I wonder if it's the same on the Windows side; has Microsoft optimized IE (or the new browser, whatever it's called) for power usage?
I have Windows on Bootcamp but I don't know if Microsoft breaks down power usage like Apple does. I could compare Firefox to Edge, otherwise.
I don't think the mac power usage thing takes into account GPU usage but for that you'd probably want to download something third party to check the watt usage itself.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/the-great-suspende...
The other option for extensions is to specify certain sites that they work with (this is the "read and change all data on 'x.com'" permission prompt). That only works for site-specific extensions (like Reddit Enhancement Suite, or Camel Camel Camel).
This either because they are not documented, or because of the amount of special case code that would be required.
You can compile webkit from scratch, note the similar battery efficiency AND check it's code.
What's it with Apple that brings out the conspiracy theorists in people? (other pet peeves: "they purposefully remove ports to sell more adapters", "they purposefully cripple mobile web apps", etc).
Just because they aren't guilty here doesn't mean Apple hasn't behaved badly at some point. And when a company prizes short term profits from loyal customers over long term profits and gains of market share, that isn't a conspiracy -- it's a strategy.
Because market segmentation. It's a concept in sales as old as Adam Smith.
Possibly, the people buying the 64GB iPhone for slightly more than they should are actually subsidising the people getting the 32GB for less than otherwise.
The problem is that there isn't a 32GB iPhone 6s, though it would only cost Apple a few pennies per unit to offer one. Instead, it has a 16GB version (too little storage) and then jumps to a 64GB version (which is comparatively overpriced).
Either way, purely in terms of manufacturing costs, it's a choice between "overpriced" and "even more overpriced" -- or, if it makes you feel better, "premium priced" and "even more premium priced". I don't think "subsidising" comes into it.
It's not limited to Apple, but the pattern is the same: it goes immediately from conjecture to absolute certainty of malicious intent (but they didn't count on the speaker being clever enough to see through the scam). And if disproved, it's just the exception that proves the rule, which the speaker then has to loudly reassert.
We need a new rule: Never ascribe to malice what's adequately explained by others having different priorities than you.
Well, it's not that simple. Safari's Webkit has started as a fork of KHTML, which was already open-source.
Webkit's development has been conducted for circa one year behind closed doors. Then they released it as open source. KHTML dev have been faced with the option of merging a giant patch, throw away a year's worth of work and rebase on webkit or continue on their own.
So:
1) Webkit has not been open source from the start, but from one year later
2) Webkit is open source, it's so because it's a fork of KHTML. A wild fork though, an aggressive, non-cooperative fork. Webkit effectively hijacked and killed KHTML.
3) energy efficiency is not something that only concerns the rendering engine. There is also the javascript engine, the plugins and so on. You're making it a little bit too simple there.
I know, I was using Konqueror before it was cool. That's beside the point though.
>1) Webkit has not been open source from the start, but from one year later
Still irrelevant to our discussion.
>2) Webkit is open source, it's so because it's a fork of KHTML. A wild fork though, an aggressive, non-cooperative fork. Webkit effectively hijacked and killed KHTML.
And also a fork so much advanced (even at the first year) from KHTML that might as well have been a totally different project. And I should know, I'm one of the (I presume) few in here using Konqueror and KHTML in KDE 2.0 back in the day (that would be circa 2000-2003), for my, then modest browsing needs. And I know the whole backstory, as I was reading the "dot" then (KDE's news portal).
The thing is, WebKit, the fork, saw far more success than KHTML as an open source project, and became itself one of the largest open source successes. In fact it's so much a not just Apple thing, that code from there also powers Chrome, the most popular browser today (and Opera) and numerous other projects.
And, like with KHTML, Google forked Webkit to create Blink. When you want freedom to shape a project as you please, that's what you do. If you can keep 'em up, forks are nothing to be ashamed of. Some of the most successful projects have been forks (and sometimes, they even merged back after many years, e.g. XEmacs).
But still, this is again all beside the point. You whole comment until here merely repeats: "This Apple is not that benevolent -- they only made WebKit open source because they based it on an open source project". Nobody argued otherwise, and it's now what's under discussion.
>3) energy efficiency is not something that only concerns the rendering engine. There is also the javascript engine, the plugins and so on. You're making it a little bit too simple there.
The javascript engine is also open source.
And you can check battery efficiency without the plugins -- which aren't any secret either.