Underhanded? It's pretty clear that your stated goals don't align with your real goals here.
Edit: I have a hard time putting into words why your arguments seem so deceptive to me. It is like whataboutism: the arguments you are making are technically functional but they just completely fall apart with any reasonable weighing of the pros/cons because it betrays the "intrinsic" goals (choice, browser competition, functionality, security) for "extrinsic" goals (browser diversity, but mostly the success of safari). This makes me think that you're secretly misaligned and that you actually hold those "extrinsic" goals as your intrinsic goals.
Instead what happens is this internecine warfare where everyone shits all over FF for political reasons (most of which have no relevance to their day to day use of a web browser) and uptake of Tor/Brave is miniscule and most everyone sticks with Chrome.
Why ? Open up the platform first.
1) Firefox cannot compete against Google endless resources m. Google will win, not a matter of it but will.
2) The time it takes to decouple chrome from google will be too long. It may just kill Firefox before any action can really be done.
If you force Apple to open up iOS then Chrome just takes it over and Safari will take such a hit that Apple will probably have to kill it. Then Google will own 99% of the portal to the web.
I think I'm arguing with a bunch of Libertarians though who think that an unregulated market is some kind of magic sauce that will conjure up a Chrome competitor out of thin air, and not a recipe for monopolization.
How much would it cost for them to fund firefox development to make it a stronger competitor?
Okay, Apple: do that. Also open up the walled gardens. You can make it a setting if you want to keep the beginner computer users safe.
If you want to force Apple to allow different browsers without addressing this problem, then you are trading one company's monopoly on a single platform for another company's monopoly globally. And there is no reason to believe that Google will behave any better than Apple has. It's not like Google hasn't tried to skip the standards process before.
So when people argue that "it's for browser diversity" I have to consider them as 1.) naive, 2.) actually working for Google. 3.) just developers who are tired of being forced to target multiple platforms.
Do I think it's ethical that this is how this stalemate is handled? No; taking away user choice is limiting the freedoms of users.
Do I think Safari is amazing? No; I think Chrome on Android, today, is better than Safari on iOS. I may be harming users today by forcing them on Safari.
Would I fold if Apple only allowed Firefox/Lynx/Netscape? Yes; My problem is with Chrome, not with other browsers. But I think the number of people who genuinely want to Firefox is tiny in comparison to the number of people who would just install Chrome.
My worst fear is that once Chrome is allowed on iOS, then there is no reason for Google, or anyone else, to target anything other than Chrome; and that would ultimately be harder to fix. A year of Chrome dominance, where developers only target Chrome would fully entrench Chrome and make it difficult for anyone to build a browser that wasn't just a Chrome fork that emulated all of Chrome's bugs and unspecified behaviors. The alternate solution, where the Chrome problem is addressed first, then the fix is "just" passing legislation that opens up iOS. One fix involves just changing the behavior of one company. The other fix involves changing the behavior of thousands of companies.
We started OWA with a group of primarily Safari first developers, in that iOS Safari is our primary target platform. We've had over a decade of major issues from rendering bugs, to lack of functionality to our apps breaking for months at a time waiting for a patch. The severe underfunding of Safari/webkit coupled with a ban on competition meant that it was never going to be viable to ship Web Apps to iOS. So the question is, how do you convince the worlds richest company to invest a extra few hundred million/year into their own browser?
The answer is competition. Competition provides Apple a deep incentive to produce a capable, feature risk browser at risk of losing users to the other vendors. Each 1% of Safari users is worth 150m/year in google search revenue, a number so large it would make even Apple take notice.
As web developers we see the value in having browser engine competition, many of us lived through the IE6 era and know the risks of the monopolistic competitive behavior like we're seeing from Apple (Side-point: At no point did Microsoft ever ban the competition).
The status-quo where Safari/Webkit was both stifling the Web and Web Apps and providing no competitive pressure on Chrome/Edge/Firefox + the severe underinvestment from Apple meant that a regulatory solution was needed.
There is no competition. There is only Chrome.
This is what I was talking about. There will only be one result to opening iOS and it scares me.
FF/Opera are too small. Edge is small and really just Chrome anyway. If we had a healthy browser market I’d be fine. But we don’t.
Apple is, for the wrong reason, the only thing keeping us from total Chrome dominance.
I want one of these “just open iOS” calls to include the consequences of what they’re calling for and how they plan to deal with it.
> I want one of these “just open iOS” calls to include the consequences of what they’re calling for and how they plan to deal with it.
