use Apple hardware. I’ve never used safari only Firefox or brave. I don’t understand why you are saying it is a monopoly.

▲wongarsu 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

On macOS it isn't an issue. But on iPhone all the browsers are just different user interfaces for Safari's rendering engine

▲floorsthelimit an hour ago | parent [-]

Oh wow. I didn’t know that. Is that true for brave too?

▲hnav an hour ago | parent [-]

Basically not possible to do JIT (needed for decent JS perf) on iOS for 3p apps (since that requires pages that are both writable and executable) and then on top of that Apple bans 3p browsers specifically in markets where they're allowed to.

▲kwanbix 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least on iOS, if I am not mistaken, you can only run the Safari Engine. Even if you run Firefox or Chrome, it is running Safari under the hood. That is what I understand. Please, correctme if I am wrong.

▲warkdarrior 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At least in US, Firefox on iPhone is basically a reskin of the Safari engine.

▲chasil an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Safari has real problems compared to Chrome on other platforms.

Primarily, incognito mode is difficult to access. Android allows a shortcut to be dropped to start in this mode.

Cut and paste is also awkward and uncomfortable in Safari compared to Android.

My first move on iOS is to install Firefox Focus, to get Safari's history under control.

▲dylan604 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you use some of the cloud providers that now allow for a macOS instance? I know I know, but maybe better than nothing?

▲tharos47 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No because apple mandate 24h leasing minimum time.

▲timcobb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed but ironically it's this monopoly that keeps webkit in the game

▲nalekberov an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apple used to release Safari for Windows, but then for obvious reasons it stopped.

Apple is all about control.

▲FireBeyond 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When you install Chrome, which you cannot accidentally do, and when you set it as the OS browser default, which you also cannot accidentally do...

... the next time you launch Safari, it will say that the default browser has been changed, "Did you mean to do that?" and of the two options presented ("Keep using Chrome" or "Switch back to Safari") the Safari option will be the default.

▲zsoltkacsandi 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> First let us install other browser engines on iOS, and then we can talk

Just checked in the App Store, I can install Firefox, Opera, Brave, and many many other browsers on my iPhone.

▲dylan604 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Those are not the same underpinnings as their desktop/Android brethren. All of these iOS apps are still using WebKit.

▲greggsy 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Forgive my ignorance.

How is the iOS engine requirement considered a monopoly?

▲cassianoleal 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because Apple controls the only browser engine that runs on iOS and iPadOS. There are no alternatives. Chrome, Firefox and other browsers are just the browser chrome on top of the Safari/WebKit engine. Apple will not allow anything else.

▲alt227 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> browser chrome

Bad choice of term!

▲latexr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Fun fact, the Google Chrome team was very aware of “browser chrome” as a term when they named their browser. They make that clear in the introductory comic.

https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/big_24.html

▲joemi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

iOS and iPadOS aren't the most dominant OSes, so therefore this can't be a monopoly.

▲foolswisdom 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Apple isn't the most dominant business on earth, so maybe they can't do anything in violation of antitrust?

Not how it works. You define a relevant market, and the market of iPhone users (which a stable market, there are barriers to just switching to android tomorrow) can be used for evaluation.

▲ an hour ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
▲ur-whale 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

iOS is a de-facto monopoly in the first place.

▲yipinwong 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As much as I am pro-android, this is a dumb take.

Numbers say otherwise.

▲mingus88 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Ridiculous take

Android’s global marketshare is 70% of mobile so you would have to declare a monopoly as “things I can run on an iPhone” as your position for that to work

There is plenty of competition and choice to iOS, you just won’t find that on Apple hardware for reasons that have held for three decades

▲lxgr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> so you would have to declare a monopoly as “things I can run on an iPhone” as your position for that to work

Yes, that's pretty much it. A similar concern applies to Google and Android.

▲alt227 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But you can install other OSes such as Graphene on Android phones, I dont think you can do that on iPhones can you?

https://grapheneos.org/

▲NekkoDroid 2 hours ago | parent [-]

On a lot of Android devices you can't install ANY other custom OS because of locked down bootloaders. If you want GrapheneOS specifically that list is even narrower due to 1. official support 2. hardware security features just missing from the devices.

▲mingus88 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Does Ford have a monopoly position on the F150 because I can’t run Linux on it?

▲joemi 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not how monopolies work, though.

▲lxgr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's absolutely how they work. If there's only a single grocery store in town (and for whatever reason others can't be opened), is that somehow not a monopoly even though there are several pharmacies and hardware stores?

