Hacker News Reader

Comment by nvarsj | Hacker News Reader

> the only thing standing between the world and a Chrome-only monoculture is iOS Safari

It's not really a good argument. It should be about user choice. If Chrome is better than Safari, and I prefer it, I should be able to install it. OS locked down browsers is 1990s era MS anti-trust behaviour that significantly reduces overall competition.

Mobile is king - if Safari/webkit wasn't so locked down on iOS, we may have gotten even a completely different player who made a really good mobile browser. Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.

View on HN

> It should be about user choice.

As the person you’re replying to said:

> I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for.

In other words: with the choice of using other browser engines on iOS there is a real possibility an even larger percentage of websites will work only on Chrome, meaning in the end user choice will be reduced because either you use Chromium (on mobile and desktop) or you cannot use anything.

Both situations suck. If Chrome weren’t so dominant then it would be a no brainer to advocate for more openness in iOS browser rendering engines, but as it stands it may be the case that not allowing the diversity on iOS promotes it in the aggregate. Apple’s approach, despite being done for the wrong reasons, might be what’s less detrimental for the web.

> It should be about user choice.

Then choose a different mobile OS.

> Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.

What do you actually propose then? Force them to release Safari for Android?

Chrome/blink has about 65% mobile market share, Safari has about 30%. If you are concerned with monopoly, how would enabling Blink on iOS do a single thing to displace the actual 600 pound gorilla in the room? Or is monopoly bad only if it's not *your* preferred choice?

> Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.

What if we have a straightforward choice between an Apple monopoly and a Chrome monopoly?

I've seen major online shopping websites deploy code that meant firefox users couldn't add items to their shopping baskets, and then classify it as a low priority bug because there was a workaround - using chrome.

Anti-trust or not, the authorities are sleeping (perhaps paid well to do so). What are you going to do in response?

I would restrict my site to work with even simple browsers like Links.

I don't know, individual action has very rarely worked to meaningfully enact system change.

But at least you won't be part of the problem, forcing people to use Chromium.

Well IE was just better than the competition. IIRC Nobody prevented you from installing alternative browser back in the 90s or 2000s

Whether Chrome is better or not is moot if developers design to only support it or offer a subpar experience when using other browsers

What does Apple have a monopoly on? Their own hardware?

Yet you chose to buy an iPhone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com