OWA has taken into account anti-competitive practices used by Google to gain browser market share, and made recommendation to mitigate or prevent them. In there submission to the japanese regulator [1], they include:
- 3.1.7: No Chrome Preferencing: > Google should not use their control over the operating system to provide unfair preference to their own browser, Chrome, either through the operating system or agreements with partners.
- 3.1.8: Website Transparency Obligations: > OWA suggests that where a Gatekeeper’s website does not support a browser which has above a 2% market share, they be compelled to publish a document containing detailed reasoning that prevents support of certain engines.
[1]: https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
Edge could just not compete with chrome, despite throwing hundreds of engineers at the problem. They tried, and tried, and tried.
In the end “edge doesn’t work” was just code for “edge is not chromium”
Electron was and is still a separate beast, Microsoft doesn’t even need to deal with that: third party developers do, they have to ship the binary.
Why? Does Apple not have the resources to build a competitive browser? Do they not have the motivation? Do they not have the engineering skills? Do they not have a large and extremely desirable user-base who prefer to stay as much as possible in Apple's ecosystem?
Given all the advantages Apple has, how could it possibly be true that they can only get users by literally banning all competition on their main platform?
Ignoring much of the fact how Google would leverage it's existing properties to make sure you couldn't open a single web page without being nagged about installing Chrome; it would take a large amount of effort for anyone to compete to where Chrome is today and the result is that people would just Chrome.
And fine, I understand that as developers you don't want the burden of testing multiple platforms or being beholden to one platform that doesn't move as fast as Chrome. But to pretend this is about the "browser diversity" is where I have the problem. Just say you want Chrome and don't buy Google's framing that this about "open standards" when Google doesn't even hold Chrome to that standard.
So then your answer is that Apple's browser is significantly worse than competitors, and that users wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for Apples anti-competitive behavior?
> But to pretend this is about the "browser diversity
> Just say you want Chrome
I think most open web supporters would be a lot happier if Apple even simply allowed Firefox.
That would still be massively better than the status quo.
Are you saying that all someone would have to do is argue for allowing just Firefox, and you would no longer do this thing where you attack some alleged secret motivations?
I love and support Firefox, and I even use it on my iPhone (yes, it’s reskinned WebKit, but it syncs my stuff).
Yes. I hope it's exceedingly clear that I don't think Safari is God's gift to mankind.
>Are you saying that all someone would have to do is argue for allowing just Firefox
Yes. In fact they could be upfront and just say "just allow Chrome because I like developing for Chrome." But that's not what happens; it's "Apple is stifling competition because I want to use Netscape Navigator", when in actuality it's just developers that want to target a single platform, or Google who wants protect itself from Apple's power.
Maybe OWA is the exception here, but what I've found is the people making the most visible noise about this are connected to Google in some way. Consider this HN post from a couple days ago [1], where the author in his six-part series about browser choice, neglects to ever mention Chrome's dominance. Unsurprising that he was also a platform strategist at Google. You're telling me the guy who's job it is to make sure Google is an entrenched as possible doesn't like Apple's position on Safari? What a surprise. Then he tells you "don't worry about Chrome, this is about open standards!" - sounds underhanded to me.
At the very least, the cohort of users on Safari who can't switch prevents Google from just outright breaking some sites like Gmail and YouTube on every browser except Chrome.
[1] https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...
They do. They did. It’s called Safari. That’s how we got here.
What they DON’T have is any care about Windows/Linux/Android users. Apple makes their browser to make their platform the way they like.
If you want Apple to provide the competitive alternate browser on other platforms you’re asking the wrong company.
> Given all the advantages Apple has, how could it possibly be true that they can only get users by literally banning all competition on their main platform?
Google pushes Chrome with the #1 OS in the world (Android). With the #1 site, google.com. And the #2, YouTube.com. And gmail. And Google Maps. Maybe Waze. Chrome OS. GSuite.
They have an INSANE amount of power to push people to Chrome and off other browsers.
I’m not arguing pro-Apple. I’m arguing anti-Google.
Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You assume all players will play fair in the competition. If all browser engines would be allowed over night, what would happen: Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube videos stutter/have lower resolution, everything is a lot slower, the performance will be sabotaged, but on Chrome everything will be working fine. There was even a precedent for something similar: [1]
This will probably come alongside with "Try it in Google Chrome", a lot of users would probably switch, thus the monopoly of Chromium would be unstoppable by pure market forces.
Yes, having only one browser engine is bad for the choice of the user, but it does have significant downsides.
Damned, if you do, damned if you don't
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in...
No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.