▲mingus88 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You can buy whatever phone you want. Many of them can run multiple OSes if that’s what you want. There is not a single mobile platform in town.

When Ford sells me an F150 I don’t cry about them having a monopoly on their Sync platform. That’s not now monopolies work

▲joemi an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's not a good analogy for the situation. A better grocery-based analogy would be if there's only a single Bob's Grocery in town (and for whatever reason more Bob's Groceries can't be opened) but there is a Sally's Groceries in town. Then Bob's Groceries isn't a monopoly. The only thing Bob's Groceries is a monopoly of is Bob's Groceries, which is a useless tautological argument.

Apple has neither a monopoly on phones nor on app marketplaces.

▲imthatsteve 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you read the post you replied to?

Are you just being pedantic about the definition of monopoly or did you fail to understand the problem as it was explained.

Do you use ios? If so do you like using broken websites? Do you have no desire for things to function as intended?

Id imagine its very annoying as a developer to have your things broken for no reason other than pure corporate greed.

If you do use ios then you probably enjoy paying more for an inferior product so ig this is more of a feature than a bug.

▲simondotau 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Id imagine its very annoying as a developer to

...test on more than one browser platform? Seriously? Is this how lazy the industry has become? Is this how far we've fallen?

Having websites say "if it doesn't work, install Chrome" is not choice.

▲protimewaster 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would I use the global market share to determine if someone has a monopoly, though? It seems like a flawed way to determine how much choice consumers have.

For example, there's a monopoly on garbage service where I live, but he company with the monopoly has basically 0% of the world market.

▲snapcaster 4 hours ago | parent [-]

How do you defend a company with 30% marketshare being a monopoly but the other company with 70% market share isn't? I can see the duopoly argument, but no idea how apple could be a monopoly by itself

▲protimewaster 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not defending anybody. I'm just saying, if I live in a market where one company has 99% of the market, somebody coming in and saying "There's not a monopoly. They only have 30% of the global market! " isn't going to make me feel any better, because I don't live everywhere in the world. I live where I live, and that company has 99% of the market there.

I just don't think the 30% of the global market number is relevant to anything in terms of arguing if somebody has a monopoly. Are there even any countries who use a definition of "monopoly" that uses global marketshare to determine if there's a monopoly? Surely those definitions all look at marketshare within some specific region?

▲floydnoel 3 hours ago | parent [-]

that argument doesn't relate to this discussion at all, though. you aren't limited to only buying Apple devices in your neighborhood, are you?

▲protimewaster 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There are entire countries where one company has 93%+ marketshare. Yes, maybe people can go to another country where the marketshare is different, but do we all seriously think that the global marketshare not resembling a monopoly definitely means that there's no one market where a monopoly exists?

I imagine trying to effectively use (or market) a competing product in a region with 93%+ marketshare is a painful experience, regardless of whether the global marketshare is more balanced.

Using global marketshare hides details like that. Apple could have 100% of the market in China and India, and Android could have 100% of the marketshare in the rest of the world. This would put, worldwide, Apple at about 35% and Android at about 65%. I would argue there are clearly monopolies in that case, though, even if the worldwide numbers are 65 and 35.

▲bigyabai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Being a monopoly isn't illegal. So many discussions gloss over this fact, and people get at each other's throat over hypothetical abuses and ad-hominem scenarios.

Abusing a monopoly is illegal. Alphabet and Apple are both unquestionably monopoly businesses, and make incredible year-over-year revenue through market-damaging services like AdSense and the App Store. If they are allowed to continue, then other Fortune 500 businesses will copy their decisions, thereby destroying genuine market value that they provide in exchange for safer, more exploitative revenue streams.

In the case of AdSense and Apple's App Store both, I think that any fair FTC investigation would conclude they are shakedown services that harm the greater economy.

▲snapcaster 3 hours ago | parent [-]

When nothing is stopping you from using an alternative i just don't see it

▲bigyabai 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You could have said the same thing about Windows during it's antitrust case.

Fat lot of good that logic would do Microsoft when they were deliberately gimping competitors.

▲mithr an hour ago | parent | next [-]

You couldn't have, though. Market share was a part of that Microsoft decision. At the time, they had 90-95% of the global market share — there were very few competitors. Apple has a higher though still in the 50s percentage-wise market share in the US, but a 20-30% share globally. Alternatives are much more viable in Apple's case, and often cheaper. You have to want an Apple device to get one, and it's very easy to get an Android instead and not lose out on any important software or functional ability.

