PDA

View Full Version : Mozilla Will Not Release an iOS Version of Firefox Due to Apple's Limitations on Third-Party Browsers




MacRumors
Mar 10, 2013, 03:54 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/10/mozilla-will-not-release-an-ios-version-of-firefox/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/01/firefox.pngCNET (http://news.cnet.com/8301-14013_3-57573440/mozilla-says-no-plans-to-return-to-ios/) reports that during a talk at SXSW (http://sxsw.com), Jay Sullivan, Mozilla's vice president of product, said that the company has no plans to release an iOS version of Firefox because of technological limitations imposed by Apple.
The nonprofit Mozilla, which pulled Mozilla Firefox Home from Apple's App Store in September 2012, is not currently building a version of its Firefox browser for iOS, nor does the company plan to, said Sullivan, speaking on a mobile browser wars panel at South by Southwest Interactive moderated by CNET Senior Reporter Seth Rosenblatt.

The sticking point for Mozilla is not being able to carry over its sophisticated rendering and javascript engines to iOS. Essentially, the organization doesn't feel like it can build the browser it wants to for Apple's platform, Sullivan told CNET.Mozilla's stance on a Firefox browser for the iPhone is not new. In 2010, the company announced (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/28/mozilla-no-plans-for-full-firefox-browser-on-iphone/) that it did not plan to create a standalone browser for the iPhone, citing the same technical and logistical restrictions that would prevent the company from creating an acceptable mobile experience via iOS.

Apple's Safari uses the speedy Nitro JavaScript engine (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/17/ios-5-to-bring-nitro-javascript-speed-enhancements-to-home-screen-web-apps/) exclusively, while restricting third-party browsers to UIWebView, which gives Safari a significant performance boost over other browsers.

Mozilla did create an iOS application called Firefox Home (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/15/firefox-home-hits-the-app-store/), which allowed Firefox users to sync Firefox history and bookmarks with a Webkit-powered web viewer.

The company also experimented with a stripped down version of Firefox called "Junior," which was designed to simplify the iOS browsing experience. That project has yet to see a public release, and Mozilla ended up removing Firefox Home from the App Store in September.

Other major players continue to compete with Safari, despite the imposed limitations. Opera has long had the Opera Mini (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/04/12/opera-mini-approved-for-inclusion-in-app-store/) browser in the App Store, and Google released a Chrome app (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/28/google-chrome-browser-google-drive-coming-to-ios/) for iOS last summer.

Article Link: Mozilla Will Not Release an iOS Version of Firefox Due to Apple's Limitations on Third-Party Browsers (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/03/10/mozilla-will-not-release-an-ios-version-of-firefox/)



bb426
Mar 10, 2013, 04:05 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

satchow
Mar 10, 2013, 04:09 PM
Not too concerned that Mozilla won't release a browser known for memory leaks on iOS.

TheGreenBastard
Mar 10, 2013, 04:10 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

This.

Nintendo underpowers their consoles so that developers will find new and creative ways to utilize their hardware, and I'm sure Apple does the same, be it software or hardware limitations.

camnchar
Mar 10, 2013, 04:12 PM
I agree with Mozilla. Open up the APIs and let the developers have at it. Benefits based on artificial constraints hurt everyone.

Avatarshark
Mar 10, 2013, 04:13 PM
Honestly I only use Firefox Home just to open my firefox bookmarks, once I click on the bookmark, then I send the page to safari instead.

mabhatter
Mar 10, 2013, 04:14 PM
No other browser ENGINES are allowed, so what's the point of making just another cheap Safari wrapper? Everything else is just different UI on top of The lame old version of Safari. The problem is that Apple certainly wouldn't allow any of the Firefox plugin structure to work, and Apple has all sorts of conditions on sharing information with outside servers so many of the things we USE Firefox for wouldn't work or would be specifically banned anyway.

I have the Firefox Home App. That was a good idea to at least allow bookmarks and stuff to sync to your desktop Firefox. I didn't know they canceled it.

drwatz0n
Mar 10, 2013, 04:15 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

Firefox uses both a different Javascript and rendering engine than Safari and Chrome (which both use WebKit). It's not possible for Firefox to exist on the platform, with it's own Gecko rendering system, due to Apple's imposed restrictions. Don't compare Firefox and Chrome, it's two entirely different things.

MassiveAttack
Mar 10, 2013, 04:17 PM
iOS users lose yet again. As always Apple frowns upon their users having a choice.

thehustleman
Mar 10, 2013, 04:19 PM
It's a computer, the should be no restrictions that the user themselves didn't place.

Stop being a turd and open up

maxosx
Mar 10, 2013, 04:20 PM
Mozilla's no dummy.

They know of the proprietary advantage Apple reserves for Safari, so as to make themselves look superior.

Why should Mozilla waste time with the cards stacked against them. Even more impressive is they spoke out and called Apple on it.

Google is a confident organization and doesn't resort to such games. Thus we Android users have a wonderful selection of competing apps like browsers & keyboards to choose from.

Viva le choice!

Thanks Google!

Arms19
Mar 10, 2013, 04:20 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.
No, they won't do it because they don't want to shoot themselves in the leg with their base. It's also probably why they removed Sync. I used Sync once, and only once. It was slow, buggy, not very helpful, and just really only useful for accessing bookmarks. However, you had to jump through hoops just to get it.

Chrome is useful, sure you can sync and have bookmarks and have unlimited tabs, etc. But it's still not made from a platform that can compete with the native browser, Safari.

Read this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-problem-with-chrome-for-ios

SteelWheel
Mar 10, 2013, 04:27 PM
I've never jail-broken any of my iOS devices (although the temptation to do so grows every time I read an article like this one). Is there any compelling-ly better browser available on Cydia (including some kind of semi-homebrew Firefox remix)?

IceWeasel for jail-broken iOS devices, anyone? :)

Shrink
Mar 10, 2013, 04:29 PM
It's a computer, the should be no restrictions that the user themselves didn't place.

Stop being a turd and open up

I'm sure the Official Apple Keep An Eye On MacRumors Guy is, as I type this, noting your eloquently stated complaint about Apple's closed ecosystem, and is in the process of conveying said eloquently stated complaint to Tim Cook. Cook, being overwhelmingly impressed with your well stated and well reasoned argument, and realizing that you are a very special customer, is reversing Apple's well established system and opening everything up...especially for you.

