22 ms·

Is this a good thing? Doesn't this just expand the marketshare of Chromium?

by ajaimk 1y ago

cguess 1y ago
It does indeed. Safari on iOS is the one thing keeping the web from just being "All Chrome Everywhere".
- simondotau 1y ago
  Haven’t you heard? The web is dead. It’s now called the Chrome Platform. The standard is defined as whatever Google implements.
  - betaby 1y ago
    > Chrome Platform. The West's Internet is just Cloudflare's proxy.
sunaookami 1y ago
If Safari can only survive because Apple has a monopoly on browsers on iOS then it's a shit browser.
- ezfe 1y ago
  Even if Safari was perfect, people would still switch to Chrome because that's what they think they need.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  Firefox is overall a fine browser. Still has 2% marketshare. There's also the fact that websites themselves need to be mindful of multiple browser engines existing because of Safari. Once users are able to install Chrome on iPhones, developers will just abandon every other engine wholesale.
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Being mindful of alternate browsers means nothing. If that were true, more people would not be using Chrome on Android or on desktop.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      I have no idea what you're trying to say
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > Firefox is overall a fine browser. Still has 2% marketshare Firefox used to have a 25-30% share before Mozilla shat the bed by neglecting it while treating Firefox like a money-piñata to fund a series of dead-end, copy-cat projects in their big-tech cosplay era. Blaming Chrome for Firefox and Safari being shit (as reflected by the percentage of users who voluntarily use the respective browsers) removes their culpability. Chrome had to grow their share from 0%.
    - radiofreeeuropa 1y ago
      Chrome did that three ways: 1) performing better and crashing less than mainstream alternatives (just IE and Firefox, then) on non-Mac platforms (so, most desktop computers) for a good long while; 2) aggressive advertising to trick people who don't actually give a shit what browser they're running (or even know) into downloading it because "google said it would make my gmail work better" or "I dunno, google just told me to download this so I did"; and, later in the race, by 3) being the default on most Android installations. One of three major factors involved actually being good, and I'd bet the other two factors overwhelm that one.
      - overfeed 1y ago
        I forgot how often individual webpages could take down your entire browser! On Chrome, it'd just crash the perpetrator tab. Chrome was also fast - really, really fast. Even if one was "tricked" into using it, you wouldn't want to go back to using other browsers - they put in the work. > One of three major factors involved actually being good, and I'd bet the other two factors overwhelm that one Counterpoint: Microsoft Edge on Windows has the same 2 factors going for it, but failing to replicate Chrome's ascendancy. Edge and Windows pleading with you to not install Chrome is kinda sad.
- simondotau 1y ago
  The only reason why Safari is "shit" is because web developers are too lazy to develop for the web and instead develop for Chrome. The point of the web is that it's an open standard. Expecting everyone to use the bleeding edge version of the most aggressively feature-laden browser isn't just unreasonable, it's counter to the spirit of the platform. Microsoft got into trouble for pushing Netscape users over to Internet Explorer, but what they did isn't half as evil as the dark patterns Google is using to get Chrome and other Google apps onto the few devices left which don't have them. It's IE6 all over again. But worse.
  - spartanatreyu 1y ago
    > The only reason why Safari is "shit" is because web developers are too lazy to develop for the web and instead develop for Chrome. Safari is only available on Apple devices, Chrome is available everywhere. Let's not pretend that laziness is the only reason why Chrome has the largest marketshare. > The point of the web is that it's an open standard. Expecting everyone to use the bleeding edge version of the most aggressively feature-laden browser isn't just unreasonable, it's counter to the spirit of the platform. I don't expect Safari to be the bleeding edge. I just expect the features to work. Lets take for example: IndexedDB - IndexedDB was first brought up in two propsals in 2009/2010 - IndexedDB was available for pubilc testing in early 2012 by Firefox and Chrome and was released for both browsers unprefixed in late 2012. - IndexedDB was "released" for Safari in late 2014. However: 1. The released version was so bad and buggy that it basically didn't work at all. 2. It essentially broke all the websites/web-apps that were using it, and there was no easy alternative to use. The affected websites/webapps had to essentially be rearchitected and remade or just plain shut down. 3. Apple had no interest in fixing it which essentially poisoned the feature for all developers. It was so egregious it was actually used in the lawsuits against Apple their monopolistic app store practices, which eventually led to the EU to create their new sweeping anti-trust regulation changes for app stores and browsers. - IndexedDB didn't have a working release on Safari until mid-2016 and didn't have the industry standard "last two major version" support until late 2017. That means we had developers affected by IndexedDB's poisoning for about 5 years. --- So by my earlier request of "I don't expect Safari to be the bleeding edge. I just expect the features to work.", Safari completely and utterly shit the bed. They shit the bed so bad it helped lead the EU to create new anti-trust regulations. And that was just Apple trying to meet a standard feature. And if you thought the IndexedDB debacle was over, they broke it again. