Google Updates Chrome for iOS with Passbook Support

[MacRumors]

Google has updated their Chrome for iOS mobile web browser with Passbook support, the ability to open PDFs in other apps and more.

What's New in Version 23.0.1271.91
- Open PDFs in other apps
- Save your boarding passes and tickets with Passbook
- Seeing garbled characters? Turn on text encoding detection in settings.
- Stability and security improvements
- Many bug fixes

The browser will prompt the user to add a ticket or boarding pass to Passbook if the site supports Passbook and .pkpass file types. Chrome for iOS is the mobile version of their full featured Google Chrome web browser for desktops and is available for free for both iPad and iPhone in the App Store. [Direct Link]

Article Link: Google Updates Chrome for iOS with Passbook Support

 

[adcx64]

Keeps getting better. Now if only Apple would let the 3rd party apps get the same version of WebKit as safari so it's on par with speed.

 

[ZacNicholson]

wow i haven't used passbook or chrome on iOS. but i might now

 

[Prodo123]

Yeah, a lot more people use the YouTube app than Chrome.
Update that first please.

 

[ixozet]

I have Opera mini, like the speed

 

[jacjustjac]

Chrome and iPad

I only use Safari on my Mac and iPad, so I persuaded my girlfriend to switch to Chrome on her Mac and also use Chrome on my iPad. Now we can both enjoy cloud synced bookmarks and tabs without overriding each other's open pages! Maybe someday will add user accounts to the iPad but until then we're just fine sharing one.

 

[mrsir2009]

Keeps getting better. Now if only Apple would let the 3rd party apps get the same version of WebKit as safari so it's on par with speed.

There's a Jailbreak tweak for that

 

[maxwelltech]

Now I just need to find a way to sync opened pages between Safari and Chrome.

 

[spyguy10709]

Keeps getting better. Now if only Apple would let the 3rd party apps get the same version of WebKit as safari so it's on par with speed.

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

 

[VPrime]

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

Except this is against apples developer guidelines.
Users must use the built in Webkit UI Webview for any apps that want to display a website.
Unfortunately this does not include the nitro enhancements.

Google and almost every developer ever would LOVE to be able to use their own web renderer in iOS. But they cant.

 

[a0me]

Yeah, a lot more people use the YouTube app than Chrome.
Update that first please.

Nope, a lot more people use the Chrome app than the YouTube app.
The YouTube app still doesn't support AirPlay or the iPad, why would anyone want to use that?

 

[Technarchy]

Needs full screen support like Safari.

 

[leon44]

It's a really nice browser but it's not as integrated as Safari so I'll still only ever use it for it's very convenient incognito mode

 

[MonkeySee....]

How does it use passbook??

 

[KnightWRX]

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

3 things :

- WebKit is not an Apple project. It was originally known as KHTML/KJS, a LGPL'ed HTML/Javascript engine made by the KDE project. Apple forked the code base around version 3.0.2 and renamed it WebKit (yes, KHTML/KJS was already pretty advanced, and was powering what I considered the best browser at the time, Konqueror).

- Google surpassed Apple for Webkit commits around 2010. Also, the Webkit team is not "funded by Apple", it's quite evenly distributed with even outsiders.

- Google has their own Javascript engine in the desktop version of Chrome : V8. Apple doesn't allow 3rd party Javascript/HTML rendering engines in the App store, otherwise I'm pretty sure Google would simply incorporate V8 and let Apple have its little fun time with Nitro on its own. As it stands, Apple is artificially limiting competition in the Browser arena on iOS.

So maybe your vitriol is misplaced here. It is apparently quite ignorant of the reality behind WebKit, the App Store model and development in general too.

The more you know.

----------

Nope, a lot more people use the Chrome app than the YouTube app.
The YouTube app still doesn't support AirPlay or the iPad, why would anyone want to use that?

The Youtube is ranked #3 in the App Store this morning, Chrome sits at #57, the free app section.

However, Google does not share's Apple management policies and has such, doesn't have small core teams that they assign to projects based on priorities. Google has a Chrome team, and they have a Youtube team. Both are independant of each other and are not a single entity where work on one project interferes with work on another.

So "update Youtube first" makes no sense. Why should the Chrome team twiddle their thumbs and not provide updates if they can ? Why should they wait for the Youtube team ?