We all thank you for your important contribution to the welfare of all us Apple owners.

:rolleyes:

calisurfboy
Mar 10, 2013, 04:30 PM
I started to use the google chrome browser for iOS simply because I enjoy having the option of tabs for all my windows while surfing. Seems like a small pointless addition but it is something that I enjoy and wish I had the option to allow in safari instead of having to zoom out and scroll through my pages back and forth repeatedly in the cover view style.

nagromme
Mar 10, 2013, 04:35 PM
I agree with Mozilla. Open up the APIs and let the developers have at it. Benefits based on artificial constraints hurt everyone.

I've never jail-broken any of my iOS devices (although the temptation to do so grows every time I read an article like this one). ...

They know of the proprietary advantage Apple reserves for Safari, so as to make themselves look superior.

Why should Mozilla waste time with the cards stacked against them. Even more impressive is they spoke out and called Apple on it.



That's not the story. It's not an artificial constraint. (http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43)

Apple's Safari uses the speedy Nitro JavaScript engine exclusively, while restricting third-party browsers to UIWebView, which gives Safari a significant performance boost over other browsers.

Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run. The only reason Apple allows this risk in Safari is because they can work to keep Safari free of security flaws that would allow exploits. Apple can't control that in other apps, so they're not opening the door to such problems.

That's the trade-off: speed vs. security. Apple has found a good compromise I think, but yes, JavaScript will run slower in third party apps--in other words, at the same perfectly acceptable speed Safari did before Nitro (only faster because today's hardware is faster).

This doesn't mean it's not worth making a third-party browser. And it doesn't mean Apple should open up Android-style security holes.

RMo
Mar 10, 2013, 04:35 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

They tried--that's what Firefox Home was. It was about all they could do. I don't see the point of making another (underpowered, also due to Apple) Safari wrapper, so their only other option is to pull an Opera and do server-side rendering, which also has its limitations.

As for Google, they had an even easier time. They didn't really port over Chrome, they just wrote a UI and tied as much as they could in with your Google account (e.g., sync info) like you'd get with the desktop version. But it uses the iOS Webkit rendering engine. Since Chrome itself already uses Webkit, we're dealing with minor differences here at the most (in addition to the JS engine)--but they did NOT port over the rendering engine. That is all Apple. This would be a much more drastic "compromise" for Mozilla to make. As I mentioned above, Opera worked around this, but it's not ideal, and I suspect Opera will stop doing this now that they themselves are switching to Webkit on the desktop side.

irDigital0l
Mar 10, 2013, 04:42 PM
Apple..its time for option to chose default browser.

ConCat
Mar 10, 2013, 04:42 PM
Firefox uses both a different Javascript and rendering engine than Safari and Chrome (which both use WebKit). It's not possible for Firefox to exist on the platform, with it's own Gecko rendering system, due to Apple's imposed restrictions. Don't compare Firefox and Chrome, it's two entirely different things.

Not quite. Chrome uses its own JavaScript engine called V8. They had to give up that to make Chrome for iOS, so Firefox can do the same.

I use chrome on my iDevices. It's quite a great browser, and much better than Safari. I even jailbroke so I could make it my default browser. It didn't need its JavaScript engine to be a great browser, and Firefox doesn't need its engines either. Firefox Home was a bad browser. Plain and simple.

syd430
Mar 10, 2013, 04:44 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

The limitations are there so that no other browser can truly compete with Safari. I'm sure if this article was about the browser restrictions Microsoft imposed many years ago, your stance would be the complete opposite.

Michael Goff
Mar 10, 2013, 04:47 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

Google Chrome is a webkit-based browser.

Firefox is a Geck-based browser.

So you're saying they should take everything that makes Firefox what it is, and remove it. There would be no extensions, no Gecko, no special JavaScript engine.

bb426
Mar 10, 2013, 04:50 PM
I don't think some of you who downplayed my original post understand what I mean entirely.

First, I'm not comparing them to Google. Mozilla has their own engine, yes, and you can't release it (officially) for iOS. However, iOS also represents a very significant user base, and a great opportunity for Mozilla to release an alternative browser for iOS.

Most people are just in it for the speed of the browser, and yeah, it's very critical. But well-developed, intuitive features, UI and compatibility are just as important, and can easily outplay the limitations Apple imposes on devs (some for ridiculous reasons, others for security).

You can't release a perfect 1.0 product. Build upon it, get better. Span development out over time. Things change, and so will Apple. There are new updates to SDK's every year.... Take advantage of it.

TC25
Mar 10, 2013, 04:55 PM
It's a computer, the should be no restrictions that the user themselves didn't place.

Say 'Hi' to Bill Ayers at your next 'Power To The People' anarchists reunion.

lunaoso
Mar 10, 2013, 05:17 PM
If it ended up being anything like the Mac version, I don't think we're missing much. :p

seble
Mar 10, 2013, 05:17 PM
Oh boo who, tbh I really don't care that much.

Firefox really isn't that great on the Mac anymore anyway.

daneoni
Mar 10, 2013, 05:22 PM
Stop whining and making excuses. Google managed to release Chrome despite all these so-called 'limitations'.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 10, 2013, 05:28 PM
This.

Nintendo underpowers their consoles so that developers will find new and creative ways to utilize their hardware, and I'm sure Apple does the same, be it software or hardware limitations.

This isn't the same. Nintendo works within the limitations that they give their developers. The Wii's hardware doesn't magically improve when you insert a Nintendo disk instead of another developer's disk.

Apple, however, uses a faster JS interpreter in Safari than they allow developers to use in UIWebView. Thus Safari will always be a better browser from a JS performance perspective than any other browser.

Having said that, I am working on a browser for iOS and OS X which looks nothing like any web browser before it as a school assignment.

samcraig
Mar 10, 2013, 05:29 PM
Stop whining and making excuses. Google managed to release Chrome despite all these so-called 'limitations'.

I don't think a company "whines." I think a company states challenges. People whine. And a lot of them in this thread alone.

Mozilla is making the best decision for them. iOS doesn't even need any more wrapped browsers.

I'm not sure I'd call it a loss for iOS since it wouldn't be able to be built the way it needs to.

