I thought the infallible App Store review process (which the 30% revenue cut funds) stops such a nefarious app making its way into the App Store in the first place?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's WebKit Rules Reportedly Cost iOS Users Almost 30% Browser Performance
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ironically it’s the past year or so of Apple operating systems ******tification has made me move to Linux 😅
Ships passing in the night, or however that saying goes 😆
jbrwTP7u
macrumors member
I won’t go into the research, but could Microsoft theoretically build an alternative for the EU market and prove to everyone how much Apple sucks?
At this point, even Chrome with a decent Manifest V3 version of uBlock Lite would be a step up. I can imagine Brave, LibreWolf, or Waterfox with Manifest V2 extensions on this POS.
At this point, even Chrome with a decent Manifest V3 version of uBlock Lite would be a step up. I can imagine Brave, LibreWolf, or Waterfox with Manifest V2 extensions on this POS.
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
What's the business case?
Microsoft doesn't even develop their own engine any more because it isn't really worth it.
what? chrome was using webkit and became #1 while it was using webkit before it got forked.
Past tense as Google and Mozilla built better rending engines.
Webkit sucks plain and simple.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
That seems like either a sarcastic and cynical jab, (suggesting that you're really just making a weak attempt at trolling) or a naive and uneducated viewpoint... so in my attempt to (ahem) think the best of you, I will assume the latter and offer some history that might help you to understand the reality of the situation a bit better.
On August 13th 2020, Epic Games made a deliberate move against Apple's in-app purchases policy, by implementing a payment processing system which entirely circumvented Apple's own payment processor, denying Apple that 30% cut that you mentioned. In so doing, Epic also demonstrated that no amount of App Store review can entirely prevent ne’er-do-wells from finding ways to break the rules. This also resulted in years of lawsuits and other legal and political actions, and is still an active topic to this day.
The reality is, Apple can block those apps after the fact, but it's quite impossible to prevent a truly determined nefarious actor from doing these kinds of things in the first place. And this was still true prior to the existence of the various regulatory and legal landmines which have been deployed along every path that Apple could possibly trod.
Life is never really as simple as your quick quip pretends to suggest.
you argued "No other operating system wants to run Webkit because it's the most frequently hacked environment around." yet Chrome became #1 when it was the most frequently hacked environment.
You're changing the argument now.
surferfb
macrumors 68030
It’s also not true that “it’s the most frequently hacked environment around”. And even if it was the fact that Apple can push a patch to all browsers instead of having to wait for various developers to get around to patching their browser to fix the latest exploit is a good thing that keeps users safer than they would be otherwise.
Google, Mozilla, and every other browser are forced by Apple to use Webkit on Apple devices.
Last edited:
On Mac? No. Literally not true.
Chrome on Mac uses Chromium (forked from Webkit).
Firefox on Mac uses Gecko (not related to Webkit at all).
Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you because you misunderstood how browsers work on the Mac?
Last edited:
Chromium engine marketshare across all mobile operating systems is currently at around 75%.
What happens to that number when Apple allows apps to use Chromium? It goes up, considering the second most popular browser app on iOS is currently Chrome.
Do you believe Chromium's overall mobile marketshare increasing from 75% is healthy for competition?
The fact that Chromium-based browser market share is 75% does not mean that there is something wrong in their favour. It could even be 99%.
Anti-competition is not defined simply by some people having the opinion that the market share of a product/service is too big and not liking that.
Do you have examples of anti-competition practices that explains Chromium's apparently large market share? If so, please enlighten me.
As far as I know, that market share simply comes down to people's choices, and that's competition working.
On the contrary, Apple is the one with anti-competition practices in the iOS / iPadOS browser market, precisely by prohibiting Chromium and other engines.
You, and others here, are defending that those rules should prevail, because you want to prevent Chromium's market share from growing.
You don't want to allow browser vendors to compete equally and you don't want people to be free to make their own decisions on what browsers to use.
Whether Chromium's overall market share being high is a good thing or not, that's a different conversation.
I might agree that it could be a bad thing, but trying to fight that by defending Apple's anti-competition practices while trying to frame it as "it promotes competition" is incredibly contradictory.
Last edited:
Semantics, I'm referencing all Apple devices.
Apple forces all 3rd party browsers to use Webkit on iOS and iPadOS.
Do you believe German beer is better than American beer? It's all personal preference. Apparently you are all in on webkit and keeping Safari relevant.
zarmanto
macrumors 65816
That's not semantics; rather, it appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes "all Apple devices." To germanbeer007's point: Apple does quite a bit more than just iOS/iPadOS, and they don't enforce the same rules on the Mac that they enforce on iOS, with regards to Webkit. In fact, it would be quite impossible for them to have required Webkit on the Mac, since several other web browser options were available on the Mac long before either Webkit or iOS even existed.
It may seem like an unimportant point to you, but I believe it benefits all concerned to have a proper historical context for the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Other browsers existed long before iOS and iPadOS. Your argument is pretty pointless.
Folks, @gummybear2026 wasn't talking about the Mac! It's obvious that he meant iOS and iPadOS.
How about not diverting the conversation over a tiny detail?
Last edited:
I have no idea what you mean "that there is something wrong in their favor". Doesn't make sense.
The argument is that 75% going up doesn't promote health competition. An already dominant player becoming more dominant makes it less likely smaller players have success.
It's still literally wrong. Mac allows non-webkit. So it's not "all Apple devices".
We were discussing Chrome climbing to #1 using webkit as an engine, including on a Mac which counters on something you argued "No other operating system wants to run Webkit because it's the most frequently hacked environment around.".
It means that just because you think their market share is large, that's irrelevant.
What matters is whether the people behind Chromium are conducting unlawful anti-competitive practices that allowed them to reach that market share.
As I asked in the previous comment - and you have chosen to just respond to a very minor part of it - if you have any evidence of such practices, enlighten us.
Otherwise, it's just competition happening, with people making free choices, irrespective of whether you like it or not.
Does that make it clear to you?
Nope.
He argued "No other operating system wants to run Webkit because it's the most frequently hacked environment around.". Chrome ran WebKit on Windows and Mac and became #1, therefore it made that statement false. He tried to pass it off as Chrome had no other choice but to run WebKit on a Mac.
I didn't divert the conversation. I'm countering the "Chrome has no other choice but to run WebKit on a Mac" argument when it was purely a choice Google made. That choice made Chrome #1 before they switched engines.