[Gorbzel]

It functionally is.

Many of those who have not learned from history are so anti-Apple (or possibly subpar webdevs) that they completely ignore the lessons we've previously learned about why browser monoculture is dangerous.

Even more worrisome, these people often ignorantly call Safari "the new IE", meaning they're aware of the history and problems and choose to pursue their own broken interpretation.

If these people will ignore a browser with 50% market share on mobile and 20% overall due to their own shortsightedness, clearly they're going to ignore Firefox or others hanging out in the single digits.

[error503]

> Many of those who have not learned from history are so anti-Apple (or possibly subpar webdevs) that they completely ignore the lessons we've previously learned about why browser monoculture is dangerous.

I'm confused, because to me it seems that the pro-Apple folks are the ones ignoring the lessons from large corporations using their weight to force monocultures.

Firefox is the only meaningful browser that is open and won't be leveraged by its steward to promote their business interests.

[dmitriid]

Please read "Breaking the Web Forward" https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...

--- sart quote ---

Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds.

--- end quote ---

[error503]

Oh you're absolutely right about Chrome, I'm just not sure why you mention 'anti-Apple', because Apple's leverage is being used in many of the same ways, just much more aggressively than 'best viewed in IE', instead it's 'App Store/WebKit/<choose your monoculture> or pound sand'.

[dmitriid]

> I'm just not sure why you mention 'anti-Apple'

Said nothing about "anti-Apple". I'm just agreeing with the poster above saying that people being vehemently anti-Apple actually haven't learned anything from history. At all.

> Apple's leverage is being used in many of the same ways, just much more aggressively than 'best viewed in IE'

Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.

And to quote again:

--- start quote ---

Regardless of where you feel the web should be on this spectrum between Google and Apple, there is a fundamental difference between the two.

We have the tools and procedures to manage Safari’s disinterest. They’re essentially the same as the ones we deployed against Microsoft back in the day — though a fundamental difference is that Microsoft was willing to talk while Apple remains its old haughty self, and its “devrels” aren’t actually allowed to do devrelly things such as managing relations with web developers. (Don’t blame them, by the way. If something would ever change they’re going to be our most valuable internal allies — just as the IE team was back in the day.)

On the other hand, we have no process for countering Google’s reverse embrace, extend, and extinguish strategy, since a section of web devs will be enthusiastic about whatever the newest API is. Also, Google devrels talk. And talk. And talk. And provide gigs of data that are hard to make sense of. And refer to their proprietary algorithms that “clearly” show X is in the best interest of the web — and don’t ask questions! And make everything so fucking complicated that we eventually give up and give in.

--- end quote ---

Google releases 400 new APIs a year with little to no oversight and with complete disregard of any objections or concerns from the other browser vendors: https://web-confluence.appspot.com/#!/confluence

The things that you think Safari is lacking in are largely Chrome-only non-standards.

[error503]

My comments in this thread are almost exclusively about the odd assertion in my parent that somehow 'anti-Apple' folks are the ones who have ignored history's lessons about monocultures. I'm not presenting this as an Apple <-> Google dichotomy; in fact nearly the opposite, both companies are fighting for monocultures that they control, just in slightly different domains. Apple wants to control the client platform, Google wants to control the web. Neither is good for users. It's very odd to me that someone would frame this discussion as 'anti-Apple' people missing the point. I won't speak for others, but I, as an anti-Apple person, am absolutely vehemently against this return to 'best viewed in IE', but I am also opposed to operating system developers and hardware vendors dictating what users are able to do with their own shit and insisting on putting their grubby paws on every dollar that passes through.

That is why I use Firefox, as the only remaining browser that hasn't shown a long-term pattern of curtailing user freedoms or rights when it suits them. I don't see Safari as a solution here; Apple is not pushing for an open web because it is righteous, they are pushing for a platform they control and to hurt their competitor. They are not to be trusted either. If they can, they will absolutely leverage that control against the user as they have shown time and time again that they are more than willing to do.

> Of course this is bullshit. Again. There's probably not a single site out there that is "best viewed in Safari". And there are numerous sites that are "best viewed in Chrome". Including, especially, the ones that Google themselves (#1 search, #1 mail, #1 video hosting, #1 web ad business in the world) creates.

When I say 'Apple', I mean 'Apple', not 'Safari'. Apple are the ones with a platform that will not run unblessed code. Apple are the ones that don't let developers or users choose how software is distributed. Apple are the ones that tell you which APIs you can and cannot use, and what your app can and cannot do. Apple are the ones that tell you what browser engine you can run, which is much stronger than a website saying 'yeah we tested this against IE, but go nuts', instead it is Apple saying 'if you want a browser engine, you can take Webkit or pound sand'. This is Apple's modus operandi, writ large. At least with Google's level of control you can still do what whatever you want with the website that runs in Chrome.