Daveoc64
Mar 10, 2013, 05:47 PM
Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run.

This shouldn't be a reason to restrict competition.

Apple should trust developers.

There is no reason why they couldn't allow others to make their own JavaScript interpreter - even if it was restricted in terms of how it could run.

If it's Apple's crippled interpreter vs. someone else's crippled interpreter, I bet the latter would win.

rmwebs
Mar 10, 2013, 05:48 PM
Firefox uses both a different Javascript and rendering engine than Safari and Chrome (which both use WebKit). It's not possible for Firefox to exist on the platform, with it's own Gecko rendering system, due to Apple's imposed restrictions. Don't compare Firefox and Chrome, it's two entirely different things.

Webkit is not a javascript rendering engine. Neither is Gecko.

The fact that chrome uses webkit as its RENDERING ENGINE means nothing. Chrome uses its own build, and doesn't share the one built into iOS. You can even compile chromium from source for iOS.

There is no limitato on iOS that prevents Gecko from running, other than Mozilla's own codebase possibly not being optimised enough for the iOS hardware.

Daveoc64
Mar 10, 2013, 05:50 PM
Webkit is not a javascript rendering engine. Neither is Gecko.

The fact that chrome uses webkit as its RENDERING ENGINE means nothing. Chrome uses its own build, and doesn't share the one built into iOS. You can even compile chromium from source for iOS.

There is no limitato on iOS that prevents Gecko from running, other than Mozilla's own codebase possibly not being optimised enough for the iOS hardware.

This is not true.

If you want to do a web browser on iOS, it MUST use Apple's WebKit rendering engine - the one provided through UIWebView.

That's why Chrome for iOS is missing features that the Android and Desktop versions have.

Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript

AnonMac50
Mar 10, 2013, 05:58 PM
I've never jail-broken any of my iOS devices (although the temptation to do so grows every time I read an article like this one). Is there any compelling-ly better browser available on Cydia (including some kind of semi-homebrew Firefox remix)?

IceWeasel for jail-broken iOS devices, anyone? :)

I'm not sure about that, but I do know that you can remove the Nitro engine restriction on jailbroken devices. You can also decide which browser is the main or default one.

Dagless
Mar 10, 2013, 06:04 PM
Apple..its time for option to chose default browser.

This ability to make this option will be enforced sooner or later. Here in Europe Microsoft have been fined a couple of times now simply for not putting more effort to allow alternative web browsers. Just need the EU to step up!

ArchAndroid
Mar 10, 2013, 06:28 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

The thing is Mozilla has such limited resources that it is forced to be streamlined at all times. Fighting Apple on this is like jumping off a building and trying to fight gravity. Their energy is better spent elsewhere.

ar3ar2
Mar 10, 2013, 06:32 PM
Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run. The only reason Apple allows this risk in Safari is because they can work to keep Safari free of security flaws that would allow exploits. Apple can't control that in other apps, so they're not opening the door to such problems.

That's the trade-off: speed vs. security. Apple has found a good compromise I think, but yes, JavaScript will run slower in third party apps--in other words, at the same perfectly acceptable speed Safari did before Nitro (only faster because today's hardware is faster).

This doesn't mean it's not worth making a third-party browser. And it doesn't mean Apple should open up Android-style security holes.

I bet the real reason is because it would be another vector for jailbreaking.

Apple is not that serious about security. They are more concerned with control over their devices. Look at how much effort Apple goes to make jailbreaking difficult. Example- some hardware feature has made currently made it impossible to downgrade iOS in newer iPads and iPhones.

Mac OS X doesn't have such restrictions and its security is great.

Don't be so naive and think Apple is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.

clibinarius
Mar 10, 2013, 06:34 PM
That's not the story. It's not an artificial constraint. (http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43)



Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run. The only reason Apple allows this risk in Safari is because they can work to keep Safari free of security flaws that would allow exploits. Apple can't control that in other apps, so they're not opening the door to such problems.

That's the trade-off: speed vs. security. Apple has found a good compromise I think, but yes, JavaScript will run slower in third party apps--in other words, at the same perfectly acceptable speed Safari did before Nitro (only faster because today's hardware is faster).

This doesn't mean it's not worth making a third-party browser. And it doesn't mean Apple should open up Android-style security holes.

Please. It is a way of keeping a monopoly on the device. Opening up Android style security holes and running unsigned code-you know, jailbreaking-would be a user choice. Apple refuses to allow anything on that might allow users of iOS devices to bypass the App Store, plain and simple.

trunten
Mar 10, 2013, 06:53 PM
That's not the story. It's not an artificial constraint. (http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/nitro_ios_43)



Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run. The only reason Apple allows this risk in Safari is because they can work to keep Safari free of security flaws that would allow exploits. Apple can't control that in other apps, so they're not opening the door to such problems.

That's the trade-off: speed vs. security. Apple has found a good compromise I think, but yes, JavaScript will run slower in third party apps--in other words, at the same perfectly acceptable speed Safari did before Nitro (only faster because today's hardware is faster).

This doesn't mean it's not worth making a third-party browser. And it doesn't mean Apple should open up Android-style security holes.

This! I wish more people had a bit more of a clue about these sorts of things. Perhaps apple should allow apps to mark memory as executable then everybody would get to bitch and moan about the potential problems it could create. But hey at least there'd be a lucrative market in anti-virus for ios.

cclloyd
Mar 10, 2013, 07:01 PM
Release it on Cydia with Nitrous as a dependency.

I've never jail-broken any of my iOS devices (although the temptation to do so grows every time I read an article like this one). Is there any compelling-ly better browser available on Cydia (including some kind of semi-homebrew Firefox remix)?

IceWeasel for jail-broken iOS devices, anyone? :)

Nitrous basically does that for every browser. It removes the restriction that Apple put on other browsers and makes it as fast as safari.

Mr. Retrofire
Mar 10, 2013, 07:13 PM
iOS users lose yet again. As always Apple frowns upon their users having a choice.
Welcome in our walled garden!

:mad:

----------

Nitro (or a similar just-in-time compiler) in third party apps would mean they could put data into RAM and make it executable--a HUGE malware vector and source of risk. Unsigned native code can now run. The only reason Apple allows this risk in Safari is because they can work to keep Safari free of security flaws that would allow exploits. Apple can't control that in other apps, so they're not opening the door to such problems.
These problems exist already in iOS. The world calls the results: Jailbreaks.