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27509206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27509206 --- Let's not even get into Safari breaking other features. I'd rather not type all this out: https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show-stoppers/ https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show...
shmerl 1y ago
You'd be able to use proper Firefox there. And it is a good thing, it weakens Apple's malicious control over Web standards (sabotage of using SPIR-V for WebGPU is Apple's fault).
- dylan604 1y ago
  You've missed the point. Once the restriction on which browsers can be used is lifted, people won't be switching to Firefox in vast numbers. They will be switching to Chrome. Just because someone is able to use Firefox does not mean they will use Firefox.
  - shmerl 1y ago
    May be not, but currently they can't switch to anything at all. So it can't be worse than it is already. Let users decide what they want to use instead of deciding for them. Just the fact that you could use alternatives will already put more pressure on Apple to behave. Basically it's not an argument at all against forcing Apple to remove that ban.
meibo 1y ago
Safari is not a good browser, by design, because it's in Apple's interest to cripple the Web as a platform. If they want their browser to be actually competitive instead of forcing people to use it, they should make a good browser. That is markets working as they are supposed to.
- perfectviking 1y ago
  What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? Using market forces to encourage more consolidation into a single engine is *bad*.
  - overfeed 1y ago
    > What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? Safari is often the hold-out on implementing features[1] that would be useful to users - presumably because it would make web apps viable on iOS, and compete with App store apps where Apple takes a 30% cut > Using market forces to encourage more consolidation into a single engine is bad. Competition on a level playing-field is not bad, even if you dislike the superior product (as determined by the free hand of the market.) 1. If memory serves: various APIs useful for PWAs were delayed or kneecapped on Safari
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? It doesn't support Ublock Origin.
    - rstupek 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 ?
      - fsflover 1y ago
troupo 1y ago
Yup. That's the downside of it. I am personally quite torn on the issue. On the one hand Apple must be made to open up iOS more. On the other hand it just leads to Chrome monopoly.
- dcow 1y ago
  Then attack Chrome. There isn’t a moral conundrum here.
  - youngtaff 1y ago
    I look forward to the Open Web Alliance being as critical of Chrome and it's many tracking capabilities as they are of Safari…
    - troupo 1y ago
      They won't. OWA are unapologetic Chrome shills, going as far as calling many of Chrome-only non-standards "essential" and saying that Edge is a completely different browser than Chrome
  - cosmic_cheese 1y ago
    Yes exactly. As much as Apple needs to open iOS, Google needs to be forced to stop pushing Chrome through every avenue it can. No more cross-promotion, no more bundling Chrome into random Windows program installers, no more use of APIs that favor Blink browsers, etc. Google has sucked all the air out of the web engine room through these things.
  - troupo 1y ago
    I attack Chrome often. Even in this discussion to the post
- Barrin92 1y ago
  >On the other hand it just leads to Chrome monopoly. If a browser engine continues to exist not on its merits but because its users are locked in, there is zero value in it. If 100% of people switch to chromium based browsers (an open source project) while they have free choice that's how it is. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. We don't need browser engine DEI. Even the term monopoly is spurious in the world of open source software. Say if in 30 years we have 100% linux market share because open source won, do we need to protect Microsoft so they can lock people into Windows, like some sort of endangered animal program for proprietary software? There's an inherent contradiction to apply the competitive logic of proprietary platforms to fundamental OSS infrastructure. They'll tend to be natural "monopolies" just by virtue of how resource intensive they are and the desire to standardize.
NotPractical 1y ago
The government can solve that, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...

