This elides an important detail: outside of iOS a browser implementer can choose the code to compile and link against. Even if they build on Chrome, they can patch it to their heart's content or even fork and carry on. On iOS the browser runtime is set by fiat.
Also worth observing that most web browsers in the history of the web (including Chrome and Safari) started out as a fork of some other browser.
Oh what I’d give for a real Firefox browser on iOS. I see lots of value in preventing chrome based browser from running through as they already dominate and shape the web too much as it is.
Some people equate blink and webkit because of their shared heritage. I think it has definitely diverged enough to be considered separate engines (like how webkit is considered separate from khtml), but some disagree.
Enforcing webkit prevents websites from going back to "best viewed with internet explorer" today just with IE replaced by "any broweser using chromium".
I don't use apple, but I do appreciate the suffering of limited choice their users endure for the effect of higher diversity. Thank you, iphone users.
> And you see that as a reason enough to prevent millions of users from choosing their browser?
"Only works in Chrome" will prevent millions of users from choosing a browser; Google already fucks with Firefox in spots, because they can. Anyone who built websites in the late 90s / early 2000s remembers the IE monoculture.
I remember the IE monoculture, and you know what broke it? Choice. Being able to install firefox, opera (and later chrome and safari) on windows, being able to install icab or other browsers on mac os even when apple shipped IE5 as the default.
You’re really missing the point, but as a bonus, that’s why the iPhone launched with a dedicated YouTube app; Google didn’t want to give up all that potential revenue.
We know letting a dominant player abuse their position to corner the market has long-term downsides to user choice. Windows, IE, and now Chrome.
So basically having no choice and a subpar engine shoved down your throat is actually better for the whole web because otherwise Chrome would spread too much?
Safari is the only thing stopping Google from having a monopoly on the browser market. Take that away and Google will single-handedly control the future direction of the internet.
While I may like the idea of browser engine choice on iOS, I think preventing Google from owning the web is more important.
While I hate the tech-giant control of the internet as much as anybody else I don't think that restricting user choice of their browser is at all the right way to fix it.
Why do you think that forcing people to use safari/webkit is a good solution?
It’s not a perfect solution, but I’m not sure what the alternative would be that wouldn’t lead to Google’s domination. It’s still technically the market doing this, as it’s an Apple rule. People who don’t like Apple’s ways of doing things are free to use Android. I guess I’d prefer that over some kind of government enforced control.
I’m also going to assume the percentage of users who know this situation exists, care, and have an actual impact to their user experience is exceptionally small.
999,999 times out of 1,000,000, when someone is downloading a different browser on their phone it isn’t for the engine, it’s to get something like tab and bookmark syncing.
> I guess I’d prefer that over some kind of government enforced control.
You know what the "government enforced control" is? Choice. Literally, the so called "government enforced control" is giving you the choice of doing the exact same thing you did before or, if you'd like, something different.
Telling people to "just use android then" will be fine when apple destructs the walls of its walled garden.
I’m thinking further down the line. If Google ends up with 99% market share, and then the government has to come in to end the monopoly, what will that intervention look like? Some of this was seen a couple decades ago with Microsoft in Europe.
With no market share left, will other companies/organizations give up on maintaining their own browser engine? Microsoft has already given up, so has Opera. Will we even have the possibility of choice?
Why does Apple need to take down their walls for people to move to Android? Most people use Apple products because of the walled garden, not in spite of it. I really don’t think the walls are that high, not much higher than any other platform switch someone might do.
> Most people use Apple products because of the walled garden, not in spite of it.
I don't think this is true at all, and I suspect the users who feel this do it because a vague sense of security, not that they actually want less choice.
I'm sure many iphone users would want to stick with their default apps, but I also think a lot of them would understand their co-users different choices.
Some choice is good, but too much choice can make it difficult for people. Desktop Linux is a perfect example of too much choice being a barrier widespread adoption.
But that’s not really what I’m talking about, as I don’t think people are actively thinking about that.
What I’m talking about is more about the walled garden that creates a space where users know their devices are going to work really well together. An iPhone with AirPods, an Apple Watch, iPad, and a MacBook are going to allow users to do more things, more easily, than if all those similar products were bought from random other companies with choice in mind. Then there are features like AirDrop that are really nice when dealing with people with other Apple products. A lot of these things get rolled out and adopted successfully because Apple has a lot of vertical integration and isn’t too worried about anything outside their garden, they just want the experience for their customers to be good, which it is. Breaking this apart in the name of choice will make these things worse, in all likelihood. This is bad for current Apple customers who enjoy having this level of integration.
I view Apple products like video game consoles. No one is telling Sony they need to make Playstation VR work with the Switch, nor is anyone telling Nintendo that they need to release Tears of the Kingdom on Xbox. I don’t see how Apple is any different. These are all walled gardens. Apple is more open than the consoles.
Apple makes hardware to run its software, other companies make software to run on generic hardware. These are two distinct business models and governments shouldn’t be forcing one business to operate like a completely different business. Forcing Apple to operate like Microsoft or Google is removing user choice, by eliminating their model from the market, a model a subset of users clearly like the result of. Kind of funny that no one had a problem with it for 40 years, and it’s only now that they’ve become more successful that people are trying to kill it; people who likely aren’t even Apple customers.
I think a lot of these pushes for Apple to open up are being driven by people, companies, or organizations, that stand to profit from Apple failing. If customers had a problem they would stop buying the products, yet we’ve seen iOS market share go up, which likely means people are switching from Android to iOS. Why would that be if Apple is so terrible and controlling? It can’t all be about iMessage.
> An iPhone with AirPods, an Apple Watch, iPad, and a MacBook are going to allow users to do more things, more easily, than if all those similar products were bought from random other companies with choice in mind. Then there are features like AirDrop that are really nice when dealing with people with other Apple products.
How would allowing users to install non-Apple-approved software prevent these features from working?
Be careful what you wish for. This is good until it isn’t.
With Google owning the market, there is really nothing to stop them from implementing “features” that are good for them, but bad for the intent as a whole.
Sad, but true. Unfortunately, Safari still has some ways to go in terms of feature support.
https://ios404.com/ has a great list of stuff that's still missing.
In my opinion it is very fortunate that most of these APIs are not supported. I don’t want a webpage to make my phone vibrate for instance. Nor do I want to be able to give the permission for a webpage to do it by the way.
If you want to be even more cynical you could say they are all limited versions of Safari. There are valid security concerns for why Apple does this but I would love more choices as a developer.
It's kind of funny hearing this from Brave which is Chrome with a different design. I'm guessing Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, Opera GX, Orion, Sigma OS, Arc all consider themselves to have differentiated themselves from Chrome despite being Chrome under the hood.
If Webkit === Safari then is Blink === Chrome? Do people actually want alternative browser engines or do folks just want all iOS browsers to be backed by Chromium?
The title/community post are wrong - it's WebKit, not Safari itself. But the intended meaning is true, all browsers on iOS are "skins" on the WebKit engine, no Gecko, Blink, etc.
This still ignores all the differentiation between the browsers on iOS, even if they're all on WebKit. And even as Orion proves, browsers on iOS can support Firefox/Chrome extensions! So WebKit isn't something that prevents that...
