hot take: the safari monopoly on ios is better than a chromium monopoly on all platforms
Do you really wish corporate control so much? Do you want to go through Apple review for your websites as well?
It's incredible how brand fanboyism clouds your minds - this isn't about engine competition, it's about making free web an equal player to golden cages of app stores.
Remember, Firefox is not allowed to exist on Apple devices either.
This conflict of interest - browser privacy vs. Google’s ad business - is the single reason I now use Firefox [on desktop].
Many of those "standards" and APIs are emphatically not standards despite what Chrome's vast propaganda machine tells you.
You mean, like Chrome? Developed by the monopolistic American megacorp called Google?
Also, if PWA’s and Electron apps are your version of “equal to native” I’m going to have to strongly disagree.
Instead, you're defending Apple monopoly where they ban all competition, stagnate web development and make PWAs and other web-apps a non-viable possibility on their devices. All because... you don't like Chrome? Although you'd still have a full option of using Firefox, Safari or others? Why? Because someone else might DARE to use a product THEY prefer?
It's such a blatant lie about PWAs.
And thank god Safari and Mozilla don't implement dozens of Chrome-only non-standards.
Web Apps if allowed could provide equivalent (and sometimes much better) experiences than native.
But it’s a chicken and egg problem, and it’s mainly Apple holding it back.
If you can point me why Slack, Teams, WhatsApp desktop, Telegram, etc need too much ram to render a simple list + chat and call that efficient, then I would believe you about web apps being good.
TweetDeck spikes to 22% CPU just to display a tooltip: https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1486629036520521734
Truly an amazing technology.
Edit: and yes, Slack consumes 17% of CPU power to display animated reactions on an M1 processor.
It isn't, and it's also a near impossibility for the web.
> Web Apps if allowed could provide equivalent (and sometimes much better) experiences than native.
No. No, they couldn't.
Of course, you could say "but WebGL/Canvas/WebGPU", but then you're just building native apps with multiple extra steps.
WebGL / Canvas are web standards, no issue with using them.
Show me how to reliably do 60 FPS on anything that causes re-layout. Example: animating an item added or removed from the list without hacks.
> WebGL / Canvas are web standards, no issue with using them.
1. Accessibility
2. These are basically native technologies. So, you're basically using native tech, with extra steps
3. Between WebGL, Canvas and upcoming WebGPU you have three incompatible technologies with a list of shortcomings longer than the equator
Accessibility.
“Look at all these alternative browsers you can use”
> points to Chromium variants.
Chromium variants are not an alternative, and I’m happy to perpetuate Safari on iOS if it means Apple keeps shafting ad-tech companies in service of my privacy.
> Analysts project Apple will make $5B off ads this year and $20B per year by 2024
On the other hand 80% of Google's revenue comes from online ads.
That said I'm glad more people are starting to acknowledge this and bring it up in these discussions. Firefox is not really a counter to Chrome's dominance and WebKit only really still is due to Apple being too big to push around.
If I'm stuck choosing between those two evils, I'd sooner take Apple... then try to figure out what a better solution is than just "make Apple change because I don't like Safari".
That would seem to be a pretty strong argument _for_ browser choice in my opinion.
Even now on iOS Google's apps constantly "forget" my choice of browsers and try to push me to use Chrome for external links.