That's the trade-off: speed vs. security.
That's nonsense. Safari on iOS is not 100 % secure. Not even the App Store (http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/08/apple-adds-encryption-to-app-store-connections-addresses-six-month-old-hole) connections were secure. So much for Apples secure platform.

iLOL

Chupa Chupa
Mar 10, 2013, 07:28 PM
Shorter Mozilla org: "Wah, wah, wah, mean Apple won't let me..."

Maybe it would be an issue if mobile Safari was horrible, but it's not. If consumers are really jonesing for mobile Firefox then they should give the Galaxy S III a look. It's just that simple. That's how the marketplace works. A product doesn't offer a major feature you want, you look elsewhere.

AaronEdwards
Mar 10, 2013, 07:32 PM
iOS is so 1984.

-----

The limitations are there so that no other browser can truly compete with Safari. I'm sure if this article was about the browser restrictions Microsoft imposed many years ago, your stance would be the complete opposite.

Microsoft really didn't impose any browser restrictions, but Internet Explorer was installed on default and due to Microsoft's dominance that became an issue. So it's really not comparable to what Apple's doing, anyone could and can install another browser in Windows.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 10, 2013, 07:40 PM
Please. It is a way of keeping a monopoly on the device. Opening up Android style security holes and running unsigned code-you know, jailbreaking-would be a user choice. Apple refuses to allow anything on that might allow users of iOS devices to bypass the App Store, plain and simple.

Running unsigned code and jailbreaking are not synonymous. Running unsigned code and increasing your risk of getting malware are.

I do, however, agree that the person you quoted's reasoning is flawed. If a security vulnerability is acceptable in Safari, why wouldn't it be acceptable in WebKit?

Maybe Apple will loosen the reigns with iOS 7 and allow other web browsers to displace Safari...

tdtran1025
Mar 10, 2013, 07:46 PM
Because it's better!

anthony11
Mar 10, 2013, 08:31 PM
No other browser ENGINES are allowed, so what's the point of making just another cheap Safari wrapper?
Oh gee, how's about being able to open a 9th page on my phone without an existing one being silently tossed?
Everything else is just different UI on top of The lame old version of Safari.
I have both Atomic and Chrome on my phone in addition to Safari. They all work just fine. Any time I have to let someone else use a browser I fire up one or the other, so they can't blow away stuff I have up and want to stay up -- something I find that people habitually do on any device despite me telling them not to.
The problem is that Apple certainly wouldn't allow any of the Firefox plugin structure to work
You say that like it's a bad thing.

----------

The thing is Mozilla has such limited resources that it is forced to be streamlined at all times.
Having been the victim of core leaks in Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox for years I assert that streamlining and Mozilla have little to do with each other.

-----------

Apple should trust developers.
HAHAHAHAHA. "Developers" routinely write software that can't even handle an apostrophe in a name, as if they've never heard of Europe. Developers are among the last people I'd trust to not do something stupid.
-----------
iOS users lose yet again.
:rolleyes: I have three browsers ON MY FSCKING PHONE. All three more or less work (given how broken Chrome is on OSX I haven't used it much on iOS). In what way am I losing?
As always Apple frowns upon their users having a choice.
FFS, stop eating scabs off your foot, and grow the fsck up. Apple provides a mobile OS designed to give the user a positive experience. Part of that positive experience is being functional. Another is not having to run fscking AV on one's @#$@! phone because the manufacturer mistakes it for a desktop system. One facet of this is not trying to be all things to all people. If you want to dick around with your device rather than using it, and don't like OS updates, then WTF are you doing here instead of wrestling with some lame-ass Android POS?
It's a computer, the should be no restrictions that the user themselves didn't place.
Seriously? Examples of people who don't give a rat's ass about which of two Javascript things is used instead of the other:
o My wife (that's right, there are actual *GIRLS* in the world outside your mom's basement)
o 99+% of everyone else

gnasher729
Mar 10, 2013, 08:58 PM
Please. It is a way of keeping a monopoly on the device. Opening up Android style security holes and running unsigned code-you know, jailbreaking-would be a user choice. Apple refuses to allow anything on that might allow users of iOS devices to bypass the App Store, plain and simple.

Exactly. Why believe a technical explanation by someone who knows what he's talking about when there is a perfectly good conspiracy theory. :D


I do, however, agree that the person you quoted's reasoning is flawed. If a security vulnerability is acceptable in Safari, why wouldn't it be acceptable in WebKit?

It's not a vulnerability, it is an attack vector. That means, an attacker would say "so this browser is compiling Javascript and executing the compiled code. Maybe there are some bugs to be exploited that allows us to make the browser execute the code that I want it to execute", and then the attacker looks for vulnerabilities in this area. Apple apparently believes that they can avoid such vulnerabilities in Safari, but they don't trust other developers to do the same.


That's nonsense. Safari on iOS is not 100 % secure. Not even the App Store (http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/08/apple-adds-encryption-to-app-store-connections-addresses-six-month-old-hole) connections were secure. So much for Apples secure platform.

Well, that article claims what attackers could do in theory, but there is no evidence that attackers could do anything in practice. For example, the article claims that "in theory" an attacker could steal passwords; in practice, they couldn't.

bigloudbang
Mar 10, 2013, 09:16 PM
I thoroughly enjoy the Firefox experience on my Nexus device...thanks to the Android OS.

Apple is a huge put off for me because of the limitations it puts on iOS.

Plutonius
Mar 10, 2013, 09:35 PM
iOS users lose yet again. As always Apple frowns upon their users having a choice.

You have a choice. If you don't like it get something else like Android.

quietstormSD
Mar 10, 2013, 10:01 PM
I would have liked to see a Firefox type browser. Although I rarely if ever use firefox on OS X anymore.

----------

Stop whining and making excuses. Google managed to release Chrome despite all these so-called 'limitations'.

If there were no whining and making excuses, there would be no macrumors forum :)

Thraun
Mar 10, 2013, 10:10 PM
2 things:

Firefox sucks. So who cares? Most people are fine with Safari, which has always worked perfectly well for me, and there other options.

