5 ms·

Given how much time users spend in their browser, not allowing other browser engines could be entirely explained by not wanting to deal with support & review is

Given how much time users spend in their browser, not allowing other browser engines could be entirely explained by not wanting to deal with support & review issues when users notice their brand new iPhone has 20% less battery life than it should (because they're using a browser that doesn't use Safari's engine).

mimsee 6y ago
Sure. Battery-life expectations, security (like actually this time), expected integration with the rest of the operating system. But even speaking as an EU citizen, this ruling that only one browser engine can be used is very un-american. Where's the freedom in that. If I damn well know my battery will run in 10minutes if I use an app, well as an american (i'm not) I should be able to.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  Yeah, but like 0.1% of their user base really cares about that particular freedom, while the rest would end up installing Chrome because Google put ad-banners for it at the top of all the Mobile Safari search results, then be pissed off that their iPhone is suddenly working worse "for no reason". Un-American, I dunno, maybe, but specifically the freedom of being able to run a different browser engine on iOS does seem like one of those freedoms that would just make life worse for most people for minimal benefit. To boot, the main beneficiary would be a competitor, at the expense of not just Apple but everyone on the platform. It's not even like the main effect would be an improved consumer experience.
  - mimsee 6y ago
    How does Apple loose in any way that I am allowed to run software on their devices? Especially free software like browsers. I mean doesn't that literally keep me as their customer more? Now that I'm not switching to an Android device where the land is greener.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      They literally just explained why: browsers not using WebKit perform worse and this makes iPhones look bad, which Apple doesn't want.
      - m-p-3 6y ago
        I'd like to see that, but considering it's not possible to independently validate this because you can't run anything else than WebKit, we have to take Apple's word for it. And I'm not sure I can trust them in that regard, it's more about control than performance. They don't want PWA to become viable alternatives to their apps, and controlling WebKit with an iron grip is a way toward that end.
        spanhandler 6y ago
        Using Safari over Chrome or Firefox gains me 90-120 minutes more battery on my Macbook. Android went through contortions and re-architectures for over a decade to even approach iOS' place on the performance/battery-capacity/battery-life chart. I used to be an Android user and wildly better battery life (especially idle—I gather it's better now but damn Android used to eat a lot of battery while doing nothing) is part of what got me to stick with Apple, when I tried their phones. I'm fairly sure mobile Safari—and so, Webkit—is more battery-friendly than Chrome or Firefox.
    - spanhandler 6y ago
      You can run other browsers. You can't run other browser engines. The way you win is that your uncle doesn't click a Google ad banner to install Chrome when he searches (in Safari) for golf club reviews and end up complaining to you that his iPhone suddenly has worse battery life because now his default browser is Chrome, and your 7-year-old doesn't accidentally end up on porn on their school-provided iPad because some kids' app developer put an entire browser engine in their app "to make cross-platform easier" and your kid accidentally found a bug that accesses the open web though this embedded browser, then clicked the wrong ad.
      - 6y ago
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  So, the choice was Apple vs. Android: if you want an open system, with all the isssues that accompany that, you pick Android; if you want a more curated experience you pick Apple. As an iPhone user, I tend to like these restrictions: since I picked to buy into their walled-garden, I expect them to pressure 3rd parties to integrate with the garden, rather than to plant weeds in it.
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    > rather than to plant weeds in it. Love the analogy.

mimsee 6y ago

Sure. Battery-life expectations, security (like actually this time), expected integration with the rest of the operating system. But even speaking as an EU citizen, this ruling that only one browser engine can be used is very un-american. Where's the freedom in that. If I damn well know my battery will run in 10minutes if I use an app, well as an american (i'm not) I should be able to.

spanhandler 6y ago
Yeah, but like 0.1% of their user base really cares about that particular freedom, while the rest would end up installing Chrome because Google put ad-banners for it at the top of all the Mobile Safari search results, then be pissed off that their iPhone is suddenly working worse "for no reason". Un-American, I dunno, maybe, but specifically the freedom of being able to run a different browser engine on iOS does seem like one of those freedoms that would just make life worse for most people for minimal benefit. To boot, the main beneficiary would be a competitor, at the expense of not just Apple but everyone on the platform. It's not even like the main effect would be an improved consumer experience.
- mimsee 6y ago
  How does Apple loose in any way that I am allowed to run software on their devices? Especially free software like browsers. I mean doesn't that literally keep me as their customer more? Now that I'm not switching to an Android device where the land is greener.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    They literally just explained why: browsers not using WebKit perform worse and this makes iPhones look bad, which Apple doesn't want.
    - m-p-3 6y ago
      I'd like to see that, but considering it's not possible to independently validate this because you can't run anything else than WebKit, we have to take Apple's word for it. And I'm not sure I can trust them in that regard, it's more about control than performance. They don't want PWA to become viable alternatives to their apps, and controlling WebKit with an iron grip is a way toward that end.
      - spanhandler 6y ago
        Using Safari over Chrome or Firefox gains me 90-120 minutes more battery on my Macbook. Android went through contortions and re-architectures for over a decade to even approach iOS' place on the performance/battery-capacity/battery-life chart. I used to be an Android user and wildly better battery life (especially idle—I gather it's better now but damn Android used to eat a lot of battery while doing nothing) is part of what got me to stick with Apple, when I tried their phones. I'm fairly sure mobile Safari—and so, Webkit—is more battery-friendly than Chrome or Firefox.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    You can run other browsers. You can't run other browser engines. The way you win is that your uncle doesn't click a Google ad banner to install Chrome when he searches (in Safari) for golf club reviews and end up complaining to you that his iPhone suddenly has worse battery life because now his default browser is Chrome, and your 7-year-old doesn't accidentally end up on porn on their school-provided iPad because some kids' app developer put an entire browser engine in their app "to make cross-platform easier" and your kid accidentally found a bug that accesses the open web though this embedded browser, then clicked the wrong ad.
    - 6y ago
fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
So, the choice was Apple vs. Android: if you want an open system, with all the isssues that accompany that, you pick Android; if you want a more curated experience you pick Apple. As an iPhone user, I tend to like these restrictions: since I picked to buy into their walled-garden, I expect them to pressure 3rd parties to integrate with the garden, rather than to plant weeds in it.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  > rather than to plant weeds in it. Love the analogy.