
Microsoft’s Edge for Mac browser now available in preview - Supermighty
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/20/18632709/microsoft-edge-mac-browser-download-preview
======
merb
I must say, I'm a little bit impressed. it's fast and has a lot of settings
that are simple to understand and still looks to favor privacy.

it can run Extensions from Microsoft and you can install additional extension
stores (like google) with just a click. (of course not all extensions will
work, like 1password+app didn't but 1password x, did)

~~~
SpikeDad
Guess I don't see any reason for a 4th (and even more if you consider Chrome
variants) browser to exist.

It takes a lot to make me get off of Safari. About the only time I do is when
I must have Flash for streaming services and then I use Chrome's integrated
flash support.

I guess if MS adds all of the proprietary features of Edge on Windows so that
macOS users can run locked in Windows web apps that might be a highly
attractive reason but it seems they're not going to be doing that.

I'm wondering if they're using integrated Keychain support? I guess if it's
build on Chromium perhaps not. Frankly for me that's a non starter.

~~~
Acen
They don't support keychain for the individual sites (though it does use the
keychain password like chrome to encrypt site logon credentials) but it does
use it for application passwords. Like logging into Edge itself for the user
data syncing.

~~~
stiGGG
AFAIK keychain access is only allowed for apps distributed through the Mac
AppStore since a while. This is why Chrome removed the feature.

~~~
SpikeDad
There's nothing in the developer section

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security)

that specifies this restriction. Maybe I couldn't find the reference.

I'm pretty sure the Chrome folks removed it because they didn't think the
Keychain was secure (at least from the readings I've done).

------
favorited
Anyone know why you need to run an installer (with admin access)? Chrome is a
plain-old .app which you can drag from a disk image... Is Edge installing
shared frameworks or something?

Quick edit: extracting the contents of the installer, it looks like maybe it
wants to install the Office auto updater at the same time...

~~~
_dev
It runs a bunch of pre and postinstall scripts, which seem to mainly be
sending install telemetry to Microsoft:
[https://imgur.com/LbCd89v](https://imgur.com/LbCd89v)

There's a `send_event` binary in the package which appears to post data to
[https://self.events.data.microsoft.com/OneCollector/1.0/](https://self.events.data.microsoft.com/OneCollector/1.0/)

~~~
favorited
Well, now they have telemetry of me launching the installer, realizing that
they don't give any context about what is being installed, and closing it...

------
blowski
That domain name looks like a phishing attack waiting to happen.

~~~
qxcbr
Right? If you asked me, I'd say that domain "microsoftedgeinsider.com" belongs
to some Indian scamming call centre.

For what reason have they purchased that domain instead of hosting it under
microsoft.com ?

~~~
anoncake
Buying a domain was easier than dealing with the MS department of subdomains
of microsoft.com?

~~~
BlackRing
I would have believed that if it were HP. Snark aside, it _is_ unusual
behavior coming from Microsoft.

------
piotrkubisa
What is an idea of Edge on Mac? Is there any incentive to provide a browser
that is available on other OS-es than Windows? Vivaldi and Opera went similar
way, trying to cut some piece of browser market cake using a Blink engine and
similar ecosystem as Chrome. Except Edge-only (i.e. Skype, Office365, Stadia-
like platform) business game I don't see why it should cut in a market,
especially in non-Windows operating systems.

~~~
CM30
Well, it helps web developers who want to test their sites in Edge but have a
Macbook or something. That's not a huge audience, but it's a potentially
valuable one, especially if Edge somehow finds an audience with Windows users.

~~~
piotrkubisa
> helps web developers who want to test their sites in Edge

I am a bit biased after your comment. Microsoft Edge is going to have Blink as
an underlying rendering engine, the same as in Chromium, Chrome, Opera,
Vivaldi etc. etc. You have pointed out that it might "help web developers",
then could you explain me how there might be some difference (even negligible)
in rendering between those browsers since they all run on the same technology?
It's not Trident nor EdgeHTML anymore, there won't be any star-slash-
backslash, -ms prefixes, filter() nor other hacks [0] that we had to use for
IE. It does not look like Microsoft is going to fork Blink anytime soon,
because it will be quite the same thing as they would stay and continue
development on EdgeHTML engine.

I don't see any advantage of having Edge on macOS, FreeBSD, Linux, etc. for
web developers. However, in case of end-users the cross-platform browser have
more sense, especially when they got used to specific features and ecosystem.
Lack of macOS browser might lead to churn or a problem with adoption to it.

[0]: [http://browserhacks.com/](http://browserhacks.com/)

~~~
hellooldfriend
Edge is getting an IE mode, right? That should help test/view sites on that
were meant to run on IE.