Second, and this has already been put forward, but: if you don't like Apple's limitations of their iOS platform, don't get an iOS device! Get an Android, and find an app that will listen to your whining and utter consoling phrases from time to time. This is one of the core ideas that differentiates between companies like Apple and Google, and why the heck would Apple completely change their philosophy? Seems to be doing OK for them.

gotluck
Mar 10, 2013, 10:31 PM
people should be allowed to opt out of the walled garden
hopefully, europe can force this to happen

szw-mapple fan
Mar 10, 2013, 10:37 PM
Mozilla's loss, really.

0dev
Mar 10, 2013, 10:39 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

Chrome for iOS is just a (slightly slower) wrapper for Safari, not a proper browser.

What Mozilla is saying here is they don't want to just make a wrapper for Safari, they want to do things properly and make a full browser, which Apple won't let them do. I think that's perfectly fair of Mozilla and pathetic of Apple.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 10, 2013, 10:52 PM
I think it's sad that people think that a web browser is nothing more than an engine with a wrapper around it. Many desktop browsers use WebKit as their engine, yet many people prefer one WebKit browser to another.

tech4all
Mar 10, 2013, 10:59 PM
2 things:

Firefox sucks. So who cares? Most people are fine with Safari, which has always worked perfectly well for me, and there other options.

Second, and this has already been put forward, but: if you don't like Apple's limitations of their iOS platform, don't get an iOS device! Get an Android, and find an app that will listen to your whining and utter consoling phrases from time to time. This is one of the core ideas that differentiates between companies like Apple and Google, and why the heck would Apple completely change their philosophy? Seems to be doing OK for them.

That's why I went Android. Didn't want Apple telling how run my device. Its my device not there's.

bigloudbang
Mar 10, 2013, 11:11 PM
You have a choice. If you don't like it get something else like Android.

Your lack of understanding on the matter is on show for everyone to see....

----------

Chrome for iOS is just a (slightly slower) wrapper for Safari, not a proper browser.

What Mozilla is saying here is they don't want to just make a wrapper for Safari, they want to do things properly and make a full browser, which Apple won't let them do. I think that's perfectly fair of Mozilla and pathetic of Apple.

Hit the nail right on the head. Great post.

thadoggfather
Mar 10, 2013, 11:33 PM
Get nitrous on a JB device and be happy!

nitro for all apps that normally couldn't

Fast imdb, Facebook, chrome, etc!

NewAnger
Mar 11, 2013, 12:13 AM
Firefox was one of the first apps that I downloaded for my Nexus 4 phone and Nexus 7 tablet. After installing those, I went to the app store expecting to a version there and was disappointed.

Sometimes I really hate Apple.

sir1963nz
Mar 11, 2013, 12:59 AM
people should be allowed to opt out of the walled garden
hopefully, europe can force this to happen

They can.
They can Jailbreak, or they can buy an Android, Windows,Blackberry phone.

No one has ever said you are entitle the the choice that YOU demand.

mdriftmeyer
Mar 11, 2013, 01:42 AM
Dump XUL, write Firefox in Cocoa using AppKit/Foundation Kit natively, include GCD/OpenCL and make it fully thread safe. After all, we want a native application, not a web app.

simonmet
Mar 11, 2013, 01:55 AM
Couldn't care less. Safari is great. Love the Reader and iCloud sync functions. It just works.

Maybe Mozilla should just focus on getting desktop Firefox to version 100 by the end of the year!

Jibbajabba
Mar 11, 2013, 02:00 AM
Funny how Microsoft gets sued for not giving an obvious browser choice. Wonder how long until the same rules apply for smartphones - since they essentially are mini computer.

sir1963nz
Mar 11, 2013, 02:16 AM
Funny how Microsoft gets sued for not giving an obvious browser choice. Wonder how long until the same rules apply for smartphones - since they essentially are mini computer.

Totally different situations. Apple don't have 90% of the phone market for a start.

But while you're at it ask why your playstation games wont work on the Mac or Xbox.

Paradoxally
Mar 11, 2013, 02:22 AM
If you want to dick around with your device rather than using it, and don't like OS updates, then WTF are you doing here instead of wrestling with some lame-ass Android POS?

Lame-ass Android POS? Android 4.2.2 on the Nexus 4 runs circles around iOS on any device you can put it on + offers total personalization and features. I have an iPhone, I'm not against Apple in any way. I see an amazing device that could be so much more if the OS was open. I see it from a developer standpoint, because I too am one - this is a technology forum, not just a user place to chill and where noobs gather to feast in the latest ignorant comments about their beloved iOS by the mighty Apple.

iOS is limited, it won't let you do anything interesting apart from the limitations imposed by Apple. I agree with Mozilla, but they won't ever open up.

As a regular Joe, I prefer iOS for its simplicity, but as a developer and tech enthusiast, Android is my preferred platform because it allows total customization.

People shouldn't be shading Android just because it's open and allows users to do stuff. Seriously, demo a Nexus yourself, see what you can do with it, and then talk crap about Android if you're still not happy.

Menneisyys2
Mar 11, 2013, 02:43 AM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

As others have too stated, Chrome for iOS is just a (slightly slower) wrapper for Safari, not a proper browser.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

Lolz... what kind of "innovation" could be done if all you are allowed to do is putting a fancy front-end around UIWebView - and nothing else?

----------

Not too concerned that Mozilla won't release a browser known for memory leaks on iOS.

Strange - my main browser is Firefox on OS X (with 8GB of RAM) and I've never run into the browser's occupying more than 1GB of RAM. And I don't kill / restart it often.

----------

Lame-ass Android POS? Android 4.2.2 on the Nexus 4 runs circles around iOS on any device you can put it on + offers total personalization and features. I have an iPhone, I'm not against Apple in any way. I see an amazing device that could be so much more if the OS was open. I see it from a developer standpoint, because I too am one - this is a technology forum, not just a user place to chill and where noobs gather to feast in the latest ignorant comments about their beloved iOS by the mighty Apple.

iOS is limited, it won't let you do anything interesting apart from the limitations imposed by Apple. I agree with Mozilla, but they won't ever open up.

As a regular Joe, I prefer iOS for its simplicity, but as a developer and tech enthusiast, Android is my preferred platform because it allows total customization.

