11 ms·

I am curious why Safari in particular is getting a lot of the hate here when firefox supports even less of the features which leads me to believe that the reaso

by nerdjon 6mo ago

I am curious why Safari in particular is getting a lot of the hate here when firefox supports even less of the features which leads me to believe that the reason many of these features have not been accepted is because they have not been accepted by the larger ecosystem and is just google pushing their own things as standard (Feels like IE days in many ways). That being said, I am not sure why I would actually want most of these features in the browser? Many of these things feel like they further complicate what a browser is supposed to be doing and opens up security concerns at the same time. I think the idea of using a web app for many tasks instead of apps is fine, but I don't think the idea that a web app can do everything is the way to go. Edit: To be clear about the Firefox comment, notice that many of the features that are not supported non chromium browsers don't support on any platform. So the question on whether these are considered web standards is outside of whether iOS allows other engines. Edit again: Apparently the third column is based on your current browser instead of always comparing chrome, mobile safari, and firefox like I assumed. I am currently on Firefox on Windows, and there are more red X's under Firefox for me. Seems like a weird choice to not always compare all major browsers.

reustle 6mo ago
Firefox on iOS is just a wrapper around Safari, since that is all Apple allows.
- nerdjon 6mo ago
  While true, that does not seem to align with what the checkboxes for firefox, looking at many of the ones that Safari does not support other non chromium browsers don't support on any OS. Mobile or not
  - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
    The difference is that, on iOS, you can't switch to a different browser that does support these features. Om very other OS you can. A web app could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable). Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
    - nerdjon 6mo ago
      True, but putting aside that limitation on iOS for a moment. The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda. Which is where whether or not any non chromium browser supports any of these on any platform. Which many of these features they don't. That completely changes the conversation here, from Apple purposefully ignoring standards to Google pushing things that are not standards yet. Which I will admit that the reality is a bit of both here, but it should not be considered a negative when a browser does not support a feature that is non standard... we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
      - leptons 6mo ago
        >The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda. Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide what APIs become standards, so Apple is definitely pushing their own agenda on the W3C. So you can't really complain that Google is pushing their own agenda with these APIs when Apple is the one refusing to make them a standard. In this case, Apple is the one doing shady shit by holding back things like web bluetooth for no good reason. No, "security" is not a reason, this API has been in use on other platforms for a very long time with no real security issues. There are lots of other standard APIs that have been implemented, but Apple refused to let the ones that eat into their app store go forward. >we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it? I remember when IE implemented XMLHTTPRequest, and it did a lot of good for the web. I also remember when Microsoft got an antitrust case for simply bundling IE with Windows, yet Apple seems to get a pass for forbidding all other browser engines on iOS? Well, fortunately Apple has its own antitrust case in the DOJ now for its own abusive business tactics. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
        nerdjon 6mo ago
        Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this. That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not. Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
- chuckadams 6mo ago
  The third column is your current browser and platform, and for me it's showing Firefox on macOS missing a lot of features. When I switch over to Brave, I see Chrome on macOS. Interestingly, Chrome on macOS apparently supports vibration, despite the hardware for it being nonexistent.
  - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
    But on macOS you can switch to a browser that can do all these things. A company could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable). Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
    - chuckadams 6mo ago
      I'm not trying to defend Apple's decisions, I'm merely pointing out that the site is showing the feature support that Firefox has or doesn't have on macOS, or whatever other platform someone is using to access the site.
      - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
        Fair :)
    - troupo 6mo ago
      > the open webm Sonehow you seem to confuse open web with Chrome-only non-standard APIs
      - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
