[yourenotsmart]

So in a nutshell, the author's argument is that Safari is "killing the web" because apps written specifically for Chrome, may not run on Safari.

I find it cringeworthy to even have to explain the problem here. "The web" is not an app written for one browser. By the same logic, Firefox is also "killing the web" because it can't run Chrome-only apps.

The web is all mainstream browsers, and the web standards. Do you want to know what's really killing the web? Google subverting the standards process and unilaterally adding all kinds of random "standards" (like connecting to USB and Bluetooth devices, for some reason) as part of the web, then guilting other browsers into not following along.

Instead of critiquing Google for acting as if they singlehandedly own the web, web developers are parroting their line and enabling them.

Fucking embarrassing.

[NelsonMinar]

What a disingenuous summary of the article. I thought the points about persistent bugs in Safari were particularly pointed. Also most of the features Safari hasn't chosen to implement are supported by both Chromium and Firefox and are standards.

If you think standard APIs for screen orientation, pixel density, or touch events are some Chrome conspiracy, please do explain why.

[zamalek]

The author points to many APIs supported by Firefox, so it's not just Google. In addition, they point out that many of the APIs that were "contentious" were added to Safari years after all the other browsers.

The author has already addressed many of the things in your comment, including Google doing whatever they want (they clearly stated that it is unacceptable).

[Wowfunhappy]

Mozilla is basically forced to do whatever Google wants at this point. Firefox doesn't have the marketshare to influence standards, and if it doesn't maintain feature compatibility with Chrome, websites will drop Firefox support, and Firefox will loose even more marketshare and have even less influence.

Mozilla quite clearly didn't want to implement EME, for example, but they couldn't afford for Firefox to not work with Netflix!

Apple has more freedom than Mozilla precisely because Safari users can't just switch to another browser. And for as much as I find that abhorrent and anti-competitive... if Apple is going to retain so much power anyway, I'm at least happy they're using it to prevent Google's total dominance.

[skc]

Pretty sure you wouldn't be happy with Microsoft taking this approach.

It's abhorrent period.

[sbuk]

Is it any more or less abhorrent than Google blatant embrace, extend, extinguish approach to the open web?

[Wowfunhappy]

To be clear, I'm not happy with Apple's approach to iOS. At all.

But Apple doesn't particularly care what I think, so I'm glad they're at least making moves which help preserve the open web, regardless of their motivations.

[lern_too_spel]

That rebuttal doesn't make sense. You're claiming that Mozilla is dragged into implementing bad standards by saying EME is a bad standard that they were dragged into, but Apple implemented EME before Mozilla did. The example standards the author gave have nobody arguing against them.

[Wowfunhappy]

I wasn't making a judgement on whether EME was good or bad†. I was saying Mozilla didn't want to implement it, and was forced to, whereas Apple has more ability to push back against browser features they dislike.

As it so happens, Apple has no issues with DRM; their products are full of it.

† I do think EME is bad, but that's beside the point.

[gumby]

> Mozilla is basically forced to do whatever Google wants at this point.

Doesn’t most of Mozilla’s revenue come from Google?

[anhner]

But:

1) you can decide to use other browsers besides Firefox if some sites don't work on it, but on iOS you can't use anything else (every browser still uses safari under the hood)

2) you can still use "chrome apis" even if you don't use chrome. More and more browsers use chrome's engine (see: Opera, Edge, Vivaldi etc.) and while I am not happy with that, it is becoming more and more commonplace.

[yourenotsmart]

What web developers think:

- User: "This site is broken. Fuck Safari, I want Chrome on my iPhone!"

What users actually think:

- User: "This site is broken. Fuck it, I'll go to another site."

Safari isn't THAT BAD that sites can't work on it. It's mostly minor differences, and lack of some "nice-to-haves" that are not crucial to UX (or in fact, their lack improves UX).

No one cares about your site that much to go to another browser just to browse it ON A PHONE. This is why I said, outside the web dev echo chamber, no one cares.

I've been around for IE6, and comparing Safari with IE6 is honestly absolutely ignorant and laughable. But I did also make my sites work fine with IE6 back in the time. That's our job.

Safari will move at its own pace. The only thing I care about it, is that it's secure, power efficient, fast and user friendly. I speak also as an iPhone user, because users matter more than developers and their endless whining about features.

[mthoms]

> No one cares about your site that much to go to another browser just to browse it ON A PHONE

Because they literally CANNOT switch from Safari’s rendering!?

The fact that you wrote this with so much confidence (featuring all caps and gratuitous swearing) signals to me that you aren’t genuinely listening to the argument(a) at all.

It signals to me that you are only interested in tribalistic hyperbole.

Besides: “It’s fine for me therefore it should be fine for you” is a terribly unconvincing argument.

[pjerem]

No you missed its point : even in Android, nobody it’s going to change browser if your site is broken. Users will just assume your site is broken. And to be fair, it’s the same thing on desktop browsers.

So, like it or not, even if iOS allowed other rendering engines on browsers, you would probably be stuck with supporting Safari anyway.

[mthoms]

>nobody it’s going to change browser if your site is broken. Users will just assume your site is broken. And to be fair, it’s the same thing on desktop browsers.

Sorry but, history says otherwise:

1) Netscape users came across "works best in IE" banners and IE usage skyrocketed.

2) IE users came across "works best in Firefox/Chrome" notices and IE usage plummeted in favour of those better browsers.

Chrome didn't get to where it is solely based on marketing - it had some very strong advantages in the early years.

>you would probably be stuck with supporting Safari anyway.

I don't disagree there. But increased competition would force Apple to up their game. A win for everyone.

[thysultan]

>but on iOS you can't use anything else

This is a good thing, you need a monopoly(iOS) to fight against a monopoly(Chrome).

[Yaina]

The debate requires so e nuance, where Chrome and Safari are at both ends of the extreme. The Chrome team seems tk have the resources to churn out one API (proposal and implementation) after the other, some of them are obviously made just for Google products. Safari on the other end does not even seem to care for very prominent APIs that have been standardized with Mozillas Support.

Somewhere in the middle lies Mozilla. They need to stay competitive to chrome, but also want good privacy and most importantly lack the resourcing to just implement all of Googles whims. You don't just implement a Bluetooth API into your browser that works on Windows, mac and Linux!