[FormularSumo]

It's a cool page, although somewhat limited in scope. If you want a more complete picture of all the web progress Apple is holding back, not "just" PWA and more advanced capabilities, this is probably a better site for comparison:

https://ios404.com

It includes dates for when these things were first shipped, explanations for that they do, and what kind of standards (or not) they are.

[troupo]

Note how it doesn't list which of these are Chrome-only non-standard APIs that Firefox doesn't support either.

Oh wait. You don't care about small details like that. None of these Chrome shilling websites do.

[FormularSumo]

Did you try opening the page? Each feature says which spec it's part of (e.g. "W3C Draft", "W3C Candidate") with a link to it. It also shows which browser implemented a feature first. Often it's Chrome, but sometimes it's Firefox, Opera, or even desktop Safari!

Likewise, you can click on the Chrome icon to change comparison browser. Here's a list of features implemented in Firefox on Android but not in Safari on iOS (and therefore, not in Firefox on iOS either):

https://ios404.com/?browsers=andff

Fwiw, I've been a Firefox user for about 9 years. I would love to see Firefox be able to ship their engine on iOS. The main reason Firefox haven't implemented as many features as Chrome is that they lack the resources to. Anti-competitive behaviour has hurt them a lot, and being forced to use a sub-par, undifferentiated browser engine on iOS - the world's most valuable and influential OS, has played a big part in this.

[rejhgadellaa]

First of all, features can be a standard without (full) FF and/or Safari support.

Second, Safari has a monopoly on iOS and controls what other browsers can support on the platform (that also usually means "less than Safari", because SF gets to support things first). They are in a unique position to hold back the entire web, even on other platforms. They're holding the standards hostage by not allowing the market to decide which features are important to them (and put pressure on Safari and FF to implement them)

[troupo]

> First of all, features can be a standard without (full) FF and/or Safari support.

No. No they can't. A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature.

We literally lived through this with Internet Explorer.

The only reason the web is thriving now is because browser vendors agreed not to push this shit any longer. Well, until Google decided that whatever it does is the web, and until people who are not even paid by Google started unironically pushing the idea of "whatever Google spits out is the essential web standard now".

I mean, the status of multiple APIs on any of those "Safari is bad PWA is good" sites are literally in the "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".

> They're holding the standards hostage by not allowing the market to decide which features are important to them (and put pressure on Safari and FF to implement them)

Who puts the pressure on FF to not implement Chrome-only non-standard APIs? Even desktop Firefox doesn't want to touch that pile of garbage with a 10-yard stick. And yeah, let's not pretend that Chrome somehow got to where it is by "market deciding".

[rejhgadellaa]

> A feature that is shipped in a single browser is just that: that browser's non-interoperable feature.

AFAIK, the popover and/or anchor positioning APIs was standards before it shipped in more than one browser. (I will say that all three(?) of them agreed to build it)

> "it's a napkin scribble, not on any standards track".

Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous (precisely because they understand that they're pushing things, so they have a responsibility to make sure it's good):

https://www.chromium.org/blink/launching-features/

[troupo]

> I will say that all three(?) of them agreed to build it

This is the key sentence

> Chromium/Blink have a process, and it's quite rigorous

It's Chrome's process, and Chrome's deadlines.

> they have a responsibility to make sure it's good)

Strange then that they routinely don't wait for and ignore any and all input from other browser vendors and ship their own APIs without any consensus or agreement because "their rigorous process is good" or something.

E.g. almost every single API marked as "experimental" on MDN docs [1] is already shipped in Chrome despite most specs being "not on any standards track", "has multiple issues", "no consensus and API is in flux" or "it is provided for discussion only and may change at any moment."

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API

[rejhgadellaa]

> Strange then that they routinely don't wait for and ignore any and all input from other browser vendors

It's not strange when you consider that other browser vendors sometimes flat out refuse or delay. The only option, then, is to just go ahead, spec, build and launch it, and let the market decide whether to push those vendors to reconsider.

"The Power of 'No' in Internet Standards"

https://www.mnot.net/blog/2026/02/13/no

"How Do Committees Fail To Invent?"

https://infrequently.org/2025/08/how-do-committees-fail-to-i...

[shalanah]

Hi! Creator here (of iOS404) - you can filter level of standard and compare to FF Android (or compare to Safari Desktop, or any mix) instead if you'd like.

[troupo]

It's called iOS404, not "FF" or "Chrome" and pushes the narrative that iOS is bad, and missing features.

There are 34 features listed (IIRC it did contain a bunch of Chrome-only crap once upon the time, hence my harsh reaction). All of them enabled by default. If we limit this only to actual, you know, standards, and not "scribbled on a napkin, awaits review", we get a grand total of 9 (yes, nine). And even there many are not "not implemented" but "missing some features (sometimes big, sometimes small and irrelevant)".

[fennecfoxy]

Are you mad because they probably found the same thing I did when doing web stuff that had to run on iOS (going as far back as about 2012~) that iOS required so much more hoop jumping, hacks, polyfills etc? It was just assumed that every other platform worked fine, time was always allocated for inevitable issues on mobile Safari.

[shalanah]

Yep - the site has a point of view but rooted in real data that you can filter as you'd like.

I've had real-world experiences where I develop something that works on my Mac and my Pixel phone but cannot work on iOS WebKit (basically kaputt on iPhones). It inspired the creation of the site - specifically not being able to allow users to have Audio at anything but 100% seemed extremely weird.

I'm not offended by sites that also point out issues with a slant against Google. Ie: killedbygoogle - I think these things are great, fun, and interesting.

[xd1936]

Amazing site. Thanks for making it.

[shalanah]

Of course! Thanks!