[WorldMaker]

I use Firefox just fine on iOS. Sure, it's just user chrome and Firefox Sync, but those are the things I care a lot more about than the rendering engine.

I'd love to support Gecko on mobile too, as I've moved the vast majority of my desktop usage to it, but Webkit is still fighting the Blink/Chromium hegemony, too, and that's still fighting the good fight.

[smoldesu]

> and that's still fighting the good fight

Not if they treat user freedom as their enemy.

[WorldMaker]

I appreciate that you feel that way. I think most users don't care about the details of rendering engines and think user chrome choice (not Google's Chrome specifically; it's stupid Chrome confused pre-existing browser language) is enough. I mostly agree, as I already stated, and I'm okay with the compromise on rendering engine for security and I'm okay with the compromise on rendering engine to keep at least one non-Blink renderer high enough on caniuse usage statistics that I can fight back some in corporate projects that "Chrome is the only browser we need to support" because we have enough iOS using users and many of them are executives. That's a more important fight to me than "user rendering engine freedom". I don't personally need IE6 2.0 "Chrome is the only supported browser for the next few decades" (whether or not you think Google would declare victory in the same way that Microsoft did and stop innovating on Chrome entirely that very minute that happens), and I don't think the web as a whole needs that either. So I'm with Apple right now on their compromise choices.

I don't expect you to agree with me. I just want you to know it is a perspective of its own merits. The web has seen what happens when one rendering engine gets enough market share to dominate and that had a decade or more of repercussions, especially in enterprise application development. We're so dangerously close to that happening again. You may think you are fighting the most for freedom of the two of us, but from my perspective you are fighting a proxy battle in the Cold War and I'm much more worried about the Cold War and the freedoms it may lose us in the long run.

[orangecat]

In the future Chrome might achieve a monopoly, therefore we should give Apple a monopoly on Safari today? If we're doing Cold War metaphors, this sounds like "we had to destroy the village in order to save it".

I'm much more worried about the Cold War and the freedoms it may lose us in the long run.

I will have to disagree that freedom is advanced by an OS that forbids you from using software that hasn't been approved by a megacorporation.

[WorldMaker]

Apple's usage of Safari on iOS is much more akin to a monopsony than a monopoly (though we are busting at the edges of the anti-trust analogy). Apple is only the only (allowed) "buyer" of rendering engines on iOS, and so is only buying Apple. So it is a bit of apples and oranges when comparing to potential monopoly where Google is the last supplier remaining for rendering engines.

We're probably all going to keep disagreeing because it is apples and oranges no matter what analogy we try to use. I do think "potential monopoly" is worse than "practical monopsony" (especially when it is a proxy monopsony and people are still free to not buy Apple and thus not buy Apple's rendering engine choice), but you are welcome to continue to disagree. Again, I appreciate why a lot of y'all see the "practical monopsony" as the larger and more immediate threat.

[smoldesu]

Whatever you label it, it's an arbitrary limitation of technical capabilities that is done for the user without asking them. You can backpedal as far as you'd like, but you can't apologize away the fact that the user should have more power over their iPhone than Apple does. That shouldn't be contentious on a site called 'Hacker News'.

[WorldMaker]

I'm not backpedaling, I stand by my opinion that "this isn't a technical user choice that matters to many users (including me)". That's the first thing that I said on the subject, and that's what I've been sticking to. I don't know why my opinion is upsetting you so much, but consider toning things down a bit before they get personal or hurtful?

What may sound like "backpedaling" is that I am admitting sympathy for your concern, despite disagreeing with it. I think you've made good points. I don't find anything "contentious" about it. I still disagree with you, and I'm not apologizing for disagreeing with you. I can understand your points just fine, and also still disagree with them. I would like you to consider my point of view, and maybe engage with me on this issue that it is much more complex than a simple "good versus evil". I hope this not to change your mind, but in the hopes of a better overall discussion than just "Apple is evil and doing evil things because Freedoms". The reality is not that simple. I don't blame you for thinking it is, and you are free to continue to do so, just don't yell at me for saying "well I think it's kind of complicated", please.