        No, because any browser can decide to ship a feature that it thinks is worthwhile. Users can decide which browser they trust to be their User Agent. The distribution model is open. You type a URL, you click a link. No single company in control.
halapro 6mo ago
> why I would actually want most of these features in the browser The page is about PWAs, applications that can be installed by the browser rather than the platform's App Store. Native applications already have those capabilities and a lot more.
pilif 6mo ago
Firefox is not in a position where it is the only browser allowed to run on a platform. On iOS, you’re either doing a native app, sharing 30% of your income with Apple, or you’re restricted to Safari’s feature set. No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit
- mort96 6mo ago
  Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. Going through some of the list from the top: * Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it. * Protocol Handling: This is non-standard. * File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it! * Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly. * Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API. * Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard. I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too. In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.
  - leptons 6mo ago
    >Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. You missed the point completely. Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead. I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed. This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
throwaway613746 6mo ago
[dead]
DrewADesign 6mo ago
I think anything that mentions Apple in a negative light gets reflexive upvotes. I use both Apple and Android ecosystems, so I’ll occasionally participate in normal user conversations about features, how-tos, etc. Posting anything about the Android ecosystem, unless I was talking about Samsung features I disliked using, is no more or less likely to get down/upvoted than anything else I post about any other technology. Using any tone more positive than a negative-leaning neutral when referring to any Apple product reliably collects a handful of downvotes, and often a negative comment or two. Same thing with negative sentiment and upvotes. I’ve never seen such a passionate dislike of a corporation among a small number of people. Even with famous brand loyalty rivalries like Ford/Chevy in the 80s and 90s it was more mutual. It wasn’t like 99% of drivers not giving a shit, .5% of Ford users being smug, and 2% of GMC drivers just being super mad at a product they don’t own.
- freedomben 6mo ago
  I don't think you're wrong, but what's especially interesting about this is that up until just a few years ago, it was completely the opposite. Giving any criticism of Apple would get so many rapid/reflexive downvotes that it often killed the comment before many people even got a change to see it. I experienced it myself a number of times. Having been reading HN now for ~13 years (I lurked for years before starting to participate), that's been my number one dislike about HN is the complete inability to have objective discussions about Apple. At one point I even wrote a quick browser extension to filter out posts that had Apple in the title because it was so nauseating. Ideally the pendulum wouldn't swing, but instead would just settle in the middle, but alas that just isn't human nature.
  - tshaddox 6mo ago
    > Giving any criticism of Apple would get so many rapid/reflexive downvotes that it often killed the comment before many people even got a change to see it. I experienced it myself a number of times. I’ve never found myself in any online community that meets that description. Certainly not HN, and HN hardly seems big enough to have Apple fanboy niches that you could accidentally find yourself in. In the heyday of Steve Jobs’ Apple there was certainly a lot of praise here, but also constant prominent complaints about Apple being overpriced, or not open enough, or too litigious, or having too many fanboys. I’ve seen way more complaints about Apple fanboyism than actual fanboyism. I’m genuinely curious how you could find yourself in one of those communities by accident.
kmeisthax 6mo ago
KNOW THE BROWSER RULES Firefox refusing to implement a web standard: APPROPRIATE Safari refusing to implement a web standard: INAPPROPRIATE
- leptons 6mo ago
  Which browser engine are you getting on iOS when you install Firefox? If you answered Firefox, you are WRONG. You get Safari, because Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use their own crippled browser engine. Apple also is part of the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs get to become standards, so they also influence what other browser makers do. This would be a non-issue if Apple didn't force all browsers on iOS to use their Safari engine.
  - JimDabell 6mo ago
    No, you get Firefox. There is much more to a web browser than just its rendering engine. When you install Firefox on iOS, you get Firefox. It uses the WebKit rendering engine, but it’s still the Firefox browser. To be frank, it’s pretty insulting and dismissive to all the people putting huge amounts of work into building browsers only to for you go around telling people that all their work is really just a mirage.
    - mort96 6mo ago
