[AnthonyMouse]

The browser is the whole thing. All of it. If you can't replace the rendering engine then you can't replace the browser. Not only because you can't replace the rendering engine but because many of the other things depend on the ability to add features to the rendering engine.

If you put a Dodge engine in a Chevy, you don't call it a Dodge, you call it a Frankenstein's monster which isn't either one and both Dodge and Chevy fans (but especially Chevy fans) will think less of you for it.

[Volundr]

You don't call it a Dodge or a Chevy, but you still call it a car.

If anything this seems to me like an argument why Firefox with a Safari rendering engine is indeed a browser on the app store.

[AnthonyMouse]

A Tesla with a Honda engine in it is a car, but it's missing the thing that causes people to want a Tesla.

[Volundr]

I don't see your point. The topic in question is browsers in the App Store. The suggestion was made that these aren't real "browsers" because they use the Safari rendering engine.

If a Telsa with a Honda engine is a car, why isn't Firefox with WebKit (which is what Safari uses) as it's rendering engine a browser?

You could argue it's not "real" Firefox, and I might see where your coming from, but my comment was specifically addressing the claim it's not a browser.

[bscphil]

Pretty sure "there are no browsers in the app store" was not meant to be taken literally, it's a snarky way of implying that the options are incomplete in some way (because they're "just" skins on top of the Safari rendering engines.) You're reading this overly literally, which is why people are reacting to your comments with confusion.