Is this a good thing? Doesn't this just expand the marketshare of Chromium?

by ajaimk 1y ago

Is this a good thing? Doesn't this just expand the marketshare of Chromium?

cguess 1y ago

It does indeed. Safari on iOS is the one thing keeping the web from just being "All Chrome Everywhere".

simondotau 1y ago
Haven’t you heard? The web is dead. It’s now called the Chrome Platform. The standard is defined as whatever Google implements.
- betaby 1y ago
  > Chrome Platform. The West's Internet is just Cloudflare's proxy.

sunaookami 1y ago

If Safari can only survive because Apple has a monopoly on browsers on iOS then it's a shit browser.

ezfe 1y ago
Even if Safari was perfect, people would still switch to Chrome because that's what they think they need.
fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
Firefox is overall a fine browser. Still has 2% marketshare. There's also the fact that websites themselves need to be mindful of multiple browser engines existing because of Safari. Once users are able to install Chrome on iPhones, developers will just abandon every other engine wholesale.
- dylan604 1y ago
  Being mindful of alternate browsers means nothing. If that were true, more people would not be using Chrome on Android or on desktop.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    I have no idea what you're trying to say
- overfeed 1y ago
  > Firefox is overall a fine browser. Still has 2% marketshare Firefox used to have a 25-30% share before Mozilla shat the bed by neglecting it while treating Firefox like a money-piñata to fund a series of dead-end, copy-cat projects in their big-tech cosplay era. Blaming Chrome for Firefox and Safari being shit (as reflected by the percentage of users who voluntarily use the respective browsers) removes their culpability. Chrome had to grow their share from 0%.
  - radiofreeeuropa 1y ago
    Chrome did that three ways: 1) performing better and crashing less than mainstream alternatives (just IE and Firefox, then) on non-Mac platforms (so, most desktop computers) for a good long while; 2) aggressive advertising to trick people who don't actually give a shit what browser they're running (or even know) into downloading it because "google said it would make my gmail work better" or "I dunno, google just told me to download this so I did"; and, later in the race, by 3) being the default on most Android installations. One of three major factors involved actually being good, and I'd bet the other two factors overwhelm that one.
    - overfeed 1y ago
      I forgot how often individual webpages could take down your entire browser! On Chrome, it'd just crash the perpetrator tab. Chrome was also fast - really, really fast. Even if one was "tricked" into using it, you wouldn't want to go back to using other browsers - they put in the work. > One of three major factors involved actually being good, and I'd bet the other two factors overwhelm that one Counterpoint: Microsoft Edge on Windows has the same 2 factors going for it, but failing to replicate Chrome's ascendancy. Edge and Windows pleading with you to not install Chrome is kinda sad.
simondotau 1y ago
The only reason why Safari is "shit" is because web developers are too lazy to develop for the web and instead develop for Chrome. The point of the web is that it's an open standard. Expecting everyone to use the bleeding edge version of the most aggressively feature-laden browser isn't just unreasonable, it's counter to the spirit of the platform. Microsoft got into trouble for pushing Netscape users over to Internet Explorer, but what they did isn't half as evil as the dark patterns Google is using to get Chrome and other Google apps onto the few devices left which don't have them. It's IE6 all over again. But worse.
- spartanatreyu 1y ago
  > The only reason why Safari is "shit" is because web developers are too lazy to develop for the web and instead develop for Chrome. Safari is only available on Apple devices, Chrome is available everywhere. Let's not pretend that laziness is the only reason why Chrome has the largest marketshare. > The point of the web is that it's an open standard. Expecting everyone to use the bleeding edge version of the most aggressively feature-laden browser isn't just unreasonable, it's counter to the spirit of the platform. I don't expect Safari to be the bleeding edge. I just expect the features to work. Lets take for example: IndexedDB - IndexedDB was first brought up in two propsals in 2009/2010 - IndexedDB was available for pubilc testing in early 2012 by Firefox and Chrome and was released for both browsers unprefixed in late 2012. - IndexedDB was "released" for Safari in late 2014. However: 1. The released version was so bad and buggy that it basically didn't work at all. 2. It essentially broke all the websites/web-apps that were using it, and there was no easy alternative to use. The affected websites/webapps had to essentially be rearchitected and remade or just plain shut down. 3. Apple had no interest in fixing it which essentially poisoned the feature for all developers. It was so egregious it was actually used in the lawsuits against Apple their monopolistic app store practices, which eventually led to the EU to create their new sweeping anti-trust regulation changes for app stores and browsers. - IndexedDB didn't have a working release on Safari until mid-2016 and didn't have the industry standard "last two major version" support until late 2017. That means we had developers affected by IndexedDB's poisoning for about 5 years. --- So by my earlier request of "I don't expect Safari to be the bleeding edge. I just expect the features to work.", Safari completely and utterly shit the bed. They shit the bed so bad it helped lead the EU to create new anti-trust regulations. And that was just Apple trying to meet a standard feature. And if you thought the IndexedDB debacle was over, they broke it again. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27509206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27509206 --- Let's not even get into Safari breaking other features. I'd rather not type all this out: https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show-stoppers/ https://webventures.rejh.nl/blog/2024/history-of-safari-show...