 

[derek4484]

totally agree with this

It's a really nice browser but it's not as integrated as Safari so I'll still only ever use it for it's very convenient incognito mode

Safari is completely integrated into the OS so that's the web browser I use on my iPhone. When I'm using my HTC Android phone, I use the default HTC web browser on that because its the most integrated as well. It's just easier. And I really dont see the need for different browsers on a phone. Tablet...maybe. Computer...definitely!

 

[JaySoul]

Since using Chrome on iPhone, I barely ever use Safari.

It has highlighted how poorly developed Safari really is.

 

[KdParker]

I only use Safari on my Mac and iPad, so I persuaded my girlfriend to switch to Chrome on her Mac and also use Chrome on my iPad. Now we can both enjoy cloud synced bookmarks and tabs without overriding each other's open pages! Maybe someday will add user accounts to the iPad but until then we're just fine sharing one.

Sounds like you need second iPad or power book.

 

[Quu]

I'd use Safari instead if I could easily sync my bookmarks with my iPhone & iPad from Chrome on my PC & Mac.

I know it is easy if you're using Safari everything but Safari's plugin/extension support is rubbish compared to Chromes and I make use of quite a lot of plugins.

I wish we had a universal syncing standard for this stuff that all the browser makers would use but alas that ain't gonna happen.

 

[ryanmcv]

Cool. Now they need to update the YouTube app to support iPhone 5.

 

[blackcrayon]

The latest release of Chrome finally has smooth scrolling enabled in UIWebView, so at least it's not as painful to scroll or resize (it's automatically enabled when you compile with the latest SDK). So at least 3rd party browsers get that benefit with iOS 6. This was something that needed a private API call before. I'd like to think my complaint to Tim Cook over it (Tim, you showed the iPad Twitter app opening web pages in your demo, comparing it favorable to Android's, but web pages here perform poorly- ironically like "Android", due to the lack of the background rendering option being private)...

 

[spyguy10709]

Except this is against apples developer guidelines.
Users must use the built in Webkit UI Webview for any apps that want to display a website.
Unfortunately this does not include the nitro enhancements.

Google and almost every developer ever would LOVE to be able to use their own web renderer in iOS. But they cant.

Hello? Opera Mini anyone?
It's that if you want to use the WebKit engine that's included you need to. Trust me, I'm a dev - they changed that in the 5.1 SDK update.

----------

3 things :

- WebKit is not an Apple project. It was originally known as KHTML/KJS, a LGPL'ed HTML/Javascript engine made by the KDE project. Apple forked the code base around version 3.0.2 and renamed it WebKit (yes, KHTML/KJS was already pretty advanced, and was powering what I considered the best browser at the time, Konqueror).

- Google surpassed Apple for Webkit commits around 2010. Also, the Webkit team is not "funded by Apple", it's quite evenly distributed with even outsiders.

- Google has their own Javascript engine in the desktop version of Chrome : V8. Apple doesn't allow 3rd party Javascript/HTML rendering engines in the App store, otherwise I'm pretty sure Google would simply incorporate V8 and let Apple have its little fun time with Nitro on its own. As it stands, Apple is artificially limiting competition in the Browser arena on iOS.

So maybe your vitriol is misplaced here. It is apparently quite ignorant of the reality behind WebKit, the App Store model and development in general too.

The more you know.

WebKit only survived becuase apple threw tons of cash at it. There's a reason why the WebKit project uses a Safari icon... Google passed Apple in commits on the "IE Compatibility Crusade" a few years ago.

Unlike Apple which commits bundles, Google commits every time they change a few lines. I've been auditing WebKit a little bit here and there... I know.
Much more % of code, I'm sure, has been done from Apple's coders.

Apple does allow 3rd party rendering engines now - but they can't use BOTH the BUILT IN WebKit and a 3rd party engine. (If they included V8 compiled, that would be Okay) Look at Opera Mini and many other apps. They officially changed the wording around the 5.1SDK I believe.
And FYI V8 sucks... look at android's chrome performance vs stock webkit (android browser)... Crome does WORSE. WTF.


I could run circles around you in coding, btw... Just saying.

