It’s not like Apple’s hurting for the engineering resources needed to properly maintain WebKit. The issue is that Apple hasn’t been allocating those resources and, given the attitude of Jen Simmons and Apple’s vested interest in stunting web apps’ UX, probably won’t do so any time soon.
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.
Should Apple Continue to Ban Rival Browser Engines on iOS?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple’s vision for the web is a web browser running on an OS controlled by them. Google’s vision for the web is an OS controlled by them running on everything. Web devs like this because they can make one “app” that runs everywhere. The fact that this “app” sucks 90% of the time is irrelevant to them. Apple can’t compete with “save tons of time and money even if it’s crappy”. They have tried actually- Mac Catalyst. Hasn’t been much of a success though. The only way Apple can actually compete with Chromium is make WebKit just like it, which defeats the whole point.
They’re incredibly popular and competitive - to customers. Screw developers who demand free rides without having to make their own platform.
It won’t be left to the user when websites say “best viewed in Chrome” and native apps get pulled in favor of Electron garbage.
You do know that webkit was released as a open sourced so external engineering sources can contribute. Irregardless
this does appear to be more complaining then considering the ramifications of painting yourself in a corner leaning on Google product for Apple.
From a security perspective I dislike Google a lot. No one here can convince me about how lax and inattentive they have been to support anything that effects Apple users. Just the long back and forth with 4K HDR playback with Youtube not working in Safari was tethered that they didn't want to turn it on until it suited them. Remember change User Agent setting to Chome or edge then it worked.
Doubly so given the downward trend we've seen with Apple's code quality over the past several years.
When I encounter websites like this, I tend to leave and not return. However, Apple could alleviate some of this by improving the testing story for WebKit, which is sad at best on Apple platforms and becoming nonexistent elsewhere.
Of course there used to be Safari for Windows, but that’s so far out of date, not to mention the developer features it lacks, that it’s entirely useless. There’s also PhantomJS, an open-source “headless” WebKit browser, but that’s been abandoned for several years now and unlikely to return.
Absent an accessible way to test their code on WebKit, developers in many cases won’t test their code for it. When they can’t run WebKit tests, users will inevitably begin reporting bugs due to Safari/WebKit’s quirks (like the weird real-life bug I mentioned earlier in this thread). Since developers can’t easily test a fix given that many don’t have access to Apple devices, they will either advise users to switch browsers or attempt to disable the browser altogether.
Whatever Apple has to do to "protect user security and privacy, as well as prevent the dominance of Chromium" is alright with me, baby.
Sure, because it’s impossible to test web code on WebKit. *rolls-eyes*
So I think *yes* Apple should allow other browser engines, but I also think it was a ****** move from Google way back to split from Apple in co-developing WebKit and creating their own Chromium. That and making Android while still on the board of Apple -- also a ****** move.
Did you read any of what I wrote following the first paragraph? Please do so and try again. I don’t recall claiming that it’s impossible, but for many developers WebKit testing simply isn’t feasible.
Like Safari that only gets updated when the entire freaking OS is updated? Save a security update or two that still requires an entire OS update? Chrome is updated endlessly.... and other browsers using Chromium do the same.
Attachments
The reality is that as a mandatory sandboxed environment, third party apps cannot get access to enough system API and entitlements to build a competitive browser from scratch.
Part of why the web view has acceptable performance is that it still runs out of process with those system affordances.
I don't see Mozilla or Google porting their layout engines over if it also means that javascript performance will have an order-of-magnitude negative impact.
I'd like someone to show me the math on how third party browsers enable side loading. From where I stand, the system permissions would not allow them to download and run native code. Even for PWA, they would not necessarily have the ability to add icons to the Home Screen, or to have those applications launch in an independent application space.
Historically, Apple has sometimes given less access to applications shipped outside the store in terms of entitlements abilities, such as the prior inability for Developer-signed Mac apps to use iCloud API. I would expect that even in a world where side loading was allowed, Apple would begin restricting access to system API and entitlements to applications shipped in the store (as Google already does via restrictions on Play services).