shmerl 1y ago

You'd be able to use proper Firefox there. And it is a good thing, it weakens Apple's malicious control over Web standards (sabotage of using SPIR-V for WebGPU is Apple's fault).

dylan604 1y ago
You've missed the point. Once the restriction on which browsers can be used is lifted, people won't be switching to Firefox in vast numbers. They will be switching to Chrome. Just because someone is able to use Firefox does not mean they will use Firefox.
- shmerl 1y ago
  May be not, but currently they can't switch to anything at all. So it can't be worse than it is already. Let users decide what they want to use instead of deciding for them. Just the fact that you could use alternatives will already put more pressure on Apple to behave. Basically it's not an argument at all against forcing Apple to remove that ban.

meibo 1y ago

Safari is not a good browser, by design, because it's in Apple's interest to cripple the Web as a platform. If they want their browser to be actually competitive instead of forcing people to use it, they should make a good browser. That is markets working as they are supposed to.

perfectviking 1y ago
What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? Using market forces to encourage more consolidation into a single engine is *bad*.
- overfeed 1y ago
  > What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? Safari is often the hold-out on implementing features[1] that would be useful to users - presumably because it would make web apps viable on iOS, and compete with App store apps where Apple takes a 30% cut > Using market forces to encourage more consolidation into a single engine is bad. Competition on a level playing-field is not bad, even if you dislike the superior product (as determined by the free hand of the market.) 1. If memory serves: various APIs useful for PWAs were delayed or kneecapped on Safari
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- fsflover 1y ago
  > What is your argument that Safari is not a good browser? It doesn't support Ublock Origin.
  - rstupek 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44795825 ?
    - fsflover 1y ago

troupo 1y ago

Yup. That's the downside of it. I am personally quite torn on the issue. On the one hand Apple must be made to open up iOS more. On the other hand it just leads to Chrome monopoly.

dcow 1y ago
Then attack Chrome. There isn’t a moral conundrum here.
- youngtaff 1y ago
  I look forward to the Open Web Alliance being as critical of Chrome and it's many tracking capabilities as they are of Safari…
  - troupo 1y ago
    They won't. OWA are unapologetic Chrome shills, going as far as calling many of Chrome-only non-standards "essential" and saying that Edge is a completely different browser than Chrome
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  Yes exactly. As much as Apple needs to open iOS, Google needs to be forced to stop pushing Chrome through every avenue it can. No more cross-promotion, no more bundling Chrome into random Windows program installers, no more use of APIs that favor Blink browsers, etc. Google has sucked all the air out of the web engine room through these things.
- troupo 1y ago
  I attack Chrome often. Even in this discussion to the post
Barrin92 1y ago
>On the other hand it just leads to Chrome monopoly. If a browser engine continues to exist not on its merits but because its users are locked in, there is zero value in it. If 100% of people switch to chromium based browsers (an open source project) while they have free choice that's how it is. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. We don't need browser engine DEI. Even the term monopoly is spurious in the world of open source software. Say if in 30 years we have 100% linux market share because open source won, do we need to protect Microsoft so they can lock people into Windows, like some sort of endangered animal program for proprietary software? There's an inherent contradiction to apply the competitive logic of proprietary platforms to fundamental OSS infrastructure. They'll tend to be natural "monopolies" just by virtue of how resource intensive they are and the desire to standardize.

NotPractical 1y ago

The government can solve that, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2...