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
I'm certainly not complaining about it.
I would however be ok if they allowed other engines as long as apps were clearly labeled as such on their download page in the App Store.
I would however be ok if they allowed other engines as long as apps were clearly labeled as such on their download page in the App Store.
About time this blatant Apple anti-trust violation of blocking 3rd party browser engines is addressed. Often get the dreaded white screen with Safari but it's fruitless to use a 3rd party browser since they're merely skins over WebKit so exhibit the same white screen. Along with that there have been plenty of serious WebKit vulnerabilities with no way to avoid since you can't switch to Google Blink engine, Firefox Gecko engine, etc. and you're at the mercy of waiting for iOS update since, unlike other OS', browser update is locked into iOS update which is another issue for a different day.
There are many things I don’t like with Safari but I avoid Chrome like the plague! We need more of a privacy focused browser that stops the pop up, under and animations while your reading a page. Also what’s with the cookies you can’t delete? Why can’t we just get rid of all tracking all together? The ad culture is out of hand, does anyone pay any attention to them?
I’ll read what I want. And, sure, WebKit testing simply isn’t feasible. *rolls eyes*
A very good friend of mine has an M1 MBA with only 8GB RAM, and he says Safari is actually worse than Chrome for slowing the machine down when he has a lot of tabs open. A surprise to both of us, but there you go.
Regardless, if users have choice, they can make their own mind up. At the moment, it's webkit or nothing on the iPhone. On the desktop, Chromium dominates, not because the other browsers have to use it, but because they can, and because users like it, regardless of the anti-Google opinions here on MacRumors.
Last edited:
There is a vast vast difference between dominance by way of banning the opposition, and dominance by way of being so superior to the opposition that everyone uses your product.
Why Chrome instead of Safari?
Try these...
httptoolkit.tech
Try these...
- Most features that Safari hasn't implemented have no hint of security, privacy or performance concerns, and they've been implemented in every other browser already.
- The largest Safari complaint is unrelated to experimental features from the Chrome team: it's the show-stopping bugs in implemented features, made worse by Safari's slow release cycle.
- Refusing to engage with the contentious API proposals for real use cases doesn't actually protect the web anyway - it just pushes web developers and users into the arms of Chromium.
Safari isn't protecting the web, it's killing it
There's been a lot of discussion recently about how "Safari is the new IE" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I don't want to rehash the basics of that, but I have seen some...
httptoolkit.tech
The problem is that safari is a practically dead browser. Safari was killed on windows= disintegrating 90% of the potential Pc market to be owned by chrome. Safari doesn’t exist for android= abandon 100% of the android phones r use chrome.
Now safari exist only on a ultra small minority using it on MacOS and iOS who are forced to use it and nether is rarely updated, intel updates their processors more often with new features on time than apple does with safari.
Why Safari does not need any protection from Chromium - Niels Leenheer 2/9/2022
Lately, web developers have begun to question Apple’s monopoly over browser rendering engines on iOS. The App Store rules force browsers on iOS to use the same rendering engine as Safari instead of using their own, as they do on every other platform, including macOS. I’ve written about this before and why this is a problem.
Even some market regulators have picked up on this sentiment. And last year, the British CMA published a preliminary report which may result in rules being imposed on Apple to force them to allow other rendering engines.
But I’ve also seen some responses that argue that having less choice is good for users. Apparently, iOS is the last bastion of WebKit that can prevent a Chromium monoculture. And if we allow Chromium on iOS, WebKit will be doomed, and we will end up with Chromium everywhere.
I do agree with Jen about the second part. I do want more voices; that is precisely what this is about. I just don’t think iOS is an exception to this. We want more voices everywhere, also on iOS.
But is there some truth to this, maybe? Are we fighting for more choice and inadvertently ending up having to choose between Chromium or Chromium?
Later in the article
Web developers will develop for where the users are. We have to because we don’t do our work in a void. We make websites to sell something to users or offer services to users. Companies pay us to create websites so they can make money. And the more potential customers they can reach, the more money they can make. To ignore or even anger Safari user is bad business. Developers will not ignore Safari if users choose to use Safari.
Lately, web developers have begun to question Apple’s monopoly over browser rendering engines on iOS. The App Store rules force browsers on iOS to use the same rendering engine as Safari instead of using their own, as they do on every other platform, including macOS. I’ve written about this before and why this is a problem.
