I hate to break it to you, but Safari isn't going to stop that from happening.
Thank you for proving my point.
Safari only has ~20% market share because it's has ~25% of mobile and nearly 50% of tablet and only because Apple restricts those platforms. If Apple opened up their platform that would vanish and Chrome would take over.
The platform being relevant and closed is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the next Internet Explorer 6.
A semantic nitpick that is totally irrelevant. Most people on this website usually mean Gecko when they say they want to use Firefox, Blink when they say Chrome, etc. You and I both know the headline means allowing other rendering engines.
I strongly disagree. It is not semantic at all. Difference between a browser and a web rendering engine is huge. I am in a business of building a browser and although we get rendering engine for free, three years later and thousands of dev hours later, our browser is still in beta and half finished. [1] Building a general purpose web browser is one of the most challanging software development projects. This may not b…
Thats not the argument though, and its a bit of a difficult argument for Kagi specifically because it appears to be based on webkit I believe? The argument is: lets assume Kagi uses a non-webkit engine and is finished and live on desktop today. How much work would it be to now run against webkit? What is your feature set if you assume you are not able to modify the engine in any way?
Replace Apple with Microsoft and you get your answer. Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee success? Replace Apple with any company; do you think Google lacked the motivation and engineering skills to build a social network? Ignoring much of the fact how Google would leverage it's existing properties to make sure you couldn't open a single web page without being nagged about installing Chrome; it would t…
> Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee success? So then your answer is that Apple's browser is significantly worse than competitors, and that users wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for Apples anti-competitive behavior? > But to pretend this is about the "browser diversity > Just say you want Chrome I think most open web supporters would be a lot happier if Apple even simply allowed Fi…
Apple can’t reasonably allow Gecko (Firefox’s engine) without also allowing Blink (Chrome’s engine). And we know which one is the 800lb gorilla here.
I love and support Firefox, and I even use it on my iPhone (yes, it’s reskinned WebKit, but it syncs my stuff).
On the other hand, this denies me from using an actual Mozilla Firefox web browser on iOS. Imposing an artificial limit on iOS isn't how the web will move forward. > Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. I don't see Apple making any effort to diversify the browser ecosystem by making their browser available on other operating systems, so their inaction on other fro…
No one is using Firefox on mobile so it’s good for you, but not web on the whole. Also while an independent entity having a larger presence is better than Apple at least Apple having a large market share makes Google need to consider what happens in safari before they do something particularly shady with web standards
No, supporting Firefox is good for the whole...how do you not understand that?
> most desktop computer users are able to use Firefox Desktop-using software engineers can write software for desktop users in a ton of different ways. There's so much freedom and there exist multiple mechanisms and platforms to deploy your code. Desktop-using software engineers are not free to choose how to deploy software to mobile audiences. They've got to go through Apple to reach 50+% of the US market. Apple set…
> Apple sets unreasonable rules. How? As a user I’m able to do the things I want with reasonable guarantees of privacy and security. Most developers that release iOS software seem to be doing ok with those “unreasonable” rules. And the user benefits. If I wanted Android, I would have bought Android. I bought Apple specifically because I see value as a user to those unreasonable rules.
As a user the harms are invisible to you. If you'd like to find out how it harms consumers, businesses, developers and the web, please read our regulatory submission "Bringing Competition to Walled Gardens":
No one is using Firefox on mobile so it’s good for you, but not web on the whole. Also while an independent entity having a larger presence is better than Apple at least Apple having a large market share makes Google need to consider what happens in safari before they do something particularly shady with web standards
I use Firefox on Android, it works great. Desktop-based extensions integrate pretty seamlessly, which I love
You are unfortunately part of the "no one" segment, that half a percent of mobile browser users internationally / across platforms - even less than Firefox's desktop share
Isn't this anti-competitive? Wasn't Microsoft fined for doing a less aggressive version of the same with IE?
Microsoft got in legal trouble for coercing OEMs like Dell to ship IE. The OEMs, not Microsoft, should decide what ships on their own hardware. Here Apple is the OEM and is being coerced.
While I admire your stance on the internet being open I disagree. Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You assume all players will play fair in the competition. If all browser engines would be allowed over night, what would happen: Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube videos stutter/have lower…
Anti-Competitive Behaviour from google should also be addressed by regulators. Our suggestions were covered in sections: 3.1.7 No Chrome Prefrencing 3.1.8 Website Transparency Obligations https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
As parent stated, Google can simply neglect to make their apps work well in Safari. They’ve done so in the past; GMail on Firefox was nigh-unusable due to a raft of dumb bugs for a long time, and it still uses substantially more CPU and memory than literally any other tab I have open on my browser. Right now they have to make an effort to support WebKit (Safari); as soon as they can push Blink (Chrome) to users, that motivation will go away.
> Safari is the new IE, there is a difference between a monopoly while still being able to use a competing product (like chrome in other platfroms), and forcing Safari(WebKit) while hindering the web because of Apples interests.(2-3) Ehm. Chrome is the new IE. Apple is using anti-competitive methods but its far far away from market domination. Microsoft is doing even more, by pushing so much Edge-only stuff. On iOS A…
> Apple is using anti-competitive methods but its far far away from market domination. Apple Safari has, literally, 100% marketshare across the entire iPhone market. Its App Store also has 100% marketshare and enforces the Safari marketshare. I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max. I love the hardware, but I'd love to install other browsers; why can't I? I'd also love to run real PWA's or run WebRTC without major issues. Why sh…
> Apple Safari has, literally, 100% marketshare across the entire iPhone market. Its App Store also has 100% marketshare and enforces the Safari marketshare.
And that’s the big difference between Safari dominance and IE at the time. Safari is only on iOS/iPadOS dominant not in the entire market like IE was