It's apparent that your arrogance is ignorant (not you, just your arrogance) of the possibility that it could possibly be Google's fault.

 

[KnightWRX]

WebKit only survived becuase apple threw tons of cash at it.

Uh ? You haven't been around many open source projects. It has nothing to do with money.

Unlike Apple which commits bundles, Google commits every time they change a few lines. I've been auditing WebKit a little bit here and there... I know.
Much more % of code, I'm sure, has been done from Apple's coders.

You just want it to be so. Reality obviously tells a different story. Otherwise, provide sources for your claim.

Apple does allow 3rd party rendering engines now - but they can't use BOTH the BUILT IN WebKit and a 3rd party engine. (If they included V8 compiled, that would be Okay) Look at Opera Mini and many other apps.

Opera Mini does not have a Javascript engine nor does it have a HTML rendering engine. Apple absolutely does not allow 3rd parties to implement Javascript/Rendering engines.

It's apparent that your arrogance is ignorant (not you, just your arrogance) of the possibility that it could possibly be Google's fault.

Again, you just want it to be Google's fault. The fact remains : Google cannot use anything but UIWebView, so they are stuck with all its limitations (no Nitro, no background thread rendering, etc...). All browsers on iOS are limited this way.

Opera Mini is not a browser per se. It does not fetch and render HTML on your IOS device. I think you need to read up on how Opera Mini works.

 

[Mr.damien]

3 things :

- WebKit is not an Apple project. It was originally known as KHTML/KJS, a LGPL'ed HTML/Javascript engine made by the KDE project. Apple forked the code base around version 3.0.2 and renamed it WebKit (yes, KHTML/KJS was already pretty advanced, and was powering what I considered the best browser at the time, Konqueror).

I like your revisionism.

1. KHTML was not that advanced and was almost dead as Firefox was used and promoted by everybody
2. Apple created Webkit from KHTML and make it easy for everybody to use on the opposite of KHTML which was made specifically for Konqueror and used only ... by KDE people.
3. Konqueror has always been the worst browser ever. That's why any linux user's first task was to install Firefox.
4. And yes, Webkit IS an Apple project. KHTML was indeed not ...

So maybe your vitriol is misplaced here. It is apparently quite ignorant of the reality behind WebKit, the App Store model and development in general too.

 

[KnightWRX]

I like your revisionism.

1. KHTML was not that advanced and was almost dead as Firefox was used and promoted by everybody
2. Apple created Webkit from KHTML and make it easy for everybody to use on the opposite of KHTML which was made specifically for Konqueror and used only ... by KDE people.
3. Konqueror has always been the worst browser ever. That's why any linux user's first task was to install Firefox.
4. And yes, Webkit IS an Apple project. KHTML was indeed not ...

KHTML at the time was one of the engines that had some of the best W3C standard support, an active CSS/HTML roadmap that was easy to follow, and pre-dates Firefox by about 2 orders of magnitudes in time. Firefox came very late, after Mozilla became quite the bloated mess. I know, I used Firefox back when it was called Pheonix (yes, the very first build).

KHTML was also very far from dead. Obviously, you just don't think like open source folks do. It was very much alive, had tons of developer support. I was also very far from being "Konqueror" only as it was used all over KDE, was an integral part of the kdelibs package and was embedded in any application linked against kdelibs, as KDE promoted heavy componentization and object re-use. The same model Apple applies to the design of Cocoa.

And sorry, I was a full blown desktop Linux user... back in the days before KDE 1.0. There was no such thing as Firefox then. You either had the Motif version of Netscape 4.x which had such shoddy CSS support and barely any W3C standards support that it was laughable, or you had Konqueror and KHTML with KDE when it finally came, which was quite nice to work with.

Gecko/Firefox/Mozilla all came quite later and I still stuck to using Konqueror all the time I used Linux full time. I had Firefox installed, but never quite managed to switch to it full time as long as I was using KDE.

Sorry, my history is not revisionist. WebKit was not born out of thin air, Apple used an open source project. I don't know why both you and spyguy want to bash Google for using Webkit when they obviously contribute a lot to it. I've posted 2 links showing you that is the case. They aren't "free loading", not anymore than Apple "free loaded" off of the KDE project.

That's just insane talk from people wanting to bash Google for no reason, just irrational hate.