People shouldn't be shading Android just because it's open and allows users to do stuff. Seriously, demo a Nexus yourself, see what you can do with it, and then talk crap about Android if you're still not happy.

Absolutely agreed. After learning to program Android 4.x some months ago, I was astonished how capable it is, API-wise. iOS is far-far inferior in this regard (too).

tekno
Mar 11, 2013, 02:51 AM
No other browser ENGINES are allowed, so what's the point of making just another cheap Safari wrapper? Everything else is just different UI on top of The lame old version of Safari.

Interesting - I didn't know that. So, when using Chrome, it's actually just Safari made to look/act like Chrome?

When visiting a website in Chrome, what does the website see requesting them - Safari or Chrome?

Menneisyys2
Mar 11, 2013, 03:37 AM
Interesting - I didn't know that. So, when using Chrome, it's actually just Safari made to look/act like Chrome?

When visiting a website in Chrome, what does the website see requesting them - Safari or Chrome?

Both. I've made a quick screenshot:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/81986513/032013/avplayer163/chromeUA.jpg

unlinked
Mar 11, 2013, 04:21 AM
This ability to make this option will be enforced sooner or later. Here in Europe Microsoft have been fined a couple of times now simply for not putting more effort to allow alternative web browsers. Just need the EU to step up!

Don't see that ever happening. iOS is (probably) never going to have enough of a monopoly to justify it.

Menneisyys2
Mar 11, 2013, 05:02 AM
Stop whining and making excuses. Google managed to release Chrome despite all these so-called 'limitations'.

Sorry, but you don't even seem to know what you're speaking about...

----------

As I mentioned above, Opera worked around this, but it's not ideal, and I suspect Opera will stop doing this now that they themselves are switching to Webkit on the desktop side.

I don't think Opera Mini will go and be abandoned. After all, while it has some severe JavaScript limitations (I've published several compliance reports over at the Opera website; can link to these reports if interested), proxy server-based HTML -> OM conversion the ONLY way to really reduce internet traffic. People with slow or severely capped (e.g., in developing countries) Internet access will prefer Opera Mini to anything not involving compression, that is, anything WebKit-based.

Winni
Mar 11, 2013, 05:04 AM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

Chrome and Safari use the same foundation: Webkit. It was easy for Google to port Chrome since Safari uses the same technology. Firefox uses an own render engine - and that engine is one of Mozilla's core technologies and core innovations.

The problem here is that Apple does not allow anybody to implement an own render engine for iOS because that would compete directly with Apple's own products. It's an anti-competitive restriction that should by illegal (and maybe even is, once somebody invests the money to sue them and get a proper court ruling).

Consultant
Mar 11, 2013, 05:09 AM
Well, last time Mozilla shoot itself in the foot was about H.264.

This time it took them how many years to decide not to products for the most sought after mobile OS?

SpyderBite
Mar 11, 2013, 05:19 AM
Seriously? Examples of people who don't give a rat's ass about which of two Javascript things is used instead of the other:
o My wife (that's right, there are actual *GIRLS* in the world outside your mom's basement)
o 99+% of everyone else

This. ^^

With the exception of a handful of enthusiasts, majority of the smartphone users don't care what browser they are using. The self-importance displayed by the small vocal minority who are under the impression that they are Apple, Google or Microsofts bread & butter is mind blowing sometimes.

Consultant
Mar 11, 2013, 05:23 AM
Funny how Microsoft gets sued for not giving an obvious browser choice. Wonder how long until the same rules apply for smartphones - since they essentially are mini computer.

Microsoft used its computer *monopoly* to drive other browsers out of business.

Apple isn't driving Firefox out of business. Besides, Apple App Store provides browser choices such as Opera Mobile for iOS, and number of Flash browsers for iOS that use their own rendering engines.

Btw, according to users of a certain platform, they are winning and iOS is a minority mobile phone player. Does that sound like Apple is a monopoly?

Menneisyys2
Mar 11, 2013, 05:49 AM
Apple isn't driving Firefox out of business. Besides, Apple App Store provides browser choices such as Opera Mobile for iOS, and number of Flash browsers for iOS that use their own rendering engines.


Come on - server-side rendering (every Flash browser like Puffin etc.) or the proxy-based HTML repacking / simplifying-based Opera Mini (with its severe JavaScript restrictions making almost anything dynamic not working) can in no way provide the same user experience as a HTML renderer running locally.

Menneisyys2
Mar 11, 2013, 06:17 AM
Seems to be doing OK for them.

You mean the constantly declining stock price?

clibinarius
Mar 11, 2013, 06:31 AM
Exactly. Why believe a technical explanation by someone who knows what he's talking about when there is a perfectly good conspiracy theory. :D


Except it isn't a conspiracy theory. If I want to run unsigned code, why can't I? What exactly is wrong with jailbreaking? There's only three reasons I can see Apple not wanting the practice:

1. Prevent their techs from fixing screwed up settings because someone didn't know what they were doing (This is, actually, what I've heard the main reasoning is: It saves a lot of time and money not having to fix jailbreaked settings).
2. Force all revenue and transactions with the device to go through the App Store
3. Carriers really disapprove.

Why should Apple care if I buy something from Cydia to run my phone the way I want to? Didn't they already make the money on the sale of the phone? Apple has no reason to allow any type of Jailbreaking, as it would simply be bad for shareholders at this time. And this is a conspiracy theory how?

Oh, why is it that allowing someone to run unsigned code is Jailbreaking? Simple. If I turned on the setting for one second, I could install a jailbreak, and then ban running unsigned code. No risk, and I have a jailbroken device.

samcraig
Mar 11, 2013, 07:03 AM
But while you're at it ask why your playstation games wont work on the Mac or Xbox.

This is an analogy so far removed from the scenario being discussed here. It's also a bad analogy unto itself.

BHP41
Mar 11, 2013, 07:04 AM
They need all thier resources to focus on their desktop browser. Once they learn to make that one decent then they can start to branch out. Has anyone used it on Android? It's junk

blackcrayon
Mar 11, 2013, 07:12 AM
Chrome for iOS is just a (slightly slower) wrapper for Safari, not a proper browser.

What Mozilla is saying here is they don't want to just make a wrapper for Safari, they want to do things properly and make a full browser, which Apple won't let them do. I think that's perfectly fair of Mozilla and pathetic of Apple.

