9 ms·

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

by reustle 6mo ago

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
        rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
        > many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: "Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread." https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...
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.

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

by reustle 6mo ago

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

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
      - rejhgadellaa 6mo ago
        > many of these are in fact not a standard according to W3C and should not be implemented in any browser until it is. That's not exactly how standards work. A browser (or anyone) comes up with a spec, a browser can ship it (to test the waters in an origin-trial, to gain traction if they believe in it), and the standard (often) comes after the fact: "Working Groups don't gate what browsers ship, nor do they define what's useful or worthy. [...] In practice, they are thoughtful historians of recent design expeditions, critiquing, tweaking, then spreading the good news of proposals that already work through Web Standards ratified years after features first ship, serving to licence designs liberally to increase their spread." https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-iamus/ https://infrequently.org/2025/09/standards-and-the-fall-of-i...

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.