Part of why the web view has acceptable performance is that it still runs out of process with those system affordances.
I don't see Mozilla or Google porting their layout engines over if it also means that javascript performance will have an order-of-magnitude negative impact.
I'd like someone to show me the math on how third party browsers enable side loading. From where I stand, the system permissions would not allow them to download and run native code. Even for PWA, they would not necessarily have the ability to add icons to the Home Screen, or to have those applications launch in an independent application space.
Historically, Apple has sometimes given less access to applications shipped outside the store in terms of entitlements abilities, such as the prior inability for Developer-signed Mac apps to use iCloud API. I would expect that even in a world where side loading was allowed, Apple would begin restricting access to system API and entitlements to applications shipped in the store (as Google already does via restrictions on Play services).
If Chromium does the same thing on the mobile market it does on the desktop it will also be eating your phone's SDD like candy:
Totally different situation. Might as well sue Ford for only selling Ford vehicles while you are at it.
At least you can see some cooperation between Apple, Mozilla (FireFox) and Opera in that regard on the webkit/performance. There is a wide variety of scripted webpage design out there coming from design perspective, even using some select HTMP pages is not really a good benchmark.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I think we are all looking for some laughs with Chrome going to 3 digit version and a web page saying that browser is not supported. Yep simply ratcheting up the version number doesn't earn you points.
Firefox 100 and Chrome 100 may have user-agent issues
Mozilla developers have warned that sites may experience problems with the upcoming versions of Firefox 100 and Chrome 100
gridinsoft.com
Last edited:
I know that Mozilla makes Firefox. Neat that they’ve talked to each other, I guess, but in either case that’s not the kind of testing I’m referring to. That refers to performance tests for proposed changes to WebKit itself, not developers testing their code against WebKit.
Currently there are very few websites like this because web devs must support iOS. If Chrome was on iOS they would just tell people to download Chrome. Plus, I think Apple is right in not adding on all the bells and whistles Google pours into Chromium every month. The web is not supposed to be your OS. So the only way for Apple to "improve" WebKit is to support all of Chromium's features, which defeats the point of WebKit. And it doesn't address the issue of Chrome bringing PWAs and Electron to iOS.
I think Apple should bring back Safari for Windows. Give more competition to Chrome, and make it easier for devs to support.
Yet currently the vast majority of web devs do test for Safari- they have to. Then they complain about "browser choice"- ironically because they don't want to have to support Safari at all. What they want is the choice to ignore Safari.
Been doing some reading on this and was surprised at what I found.
Apple only allowing Webkit looks more and more like a revenue protection item than any kind of security or privacy issue. Apple is way behind on implementing basic standards. This pushes users to apps instead of browser for many things.
Wow.
Apple only allowing Webkit looks more and more like a revenue protection item than any kind of security or privacy issue. Apple is way behind on implementing basic standards. This pushes users to apps instead of browser for many things.
Wow.
Apple should have implemented a smarter hardware sandbox/hypervisor to allow JIT engines in third party software and opened up the browser engine for 100% third-party implementations YEARS AGO.
So no, they should not continue banning them. It's embarassing how utterly worthless the iOS version of literally every browser is today. Let Mozilla and Google have a year's worth of user hazing for having battery-draining ********, and let the complaints be because they didn't get their **** together and not becaue Apple has their hands tied behind their collective backs on optimizations.
Dear Macrumors: I appreciate the asterisks. It actually keeps my intent pretty clear ^o^
So no, they should not continue banning them. It's embarassing how utterly worthless the iOS version of literally every browser is today. Let Mozilla and Google have a year's worth of user hazing for having battery-draining ********, and let the complaints be because they didn't get their **** together and not becaue Apple has their hands tied behind their collective backs on optimizations.
Dear Macrumors: I appreciate the asterisks. It actually keeps my intent pretty clear ^o^