Our suggestions were covered in sections: 3.1.7 No Chrome Prefrencing 3.1.8 Website Transparency Obligations
https://open-web-advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
That seems like it creates perverse incentives for Apple to keep Safari "broken".
Regulation on Apple only is the opposite of encouraging competition, it’s literally calling shots against the only fighter that’s pushing back on Chrome in a significant way - on market share, and maybe more importantly, on privacy and avoiding bloating web standards to further avoid total lock-in on V8.
Second, Apple has been accelerating greatly Safari development for years now and I worry your entire organization can’t admit it’s actually a great browser and has rapidly caught up in terms of correctness and features, and is now in fact leading in many ways. That it rejects some proposals isn’t inherently wrong, by the way, and the reasoning for many is just. I’m afraid if you admitted that, it’d pop a bubble in one of your core tenets, and given you made this mission driven thing with a single purpose, you’re sort of now forced into an intellectually dishonest place.
Because as a long time web develop myself who went from IE to Firefox to Chrome to Safari as my main browsers over the years, there’s simply *no doubt* that Safari as of a year or two ago started whooping Chromes ass. Like not even close, it feels like a different type of thing. It’s insanely fast, across so many dimensions, lighter, and I don’t get incompatibility almost ever anymore.
Your mission would achieve the opposite of what it wants - Apples platform isn’t a monopoly, Google's are. Google has a monopoly on Search, Browsers, and influence on the web. This would only strengthen the worse/stronger fighter. And it's all premised on a fundamentally unsound critique of Safari.
I don't see anyone explaining what will force Google to continue supporting Safari once they have Chrome on iOS.
The reality is that they probably won't. Safari will break for Google services and pixels, and the only answer will be "switch to Chrome, things don't break there." Bye bye competition.
OWA members have actually been actively reporting WebKit bugs and interacting with the Safari team to help prioritise features and bug fixes on Twitter and elsewhere, showing the goal is to improve the overall web experience on iOS, not allow Chrome to become dominant. Here is one of their detailed bug report: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022/issues/84.
That’s why I originally commented. If you focus on just one of those I believe there will be terrible unintentional consequences.
I find this very hard to believe. Everyone you know uses Firefox?
>With full control of the rendering engine on all platforms, Google can stop engaging with standards bodies. Web rendering standards will become simply what Google says they are, even if it is to their benefit. Imagine AMP but on steroids. When Safari stops rendering mobile sites correctly, there will be lots of helpful friends and family (and ads) telling folks to "just switch to Chrome, it's a better browser anyway."
>Google could also ship their own root certificate list and take control of Web PKI. Imagine Symantec but entirely at Google's option. Play ball or get security warnings. This would allow an end run around the democratization afforded by Let's Encrypt, for example. Controlling 99% of the client end of TLS confers just as much power as controlling the CA end.
All of these items are built into how Chromium renders the web. The other Chromium derivatives will be forced to swallow these changes because what are they going to do? Fork and maintain their own browser engine? Bisect patches from upstream forever? How many of these Chromium forks will have the resources to maintain their own fork of something as complex as Chromium?
Following Chromium upstream is an extremely hard effort if you have done any kind of non trivial changes to it. There are constant refactors and changes. This means that your chromium using browser can't be anything more than just a reskin of Chrome, which means that you don't have the agency to support some feature that Chrome chose to not support, and the features you do support are likely going to be implemented 100% the same due to using the same code, including the bugs. This leads to the same "code assuming the bug" issues that if everyone used Chrome.
Furthermore, Google has a monopoly on Chromium developers, with only few people contributing from the outside. Your Chrome reskin team will likely be very skilled in maintaining a Chrome reskin but if Google ever decided to stop the Chromium project in favour of a closed source Chrome, there would be nobody who knows how to properly maintain the fork going forward, neither at your company, or available for hire.
You are 100% at the mercy of Google if you do a Chrome reskin.
except the issue here is the rendering engine and who controls in at the top level.
I don’t wanna live in the world we’re 90% of the Internet only supports chromium, yet everything from Edge to Opera use it now. Firefox and Safari the last holdouts keeping google from dominating all web standards.
And it is being pointed out, repeatedly, that the only actual real competition is Chrome. When Chrome becomes an option then websites will abandon any pretense of adhering to standards and just code to Chrome. You can't pretend the mobile browser landscape won't just end up mirroring that of the desktop.
The total browser share of iOS shifting to Chrome, even if Chrome only got 50% of iOS users, would put the total browser share of Chrome over 90%. There would be no impetus for any website to write for anything but Chrome.
All Apple achieve with this is to slow down the inevitable, especially if the smaller players can't catch up because of it.