      You may wish to re-read the comment you respond to. To quote: > Which browser engine are you getting on iOS when you install Firefox? Emphasis mine.
    - Arainach 6mo ago
      You are a responding to a comment asking what browser engine you get, and the answer is Safari/Webkit.
    - leptons 6mo ago
      It absolutely is a mirage. It's like those Ferrari kit cars where you take a Ford or whatever car frame and remove the outer shell and put a Ferrari shell on top of it. It's not a Ferrari, it only looks like a Ferrari. The browser engine is the majority part of the browser, everything else around it is window dressing. So when you install Firefox on iOS, you are getting Safari with a thin wrapper around it. You are not getting the Firefox rendering engine, which is the most important part of a web browser.
mvanbaak 6mo ago
> I am curious why Safari in particular is getting a lot of the hate here Here is HN, where apple is the bad boy in town.
- archerx 6mo ago
  Or maybe they deserve it?
- hu3 6mo ago
  No this is where Apple gets handwaved with whataboutism.
cyberrock 6mo ago
Some of Mozilla's positions are based on Apple's, such as the refusal to implement Web NFC [0]. Since Webkit has been the only engine allowed on iOS, ultimately this is a disagreement on app distribution. I can see Apple and Mozilla's argument regarding Web NFC, but I also don't want to write a whole app so my friends and I can play around with NFC tags. I find it irresistible to draw comparisons to the new Android situation regarding non-Play Store apps. If there was a developer registration list for websites (that was better than DNS registrar records and TLS certificates), would Apple and Mozilla find that acceptable? After all, I need to give my real name and payment details to Apple just to write an app. But for good measure I will add one for Mozilla too. Firefox Android still doesn't support the Web Codecs API [1], so I need to use the "jpeg" codec on Selkies remote desktop sites, which I assume is rather poor for my bandwidth and battery. [0] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/238 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/238 [1] https://caniuse.com/webcodecs https://caniuse.com/webcodecs
- frizlab 6mo ago
  And chrome still does not support plugins on android, to my great surprise, while Safari has them on iOS. I honestly much rather have plugins than web nfc, or whatever the chrome bully decide should go in a browser.
  - cosmic_cheese 6mo ago
    Google’s choice to exclude extension support on Android can’t be a coincidence. Great example of conflict of interest with a web ad giant running a web browser.
  - cyberrock 6mo ago
    It doesn't have to be an either/or situation and I certainly want both in my mobile browser! Ad hominem is also not a valid argument against NFC. One of my friends built a whole automatic mahjong table with NFC tags. NFC apps are used in access control for offices, college dorms, apartment complexes. Businesses have obvious use cases for it, from inventory management to payments. Governments want to use NFC for government functions and visitor prearrival processing. Sure, maybe some of them want you to install apps for other reasons, but I can assure you not all of them do, so it's a shame that this function is so exclusive. I think western users using NFC for payment, transit, gym access, etc. are not aware how apathetic the rest of the world would be if phones start taking out NFC, and one of the ultimate causes is that it's so difficult to work with across all users. It's just so much easier to make a website that shows a QR code that your PoS system or gym access gate can scan. Bottom of the barrel Android phones in India and China already ditched it and that's just going to exacerbate the issue. If it goes the way of the 3.5mm and microSD card in the next decade, we can put this in its autopsy report.
RedComet 6mo ago
The keyword is "intentional".
SllX 6mo ago
Because it’s essentially propaganda. By conflating “Not Implementing something Google did” with “Intentionally Crippling”, they hope to pressure Apple by through either the general public (the PR game) or through Government mandates (the lobbying game). This has been going for at least as long as Blink was forked off WebKit. And why Apple? Because Apple’s the only other browser giant, and they do have motivation to not implement a lot of these features. Frankly a lot of these are features I don’t want in my fucking browser either. But web developers, and businesses that predominantly rely on the web (such as Google) want as many complex APIs as possible implemented in the browser.
- hasanhaja 6mo ago
  They don't need to implement it though. They just need to unban browser vendors from shipping their own engines.
  - shuckles 6mo ago
    Browser vendors have been able to ship their own engines in the EU for almost 2 years now. What great benefit to consumers has that enabled?
gt0 6mo ago
Safari is a monopoly on iOS and iPadOS, that's a problem if you want to make a bleeding-edge PWA app, in that it's probably not going to work very well on iPad and iPhone and there is no web alternative on those platforms. Firefox is entirely optional, not a monopoly anywhere. The problem for me isn't making bad web browsers, it's enforcing those bad browsers as the only option on a computer platform.