Even some market regulators have picked up on this sentiment. And last year, the British CMA published a preliminary report which may result in rules being imposed on Apple to force them to allow other rendering engines.
But I’ve also seen some responses that argue that having less choice is good for users. Apparently, iOS is the last bastion of WebKit that can prevent a Chromium monoculture. And if we allow Chromium on iOS, WebKit will be doomed, and we will end up with Chromium everywhere.
Even Jen Simmons, an evangelist for the web developer experience team at Apple, mirrored that response by saying:
But that argument seems weird to me. And also a little insulting for the Safari team because why do you think Chromium-based browsers will suddenly overrun Safari? Are you saying Safari is not good enough?
I do agree with Jen about the second part. I do want more voices; that is precisely what this is about. I just don’t think iOS is an exception to this. We want more voices everywhere, also on iOS.
But is there some truth to this, maybe? Are we fighting for more choice and inadvertently ending up having to choose between Chromium or Chromium?
Later in the article
Web developers will develop for where the users are. We have to because we don’t do our work in a void. We make websites to sell something to users or offer services to users. Companies pay us to create websites so they can make money. And the more potential customers they can reach, the more money they can make. To ignore or even anger Safari user is bad business. Developers will not ignore Safari if users choose to use Safari.
Apple absolutely can compete. The problem is they killed the windows version years ago and never made an android version. How can you compete when the vast majority of people can’t even use your browser if they wanted to.
It’s more that WebKit don’t have code written or functions vital for PWA to work properly. It would be like having a browser but refuse to implement half of the HTML5 standards
While I'm support third party payments as they would require Apple to do nothing to implement, third party browser support would probably take some work.
Specifically browsers are like OS's themselves and need to be able to load and run code. This is something iOS simply doesn't allow for under privileged apps. They would have to weaken their technical controls on apps.
One thing Apple could do is a better job of adopting web standards in WebKit. Devs trying to create web apps (as Apple sometimes pushes them to do) can create better applications.
Specifically browsers are like OS's themselves and need to be able to load and run code. This is something iOS simply doesn't allow for under privileged apps. They would have to weaken their technical controls on apps.
One thing Apple could do is a better job of adopting web standards in WebKit. Devs trying to create web apps (as Apple sometimes pushes them to do) can create better applications.
You did say
Which sounds to others like that's exactly what you insinuated.
Perhaps next time you write what you hope others understand, not what you personally think makes sense.
Words are important - blame not others for trying to understand your true meaning - especially in a quick fire forum setting such as MR.
No, we want it to be quite different from macOS, Windows and Android.
iPhones strength is that isn't like macOS at all. It's a much simpler and restrictive system which is good.
If you need a Mac, use a Mac. If you need to configure your phone, buy Android.
I have a M1 Air - and I'm a veritable tab whore. Not had any slowdowns with Safari myself.
Meanwhile Chrome, and most Chromiun bases browsers on my Intel Mac just destroys battery life. I love the functionality of Vivaldi but I had to stop using it because it loved to get the fans running hard.
In other words - YMMV.
LOL, ridiculous.
Jobs said Apple believes in choice when it comes to putting a browser of YOUR choice in Mac OS; this was when Apple sold it's soul to Microsoft, go to 2:51 mark of this video.
This same logic should apply to iOS. That said, you're clearly drinking way too much Apple kool aid.
But wouldn't you rather ... be able to USE Firefox instead of a Firefox-themed version of Safari?
Why Chrome instead of Safari?
Try these...
Here is the full article.
- Most features that Safari hasn't implemented have no hint of security, privacy or performance concerns, and they've been implemented in every other browser already.
- The largest Safari complaint is unrelated to experimental features from the Chrome team: it's the show-stopping bugs in implemented features, made worse by Safari's slow release cycle.
- Refusing to engage with the contentious API proposals for real use cases doesn't actually protect the web anyway - it just pushes web developers and users into the arms of Chromium.
Safari isn't protecting the web, it's killing it
There's been a lot of discussion recently about how "Safari is the new IE" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I don't want to rehash the basics of that, but I have seen some...
I do support anything which makes application worse on the web.
I want native support in applications and browser to be limited to _browsing_ and some limited application functionality.
Yes, it takes away control from Apple.
Apple's choices are usually better for me than other companies.