A lot of people would argue that the "Wrapper" (ie, the "chrome", no pun intended) is as important as what's being rendered in the rendering window. Some people would say it's even more important. One look at browsers like iCab or Atomic web says there are a HUGE amount of features to be added to a browser that have nothing to do with the rendering engine. Whether Mozilla has anything to add here to UIWebView on iOS is the question of course.

B4U
Mar 11, 2013, 07:15 AM
Yet, the one on my Xperia arc s is still as slow as 56k. Fix that before whining about iOS please...

MarcelEdward
Mar 11, 2013, 07:41 AM
Don't see that ever happening. iOS is (probably) never going to have enough of a monopoly to justify it.

I can see it happening for chrome and firefox (and maybe internet explorer, but I doubt ms wants to).
Not this year, but the ios users will get the option to choose the brand of web browser they want in ios.

Razeus
Mar 11, 2013, 07:49 AM
Another reason why HTC One or Samsung S IV may be next phone instead of the iPhone 5S.

horace528
Mar 11, 2013, 08:10 AM
Another horrible block of innovation to the developers of the Apple community.

I really like Apple, but at these times just makes me want to think that Apple is a bit too paranoid.

Stella
Mar 11, 2013, 08:16 AM
Totally different situations. Apple don't have 90% of the phone market for a start.


Microsoft didn't get sued for having 90% of marketshare, they got sued because they abused their market position.

winston1236
Mar 11, 2013, 08:46 AM
iOS users lose yet again. As always Apple frowns upon their users having a choice.

THe real question is why isnt the iphone powerful enough to run mozilla?

0dev
Mar 11, 2013, 09:17 AM
Mozilla's no dummy.

They know of the proprietary advantage Apple reserves for Safari, so as to make themselves look superior.

Why should Mozilla waste time with the cards stacked against them. Even more impressive is they spoke out and called Apple on it.

Google is a confident organization and doesn't resort to such games. Thus we Android users have a wonderful selection of competing apps like browsers & keyboards to choose from.

Viva le choice!

Thanks Google!

Google not only allows you to install competing browsers, but they allow you to install ad blockers from their own Play Store. A company that literally makes all of its money from advertising allows its users to install ad blocking software on their own OS!

Yet Apple, a company which makes virtually all of its money from hardware sales, won't even let you install a different browser on that hardware you paid for.

Go figure :rolleyes:

TheGreenBastard
Mar 11, 2013, 09:27 AM
This isn't the same. Nintendo works within the limitations that they give their developers. The Wii's hardware doesn't magically improve when you insert a Nintendo disk instead of another developer's disk.

Apple, however, uses a faster JS interpreter in Safari than they allow developers to use in UIWebView. Thus Safari will always be a better browser from a JS performance perspective than any other browser.

Having said that, I am working on a browser for iOS and OS X which looks nothing like any web browser before it as a school assignment.

Except my example is extremely relavent.

Nintendo only gives access to one core of their CPU and limited memory to devs to work with on both their 3DS and Wii U, whereas Nintendo's first party devs have full access to the system resources.

iGrip
Mar 11, 2013, 09:39 AM
I agree with Mozilla. Open up the APIs and let the developers have at it. Benefits based on artificial constraints hurt everyone.

Apple needs the artificial constraint. Otherwise, third-party browsers would make Safari look bad.

Apple knows what it is doing. If they could profit by opening up the APIs, then they would be all over it like stink on sheet. As it is, they think that making Safari look better yields higher profits.

And my guess is that they are correct.

----------

Apple..its time for option to chose default browser.

That is way too confusing for the typical member of Apple's target market.

Apple stuff Just Works. If you want something that just "works the way you want it to work" then Apple products are NOT for you.

With Apple, you get products that just "work the way Apple knows best". Again, why pay extra for Apple to make choices for you if you just want to over ride them anyways?

That is very un-Apple-like.

----------

iOS doesn't even need any more wrapped browsers.



True that.

Firefox needs iOS a WHOLE lot more than iOS needs Firefox. When will these morons learn?

Michael Goff
Mar 11, 2013, 09:43 AM
Anyone saying you have multiple browsers, btw, is wrong.

You don't have multiple browsers.

You have multiple Safaris with different names and some slight modifications. But 90% of their innards? Safari.

iGrip
Mar 11, 2013, 09:51 AM
Seriously? Examples of people who don't give a rat's ass about which of two Javascript things is used instead of the other:
o My wife (that's right, there are actual *GIRLS* in the world outside your mom's basement)
o 99+% of everyone else

See, that's the thing people forget. Apple does not make products for sophisticated users. Apple makes products for technological illiterates.

And there's a WHOLE lot more moolah to be made selling to them than there is selling to self-styled uber geeks. The very few people who care about that stuff buy Android.

And that is why Apple sells so much more then Android does.

ArtOfWarfare
Mar 11, 2013, 09:51 AM
Except my example is extremely relavent.

Nintendo only gives access to one core of their CPU and limited memory to devs to work with on both their 3DS and Wii U, whereas Nintendo's first party devs have full access to the system resources.

Source? I've never heard of this before...

Paradoxally
Mar 11, 2013, 10:01 AM
And that is why Apple sells so much more then Android does.

This statement doesn't make sense....Android has more market share. Sure, there's fragmentation, but it's still Android.

Android is not a brand...you cannot compare an OS to a company. If you said: Apple sells more iPhones than Samsung Galaxy SIII's, then yes, they do and that's fair.

If not, though, you're just being biased and incorrect. You should only compare iOS to Android as an OS per se.

beatlemike
Mar 11, 2013, 10:55 AM
Lame-ass Android POS? Android 4.2.2 on the Nexus 4 runs circles around iOS on any device you can put it on + offers total personalization and features. I have an iPhone, I'm not against Apple in any way. I see an amazing device that could be so much more if the OS was open. I see it from a developer standpoint, because I too am one - this is a technology forum, not just a user place to chill and where noobs gather to feast in the latest ignorant comments about their beloved iOS by the mighty Apple.

iOS is limited, it won't let you do anything interesting apart from the limitations imposed by Apple. I agree with Mozilla, but they won't ever open up.

As a regular Joe, I prefer iOS for its simplicity, but as a developer and tech enthusiast, Android is my preferred platform because it allows total customization.