by nerdjon 6mo ago

reustle 6mo ago

Firefox on iOS is just a wrapper around Safari, since that is all Apple allows.

nerdjon 6mo ago
While true, that does not seem to align with what the checkboxes for firefox, looking at many of the ones that Safari does not support other non chromium browsers don't support on any OS. Mobile or not
- rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
  The difference is that, on iOS, you can't switch to a different browser that does support these features. Om very other OS you can. A web app could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable). Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
  - nerdjon 6mo ago
    True, but putting aside that limitation on iOS for a moment. The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda. Which is where whether or not any non chromium browser supports any of these on any platform. Which many of these features they don't. That completely changes the conversation here, from Apple purposefully ignoring standards to Google pushing things that are not standards yet. Which I will admit that the reality is a bit of both here, but it should not be considered a negative when a browser does not support a feature that is non standard... we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it?
    - leptons 6mo ago
      >The very important part about this is whether or not these features are actually considered a web standard or is it Google pushing their own agenda. Apple is on the W3C board that gets to decide what APIs become standards, so Apple is definitely pushing their own agenda on the W3C. So you can't really complain that Google is pushing their own agenda with these APIs when Apple is the one refusing to make them a standard. In this case, Apple is the one doing shady shit by holding back things like web bluetooth for no good reason. No, "security" is not a reason, this API has been in use on other platforms for a very long time with no real security issues. There are lots of other standard APIs that have been implemented, but Apple refused to let the ones that eat into their app store go forward. >we heavily criticized IE for exactly this and yet we celebrate Chrome for it? I remember when IE implemented XMLHTTPRequest, and it did a lot of good for the web. I also remember when Microsoft got an antitrust case for simply bundling IE with Windows, yet Apple seems to get a pass for forbidding all other browser engines on iOS? Well, fortunately Apple has its own antitrust case in the DOJ now for its own abusive business tactics. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
      - nerdjon 6mo ago
        Google is also involved in W3C and do I really need to bring up the topics API as Google attempting to use their position to push their agenda as well? We really need to stop putting google on a pedestal as if they are truelly on the side of an open web, like every company they are looking out for their own interests. Which is fine, they are allowed to do this. That doesn't change that many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. A discussion about why it may not be standard is worth it, but that is also a very important distinction that is not made on this page. Right now it is framing it as google supports a standard that the other's (including Firefox) do not. Just because Google does something it doesn't mean the rest of the industry should follow. If we did that in IE days we would still have ActiveX
chuckadams 6mo ago
The third column is your current browser and platform, and for me it's showing Firefox on macOS missing a lot of features. When I switch over to Brave, I see Chrome on macOS. Interestingly, Chrome on macOS apparently supports vibration, despite the hardware for it being nonexistent.
- rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
  But on macOS you can switch to a browser that can do all these things. A company could ask you to use a different browser (not ideal, but if the web app requires a specific API, it's not an unreasonable). Safari is in a very special position because it controls what the web can do on iOS (all browsers on iOS have to use Apple's WebKit engine, they can't add web features). Apple is not just gatekeeping native (through the app store), but its competition, too (the open web, through the webkit requirement)
  - chuckadams 6mo ago
    I'm not trying to defend Apple's decisions, I'm merely pointing out that the site is showing the feature support that Firefox has or doesn't have on macOS, or whatever other platform someone is using to access the site.
    - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
      Fair :)
  - troupo 6mo ago
    > the open webm Sonehow you seem to confuse open web with Chrome-only non-standard APIs
    - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
      No, because any browser can decide to ship a feature that it thinks is worthwhile. Users can decide which browser they trust to be their User Agent. The distribution model is open. You type a URL, you click a link. No single company in control.

halapro 6mo ago

> why I would actually want most of these features in the browser The page is about PWAs, applications that can be installed by the browser rather than the platform's App Store. Native applications already have those capabilities and a lot more.

pilif 6mo ago

Firefox is not in a position where it is the only browser allowed to run on a platform. On iOS, you’re either doing a native app, sharing 30% of your income with Apple, or you’re restricted to Safari’s feature set. No browser in iOS can use anything but WebKit

mort96 6mo ago
Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. Going through some of the list from the top: * Shortcuts in the manifest: This seems to be standard. Would be nice if mobile Safari supported it. * Protocol Handling: This is non-standard. * File Handling: MDN doesn't contain a reference to a standard, and it has this caveat: "At present this feature is only available on Chromium-based browsers, and only on desktop operating systems". So not only does it seem to be non-standard; Chrome on Android doesn't even support it! * Contact Picker: This seems to be moving through the standardization process and is not yet standardized, if I understand MDN's "experimental" label correctly. * Face Detection: This seems to be yet another not-yet-standard API. * Vibration: This is standard, it's a shame Safari doesn't implement it. I'll stop here but you get the point. 2/6 are actual standards; 4/6 are just features Chromium implemented even though they aren't standard. I'm glad mobile Safari doesn't follow every Google whim. Google has enough power over the standardization process as it is; we don't want them to control which features browsers add outside of the standard too. In addition, parts of the list seems to be extremely outdated: Safari on iOS does support the Web Push API and most of the Notifications API (at least for apps added to your home screen as PWAs). These APIs have been supported since iOS 16.4, according to MDN.
- leptons 6mo ago
  >Even so, conflating "Safari is holding the web platform back by not implementing standardized web features" with "Safari is holding the Google platform back by not implementing non-standard Google features" is kind of disingenuous. You missed the point completely. Apple >forbids< any browser engine on iOS other than their own Safari. So you can't just install Chrome on iOS, because when you do you get Safari instead. I would not care how Apple cripples their own web browser if they didn't force other browsers on iOS to use their browser engine. They are forcing me to write a native app instead of just tell my customers to install Chrome to have access to the APIs my product needs (web bluetooth). I am not an iOS app developer, I'm a web developer. I don't have the resources to support that kind of code when I already have a perfectly working web app on the competing platform. I also do not plan to sell anything through my webapp, which is why Apple wants to force developers to create a native app, where they can collect 30% (or whatever % it is now) of anything sold through the app. It doesn't matter what the standards are or aren't. Apple are just being greedy assholes and what they are doing is absolutely worse than what Microsoft did to get sued in an antitrust case when they simply bundled IE in Windows. And to make it worse, Apple is on the board that decides what standards get into W3C, so they are blocking useful APIs based on their own greed. This is part of the reason Apple is currently being sued by the DOJ https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline

throwaway613746 6mo ago

[dead]

DrewADesign 6mo ago

I think anything that mentions Apple in a negative light gets reflexive upvotes. I use both Apple and Android ecosystems, so I’ll occasionally participate in normal user conversations about features, how-tos, etc. Posting anything about the Android ecosystem, unless I was talking about Samsung features I disliked using, is no more or less likely to get down/upvoted than anything else I post about any other technology. Using any tone more positive than a negative-leaning neutral when referring to any Apple product reliably collects a handful of downvotes, and often a negative comment or two. Same thing with negative sentiment and upvotes. I’ve never seen such a passionate dislike of a corporation among a small number of people. Even with famous brand loyalty rivalries like Ford/Chevy in the 80s and 90s it was more mutual. It wasn’t like 99% of drivers not giving a shit, .5% of Ford users being smug, and 2% of GMC drivers just being super mad at a product they don’t own.

freedomben 6mo ago
I don't think you're wrong, but what's especially interesting about this is that up until just a few years ago, it was completely the opposite. Giving any criticism of Apple would get so many rapid/reflexive downvotes that it often killed the comment before many people even got a change to see it. I experienced it myself a number of times. Having been reading HN now for ~13 years (I lurked for years before starting to participate), that's been my number one dislike about HN is the complete inability to have objective discussions about Apple. At one point I even wrote a quick browser extension to filter out posts that had Apple in the title because it was so nauseating. Ideally the pendulum wouldn't swing, but instead would just settle in the middle, but alas that just isn't human nature.
- tshaddox 6mo ago
  > Giving any criticism of Apple would get so many rapid/reflexive downvotes that it often killed the comment before many people even got a change to see it. I experienced it myself a number of times. I’ve never found myself in any online community that meets that description. Certainly not HN, and HN hardly seems big enough to have Apple fanboy niches that you could accidentally find yourself in. In the heyday of Steve Jobs’ Apple there was certainly a lot of praise here, but also constant prominent complaints about Apple being overpriced, or not open enough, or too litigious, or having too many fanboys. I’ve seen way more complaints about Apple fanboyism than actual fanboyism. I’m genuinely curious how you could find yourself in one of those communities by accident.

kmeisthax 6mo ago

KNOW THE BROWSER RULES Firefox refusing to implement a web standard: APPROPRIATE Safari refusing to implement a web standard: INAPPROPRIATE

leptons 6mo ago
Which browser engine are you getting on iOS when you install Firefox? If you answered Firefox, you are WRONG. You get Safari, because Apple forces all browsers on iOS to use their own crippled browser engine. Apple also is part of the W3C board that gets to decide which APIs get to become standards, so they also influence what other browser makers do. This would be a non-issue if Apple didn't force all browsers on iOS to use their Safari engine.
- JimDabell 6mo ago
  No, you get Firefox. There is much more to a web browser than just its rendering engine. When you install Firefox on iOS, you get Firefox. It uses the WebKit rendering engine, but it’s still the Firefox browser. To be frank, it’s pretty insulting and dismissive to all the people putting huge amounts of work into building browsers only to for you go around telling people that all their work is really just a mirage.
  - mort96 6mo ago
    You may wish to re-read the comment you respond to. To quote: > Which browser engine are you getting on iOS when you install Firefox? Emphasis mine.
  - Arainach 6mo ago
    You are a responding to a comment asking what browser engine you get, and the answer is Safari/Webkit.
  - leptons 6mo ago
    It absolutely is a mirage. It's like those Ferrari kit cars where you take a Ford or whatever car frame and remove the outer shell and put a Ferrari shell on top of it. It's not a Ferrari, it only looks like a Ferrari. The browser engine is the majority part of the browser, everything else around it is window dressing. So when you install Firefox on iOS, you are getting Safari with a thin wrapper around it. You are not getting the Firefox rendering engine, which is the most important part of a web browser.