I realize this is an edge-case (pun not intended) but just pointing it out.

~~~
piotrkubisa
Aha, thanks for clarification! It makes sense now, but I am looking forward to
see what versions of Trident they are going to provide. It looks like they
might completely strip possibility to download Windows VMs with IE [0], if
they are going to roll out all currently available engines (IE8 to IE11).

[0]: [https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
edge/tools/v...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
edge/tools/vms/)

------
anoncake
A less cross-platform version of Chrome. Just what the world was waiting for.

~~~
qxcbr
I see it as a version of Blink (the fastest and most secure rendering engine
there is) which is not controlled by Google. To me, it is something to
consider.

~~~
anoncake
Blink is still controlled by Google. Microsoft doesn't control anything.

They obviously don't control Google's Blink. They could fork it, but in that
case they'd have to maintain a browser engine again. If Microsoft could/wanted
to do that, they could have just stayed with the old IE Edge.

~~~
qxcbr
Since it's in their interests to have a browser installed on Windows by
default, if Google did something wrong, they will definitely fork Blink. What
alternative do they have?

~~~
anoncake
They have no alternative. Like everyone else, they're at the mercy of Google.

It doesn't matter if it's in Microsoft interests to fork Blink, as that would
require maintaining their fork. Which they _can 't_. If Microsoft were able to
maintain a browser engine, they would not be switching to Blink in the first
place.

~~~
tolmasky
The history of "Blink" has been Company X using it, then eventually forking,
and winning:

Apple decides to use KHTML instead of developing their own browser engine from
scratch. This allows a very small team to focus on user experience, instead of
the monumental task of replicating the entirety of the historical W3C
standard, and ship Safari. Eventually Apple forks KHTML into WebKit.

Google decides to use WebKit instead of developing their own browser engine
from scratch. This allows Google to focus on unique features like process
isolation and the new V8 javascript engine, instead of the monumental task of
replicating the entirety of the historical W3C standard, and ship Chrome.
Eventually Google forks WebKit into Blink.

Microsoft decides to use Blink instead of developing their own browser engine
from scratch. This allows Microsoft to focus on privacy-related features,
instead of the monumental task of replicating the entirety of the historical
W3C standard, and ship Edge Chrome. [What will happen next?]

The HTML spec is HUGE, and getting to a point where a new engine can
successfully render all the quirks of HTML, CSS, and JS (and WebAssembly,
and...) is a harder and harder task every year. Look how long its taking
Firefox to get their Rust rewrite going. If you want to focus on end-user
features, it makes no sense to start by arbitrarily making a new browser
engine that's goal is to... successfully replicate the behavior of existing
competing engines (since that's the real standard). If your competitor is open
source, then just use that, and focus on what you want to provide.

It is my opinion that people have severely misinterpreted the power dynamic
here. Every Windows machine will soon ship with a browser that, as is evident
in this very thread, is "basically Chrome"... minus all the Google ID stuff.
This is a nightmare for Google, what do they have to offer? "Download Chrome
so we can track you!". That's the way its going to sound if Edge Chrome
correctly puts its privacy features front and center. Meanwhile, they're
getting support for CSS grid or whatever-js-feature for free from Google's
hundreds of workers on Chrome.

~~~
ridiculous_fish
The power dynamic is more marketing than technical. Google is willing to push
Chrome in their most valuable web real estate:

\- Chrome ads on the google.com landing page

\- Pop-overs when you log into gmail

\- Inside the security alerts when you log in with a new device

And probably lots more than I haven't found. Is there any other product that
they push so hard?

~~~
tolmasky
> Chrome ads on the google.com landing page

And the best way to fight this is with a browser that ships with the OS that
takes you to Bing instead of Google.

Either way, this seems orthogonal to the question at hand. Google will push
Chrome in all those places regardless of the engine Microsoft chooses to use.
Having complete parity with Chrome rendering seems at worst neutral, and at
best competitive as Google now needs to rely entirely on marketing (or on
features present exclusively in Chrome and not Chromium). I'm not saying
Google doesn't have many cards left to play here, but this move is absolutely
a net positive for Microsoft in this fight.

~~~
ridiculous_fish
I fear that Microsoft has given up the fight, and is content to enjoy the
seigniorage from defaulting the home page on Windows, while allowing Google to
completely dominate the evolution of the web. Time will tell.

------
CDSlice
Does this mean that they will start allowing add-ons in the Android app? If I
can get a web browser for my Android that uses Chrome's engine and allows
extensions I'll switch to it in a heartbeat.

(And before someone replies with Kiwi, I personally am not comfortable using a
(practically) closed source fork of mobile Chrome mantained by a single,
unknown individual)