People shouldn't be shading Android just because it's open and allows users to do stuff. Seriously, demo a Nexus yourself, see what you can do with it, and then talk crap about Android if you're still not happy.

I would totally agree if you didn't say Android ran circles around iOS. Honestly, it seems more like a hobbyist OS with every release coming closer to an actual final version. My iPhone 5 and new iPad run great from a performance standpoint and the apps I use work flawlessly. My SIII on the other hand is the only phone I have owned where the "phone" part routinely crashes. It's a phone, the one part that should always work, is the phone app.

Aside from Samsung's devices, most Android systems are crap, not because of the OS, but the modifications made by each manufacturer, and sometimes even the carrier.

Yeah, yeah, we would all like to see a more open iOS with the same stability and security it currently has. Unfortunately Android isn't that. It's completely open, which is fun to play with, but if you want to actually play ON your phone or tablet, you will have less headaches with the way Apple has set up their ecosystem. It doesn't take a Genius to restore an iPhone/iPad.

Mozilla has consistently rolled out version after version of security flaws and poor performing browsers since version 4 of Firefox. Their CSS3 rendering is lacking when it comes to display even compared to the Metro ie10 in many ways, you get the information but it rarely looks as intended. Why would I ever want to run this on any mobile device, iOS, Android or Windows based?

I used to love Firefox, but as far as I'm concerned, good riddance. I rather use a webkit based browser any day. What was once a non-profit that was amped about making the web fast, useable and compliant is now more about whining about limitations and convincing users each new version is better. Fix your memory issues, support more HTML5 & CSS3 and innovate again so people really care, otherwise just call yourself Netscape.

lukasz74nj
Mar 11, 2013, 11:16 AM
"The unwanted" list goes longer and longer: Java, Flash, Google Maps, Online Magazines, Firefox... What's next Apple? More proprietary connectors?

Michael Goff
Mar 11, 2013, 11:41 AM
"The unwanted" list goes longer and longer: Java, Flash, Google Maps, Online Magazines, Firefox... What's next Apple? More proprietary connectors?

Google Maps is on iOS, it just isn't the default.

And this isn't because "Apple decided you didn't want it", it's because Google was wanting more and more information. They made a business decision based on the fact that their contract with Google was about to expire.

macUser2007
Mar 11, 2013, 01:08 PM
That didn't stop Google from releasing Chrome.

Innovation, people. Don't let a limitation stop you from working with all the resources you have.

This is one of the more bizarre comments I have read recently.

So, Apple puts a bunch of roadblocks to ensure that it effectively strangles all third-party browser competition, but in your mind this twists around in some rather weird ways, to lead you to the conclusion that Mozilla is at fault, because it doesn't "innovate."

Wow! :rolleyes:

roadie.f
Mar 11, 2013, 04:22 PM
Lame-ass Android POS? Android 4.2.2 on the Nexus 4 runs circles around iOS on any device you can put it on + offers total personalization and features. I have an iPhone, I'm not against Apple in any way. I see an amazing device that could be so much more if the OS was open. I see it from a developer standpoint, because I too am one - this is a technology forum, not just a user place to chill and where noobs gather to feast in the latest ignorant comments about their beloved iOS by the mighty Apple.

iOS is limited, it won't let you do anything interesting apart from the limitations imposed by Apple. I agree with Mozilla, but they won't ever open up.

As a regular Joe, I prefer iOS for its simplicity, but as a developer and tech enthusiast, Android is my preferred platform because it allows total customization.

People shouldn't be shading Android just because it's open and allows users to do stuff. Seriously, demo a Nexus yourself, see what you can do with it, and then talk crap about Android if you're still not happy.

If Android can indeed run circles around iOS, so be it, it's a motorcycle vs a tank. I'd rather be sitting in a tank than fiddling with a bike. It's my day-to-day communication device, not my computer at home or at work. I need rock solid stability and reliability. By the way, watch out for the logs and oils on the road while you do the circles.

Consultant
Mar 12, 2013, 02:01 PM
A lot of people would argue that the "Wrapper" (ie, the "chrome", no pun intended) is as important as what's being rendered in the rendering window. Some people would say it's even more important. One look at browsers like iCab or Atomic web says there are a HUGE amount of features to be added to a browser that have nothing to do with the rendering engine. Whether Mozilla has anything to add here to UIWebView on iOS is the question of course.

Exactly. The rendering engine doesn't matter as long as the result = showing a web page. Firefox's majority set of features are not based on its rendering engine.

Brother Esau
Mar 13, 2013, 12:39 AM
It's a computer, the should be no restrictions that the user themselves didn't place.

Stop being a turd and open up

Oh come on now... just ask APPLE and they will tell you that they are all about OPEN Source:D

Still cannot figure out how APPLE has not been sued by the OPEN SOURCE Community for the onslaught of B.S that they get away with considering it is based off of FREE BSD

I don't care what anyone says, I am a web developer and hands down, FIREFOX has been the best browser available on the internet since it was released in 2004!

Paradoxally
Mar 14, 2013, 08:25 PM
If Android can indeed run circles around iOS, so be it, it's a motorcycle vs a tank. I'd rather be sitting in a tank than fiddling with a bike. It's my day-to-day communication device, not my computer at home or at work. I need rock solid stability and reliability. By the way, watch out for the logs and oils on the road while you do the circles.

No, it's not. Android is solid too, look at 4.2.2 on the Nexus. But it's the ONLY device (bar Samsung Galaxy S2-S3 and some other high-ends) that I would go with an Android. I prefer Google's version of Android, no mods. Clean as can be. It's stable, it's fast, it works. Just like iOS. But it allows customization. So I can install custom ROMs + kernels. Anything I want. So if I want to do something bold, it will let me. iOS would just go 'ahhh, well, you gotta jailbreak and then see if there's a tweak...'.

And for features, Android is still better. You can't even put a weather or mail widget on iOS without a jailbreak, come on now Apple. iOS needs a SERIOUS refresh or one day you will be joining me on my shiny bike as your tank falls apart.

thewitt
Mar 14, 2013, 09:52 PM
Not too concerned that Mozilla won't release a browser known for memory leaks on iOS.

I have to force quit Firefox nearly every day on both my Mac and my PC because of memory leaks. Stay off my iPad, please....