mvanbaak 6mo ago

> I am curious why Safari in particular is getting a lot of the hate here Here is HN, where apple is the bad boy in town.

archerx 6mo ago
Or maybe they deserve it?
hu3 6mo ago
No this is where Apple gets handwaved with whataboutism.

cyberrock 6mo ago

Some of Mozilla's positions are based on Apple's, such as the refusal to implement Web NFC [0]. Since Webkit has been the only engine allowed on iOS, ultimately this is a disagreement on app distribution. I can see Apple and Mozilla's argument regarding Web NFC, but I also don't want to write a whole app so my friends and I can play around with NFC tags. I find it irresistible to draw comparisons to the new Android situation regarding non-Play Store apps. If there was a developer registration list for websites (that was better than DNS registrar records and TLS certificates), would Apple and Mozilla find that acceptable? After all, I need to give my real name and payment details to Apple just to write an app. But for good measure I will add one for Mozilla too. Firefox Android still doesn't support the Web Codecs API [1], so I need to use the "jpeg" codec on Selkies remote desktop sites, which I assume is rather poor for my bandwidth and battery. [0] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/238 https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/238 [1] https://caniuse.com/webcodecs https://caniuse.com/webcodecs

frizlab 6mo ago
And chrome still does not support plugins on android, to my great surprise, while Safari has them on iOS. I honestly much rather have plugins than web nfc, or whatever the chrome bully decide should go in a browser.
- cosmic_cheese 6mo ago
  Google’s choice to exclude extension support on Android can’t be a coincidence. Great example of conflict of interest with a web ad giant running a web browser.
- cyberrock 6mo ago
  It doesn't have to be an either/or situation and I certainly want both in my mobile browser! Ad hominem is also not a valid argument against NFC. One of my friends built a whole automatic mahjong table with NFC tags. NFC apps are used in access control for offices, college dorms, apartment complexes. Businesses have obvious use cases for it, from inventory management to payments. Governments want to use NFC for government functions and visitor prearrival processing. Sure, maybe some of them want you to install apps for other reasons, but I can assure you not all of them do, so it's a shame that this function is so exclusive. I think western users using NFC for payment, transit, gym access, etc. are not aware how apathetic the rest of the world would be if phones start taking out NFC, and one of the ultimate causes is that it's so difficult to work with across all users. It's just so much easier to make a website that shows a QR code that your PoS system or gym access gate can scan. Bottom of the barrel Android phones in India and China already ditched it and that's just going to exacerbate the issue. If it goes the way of the 3.5mm and microSD card in the next decade, we can put this in its autopsy report.

RedComet 6mo ago

The keyword is "intentional".

SllX 6mo ago

Because it’s essentially propaganda. By conflating “Not Implementing something Google did” with “Intentionally Crippling”, they hope to pressure Apple by through either the general public (the PR game) or through Government mandates (the lobbying game). This has been going for at least as long as Blink was forked off WebKit. And why Apple? Because Apple’s the only other browser giant, and they do have motivation to not implement a lot of these features. Frankly a lot of these are features I don’t want in my fucking browser either. But web developers, and businesses that predominantly rely on the web (such as Google) want as many complex APIs as possible implemented in the browser.

hasanhaja 6mo ago
They don't need to implement it though. They just need to unban browser vendors from shipping their own engines.
- shuckles 6mo ago
  Browser vendors have been able to ship their own engines in the EU for almost 2 years now. What great benefit to consumers has that enabled?

gt0 6mo ago

Safari is a monopoly on iOS and iPadOS, that's a problem if you want to make a bleeding-edge PWA app, in that it's probably not going to work very well on iPad and iPhone and there is no web alternative on those platforms. Firefox is entirely optional, not a monopoly anywhere. The problem for me isn't making bad web browsers, it's enforcing those bad browsers as the only option on a computer platform.