In addition, I think Apple has so far somewhat successfully argued that they have reasons for restricting their ecosystem that aren't just a thinly veiled "because we want to crush competition". They argue that their devices are safer to use, and that allowing arbitrary software full access to the system would compromise that. Similarly, they limit third-party software from tracking you. They certainly aren't saints, and I disagree with a many of their choices (their app store cut could've decreased long ago, for one, and they're now adding ads into their own services) but they often seem like the only large corporation of their kind that even tries to have a set of beliefs and care about their users, and I think intent should matter.

I personally like that there's one popular ecosystem that has a particular perspective, and another competing popular ecosystem that has a totally different perspective. If you think all of the above is bullshit and Apple sucks, you're free to use Android and install exactly what you want on your phone. I've never really understood why folks are so adamant that this alternative should not be allowed to exist.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲jasonlotito 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How do you defend a company with 30% marketshare being a monopoly but the other company with 70% market share isn't?

One allows you to install different browsers, the other does not.

Being a monopoly isn't illegal (in the US). It's what they do that matters.

Now, that doesn't mean Apple is a monopoly with iOS, because the Sherman act doens't dictate it only looks at US only markets. It look at what makes sense in the context. Of course, a court could decide that regardless of what the numbers are internationall, what matters in this case is just the US market.

Trying to predict that is useless at the moment though because the US courts are all over the place.

▲brunoborges 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can you be more specific on how iOS blocks other browsers? You mean for embedded browser engine in apps?

▲mcraiha 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit JavaScript." https://open-web-advocacy.org/blog/tim-berners-lee-on-apples...

▲JohnTHaller 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

iOS does not allow third party browser engines. Every browser you download from the iOS App Store is using 'Safari Lite' under the hood. It's ostensibly for security, but it's more about control.

▲bliteben 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I would bet the security claim holds up, I have definitely seem more RCE mentioned from Chrome than from Safari.

I would bet Google's track record would easily allow them to defend this in court. More an issue with Google though.

▲lxgr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess that might have something to do with the fact that Chrome is vastly more popular than Safari, and also available on many more operating systems.

▲ajross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No, it's definitely about control. Allowing an arbitrary browser means allowing access to platform stuff from portable (gasp!) APIs. And Apple doesn't want that. They want an iOS app to be the primary face of everything important, and the other stuff to be an expensive port.

And the problem isn't abstract. Safari lacks a ton of very useful API implementations. Like, try programming a QMK keyboard on an iPhone: it's literally the only platform in the whole world unable to run the Via web app.

▲molszanski 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ask your LLM for details but

TLDR

Apple since mid 2024 was forced by EU and Japan to allow other engines.

There are hurdles but the path is open.

Both Chrome / Blink and Firefox / Gecko have made prototypes but haven’t moved past that.

It seems that there is no money or will to see it through.

So it’s not all “Apple bad doesn’t allow it”

▲greazy 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Ask your LLM for details but

No, mate. You need to provide details. The onus is on you to support your claim.

▲hbn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If it's browser monopolies you're worried about, Apple beginning to allow other engines on iOS is going to instantly cement Chrome as the only browser in the game.

Apple's Safari enforcement is the only reason Chrome hasn't completely taken over.

▲bitpush 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"The only just monopoly is my monopoly"

▲simondotau 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Having websites say "if it doesn't work, install Chrome" is the opposite of consumer choice.

▲hbn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is no monopoly right now. Chrome and Safari are both in use enough that you generally need to test against both.

Once real Chromium is available on iPhones, there will be a monopoly.

▲nticompass 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As I like to say: "Safari is the new IE."

Also, you /can/ run macOS in a VM on Linux: https://github.com/Coopydood/ultimate-macOS-kvm

I use that to test our website at work in Safari, though without a GPU (there is no virto-gpu driver for macOS and my PC's GPU doesn't support vGPU) the performance isn't great.

▲simondotau 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Chrome is the new IE.

The difference is that Microsoft wanted to stall the web, while Google wants to accelerate it faster so that nobody else can keep up.

The commonality is the de-facto monoculture being sold to web developers. "Works best in Internet Explorer" was the problem twenty years ago. Now we've got lazy web developers who bemoan the absence of Chrome on their customer's phones. Right now Apple is the last thing standing between them and slapping a "Works best in Chrome" banner everywhere and abandoning support for Safari.