~~~
bpye
Wondering why Firefox on Android isn't sufficient? I realise it's Gecko not
Blink but for the most part it works well, for me at least.

~~~
CDSlice
It's OK, but it's been kind of glitchy and it sucks my battery up more than
Chrome does by default. An ad blocker helps a lot and makes it better than
Chrome, but I think something based off of Blink that allows uBlock Origin
would be best. Plus Firefox on Android has been EOLed until Mozilla finishes
their new Android browser rewrite.

------
detaro
Direct link to announcement this report is based on:
[https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2019/05/20/microsoft-
edg...](https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2019/05/20/microsoft-edge-macos-
canary-preview/)

------
mark_l_watson
Good for Microsoft for continuing to support multiple platforms.

That said, unless they support Firefox style privacy containers, Edge is a no
go for me.

I will still use Safari on iOS, but for macOS and Linux I am all in for
Firefox unless another browser supports container privacy isolation.

------
nailer
Blogspam. Original URL: [https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-
us/download](https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/en-us/download)

dang it would be good to get the title updated.

------
gnicholas
Downloaded this to see if my startup's Chrome extension is compatible. Looks
like it is, which is good.

But it is dog-slow compared to Brave. I cannot imagine switching to a browser
that is anywhere near this sluggish.

~~~
jmkni
I wonder if the preview build is un-optimised (ie built for debugging/testing)
which makes it slower?

------
ZeroGravitas
Does this include the IE11 mode or is that seperate and Windows only?

~~~
WorldMaker
IE11 Mode hasn't even yet made into Windows Insider builds yet. Also, the
assumption is that it would have to be Windows only because IE11 itself is
(and likely always will be) Windows only.

------
PascLeRasc
[deleted]

~~~
tolmasky
If I get all the benefits of Chrome without weird Google ID stuff (and without
having to download and/or build my own Chromium), then I'd use it. Might
forget to switch the search engine to Google from Bing. Now they're making ad
money.

Regardless, if you want to take the browser market seriously, you need to be
cross-platform. Especially if all the hard work of cross-platformness has
already been done for you (as is probably the case with Chrome).

~~~
anoncake
> If I get all the benefits of Chrome without weird Google ID stuff

You get weird Microsoft ID stuff instead.

------
sys_64738
Microsoft is making macOS cool again with some innovative software. Apple is
still emoji king, though.

~~~
Austin_Conlon
What Apple macOS apps would you consider to be lacking?

~~~
tssva
Mail, Maps, Safari, Messages, FaceTime, Photos

~~~
jorisw
I find all those apps to be outstanding. Except you can't beat Google Maps.

~~~
tssva
For me Safari, Messages, Facetime and Photos all share a fatal flaw. They only
work with the Apple ecosystem and/or when the person you want to communicate
with are in the Apple ecosystem. But I suspect most here are ok with that. It
is one of those things which Apple for some reason generally gets a pass for
on HN but others such as Google do not. Whenever a Google application doesn't
function, functions suboptimally or Google introduces a proprietary solution
HN tends to work itself into a frenzy but Apple restricting it apps and
services only to Apple products barely raises an eyebrow.

Safari also suffers from slow adoption of new standards and a dearth of
extensions compared to either Chrome or Firefox.

~~~
jorisw
The ecosystem argument I understand when talking about iMessage and FaceTime.
How the argument pertains to Photos or Safari is unclear to me.

I uses Photos as a personal photos archive, and it works.

And Safari is just a web browser, and the best one at that IMHO. It's fast and
sleek, with the smallest browser chrome of them all. And I'm curious which
standards it (you must mean WebKit) has been slow to adopt. I doubt there's
enough of them, compared to Chromium, to call the whole browser slow to adopt.

I use Safari even for Web development purposes, as I personally don't need
anything else besides the stock Inspector/Console. Hence extensions don't
matter to me as much.

~~~
tssva
The ecosystem argument pertains to Safari because Apple doesn't produce
versions of Safari for other platforms which means bookmarks and extensions
can be shared across platforms as they can with Chrome and Firefox.

For Photos the argument pertains because it doesn't tie in with any other
photo storage services except their own. For instance macOS has my Google
account information and the ability to use it for Mail, Contacts, Calendars
and Notes but Photos won't use Google Photos to store web albums.

Safari is an app using WebKit which means if WebKit is slow to adopt than
Safari which uses it is also. Some of the technologies I care about that
Safari/WebKit has been slow to deploy include WebRTC, a variety of standards
around progressive web apps such as service workers and the Push API and
support of open audio and video codecs.

