Hacker News Reader

Comment by close04 | Hacker News Reader

Safari's iOS exclusivity and resulting ~18% market share is probably the only reason Chromium based browsers don't have 95+% of the market. Some stick to whatever default they get but I think most would just immediately jump to Chrome(ium), with a very, very small minority like me going for Firefox. The mobile segment doesn't concentrate techy users like the desktop does so Firefox would see even lower (that the current ~3%) figures there.

A world absolutely dominated by Google's control over the browser scares me more than Apple's control over the AppStore.

View on HN

The solution is better anti-trust, not giving Apple a real monopoly because of Google's potential monopoly. Good anti-trust will handle both.

If you are correct, let's ensure the browser duopoly is broken up first, rather than forcing Apple to open the market for Google to corner it. Then it will truly be a monopoly and all consumers lose.

Why would the Chrome engine being dominant be all that problematic? And as a user, I'd like to make that choice for myself.

Also, Safari wouldn't vanish just because you'd be able to use a different browser engine. I strongly disagree with your "scary" (not scary) scenario: Only a small percentage of users is ever going to change defaults.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#Second_browser_wa...

The growing number of device/browser combinations in use, legally-mandated web accessibility, as well as the expansion of expected web functionality to essentially require DOM and scripting abilities, including AJAX, made web standards of increasing importance during this era. Instead of advertising their proprietary extensions, browser developers began to market their software based on how closely it adhered to standards.

As soon as one browser dominates, one company gets to dominate how the web works. If you, as a user, want to be able to choose your own browser you should oppose one engine becoming dominant.

Apple's monopoly is currently harming competition/consumers. Why should a potential monopoly that doesn't exist (yet) and doesn't hurt competition or consumers be a higher priority?

As an Apple user and web dev, I like some of their restrictions because I prefer incentive to build native apps for things I do all the time. They’re usually showing a lot more polish and integration.

Every time Twitter or Instagram bring up their custom share sheets I get super annoyed it’s not the default. PWA’s can probably get a lot of that, but a ton of web UX is arbitrary, unique, and more likely to feel janky in ways.

Even for well done web apps, like Notion, it stands out like a sore thumb when parts of the editor don’t work like normal Mac input controls.

I think PWA’s will have a lot of uses, but I don’t want them to take over either or Google get a browser monopoly. It’s bad enough how many devs don’t use anything but Chrome when testing. The web is what it is because it is not beholden to one company like the IE6 days

> The solution is better anti-trust

....how? Just saying "better anti-trust" isn't a usable solution.

Chromium is an open source project. What's the government to do, split the codebase in half/thirds? Chromium got to where it was because of the downstream decisions of developers not wanting to waste months/years of their lives reimplementing something that was already implemented.

"Someone else had already done the laborious legwork with Chromium, let's just use that."

----

If you want to actually solve this problem:

- Purge and ban software patents & copyrights. No entity should have total control as to how to implement efficient H.264 playback in the browser, nor native GPGPU support.

- Rewire human behaviour to inherently fear any market share of > 60%. Humans will continue to want to concentrate around a few choices as a result of network effects.

- STOP WITH WANTING NEW FEATURES. Every new shiny object that you desire will inevitably be replaced by the next shiny object, with only 10% of them sticking around in relatively popular use for any notable period of time. Browser devs, meanwhile, can't have the luxury of dropping support for <rarely used feature X>, and have to keep maintaining each one for some niche case.

----

I've already said my response to this: STOP wanting more features. The number of features that a browser dev has to support right out of the box is the major contributor for there being so few browser engines to choose from.

(Copied from a previous comment I made before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37733053)

> There's an argument to be made that the extreme breadth of scope that modern web browsers are obliged to support (in order to gain/retain market share) heavily contributes to there being no worthy contenders against Chromium's web monopoly.

> https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope....

> When you're the leader, you can further widen your lead by bolting on additional functions & features that require at least X amount of effort to implement. Any new contender will have to put in SUM(X effort for each feature) to match feature parity with the existing leader, and existing competitors will have to put in at least X effort to catch up. Existing OSS work can help bridge the gap, but only for what's already been done.

Hmm I would hope that the richest company in the world could build a better browser than anyone else and market it like no one else.

Except they didn't. Apple relied on their browser ban on iOS, on users not being able to set a default browser for 14 freakin' years.

Sorry, this is their own fault. Safari could be competitive, but if it turns out it isn't, it's on Apple and no one else.

"most would immediately jump" and why is that? because Safari is a subpar experience.

You can try to justify it all you want because "Google Bad" (and not that I disagree at least in spirit) but at the end of the day? Apple is giving users a worse experience as a method to lock them into the App Store and get their 30% cut.

Cool story ad-tech bro. Apple not supporting “features” designed to track/steal data isn’t a subpar experience. No one is forced to buy an iPhone, just like no one is forced to buy an Xbox which also takes a 30% cut via its locked down online store.

Don’t worry, the M$ CEO will bring back windows phone soon because he now realizes how it can be ad/spyware filled junk like windows 10/11/12 and Solitaire…

Safari, without hesitation doubt or debate, is subpar compared to the alternatives. You can claim "privacy" all you want but at the end of the day Safari is lackluster and neutered to "nudge" people into the Apple Store so Apple can get a 30% cut.

Privacy? Riiiiiight. Apple isn't using it's market place to stifle competition and limit choice out of the kindness of their hearts.

"M$ CEO" yeah... good thing you have IE 2024 installed on phones without the alternatives available that existed on Windows. Nope... you're stuck like a good slave who's $mart enough to not use M$ and instead you get the joy of being a good donator to Apples bottom line instead of Googles.

At the end of the day... nothing in your response changes the fact that Apple limits choices and holds the industry back with Safari which is a shit option that couldn't compete against real options.

"XBox" xbox is a gaming console not a phone. It's tied to a TV and not the center of your life. It also has competition in PS, Nintendo and gaming alternatives like Android and iPhone.

XBox doesn't have shitty safari on it as a core app to force people into the XBox store. You can also load CDs/DVDs into it purchased outside of it. Can you resell iPhone games? No? didn't think so. tons of reasons why "derp xbox" is a bad comparison.

I'm personally okay extending forcing alternative app stores onto XBox... but the scope is different and you know it - no matter that you try to deflect from how shitty Safari is. Your hate of "M$" doesn't make Apple any better.

> and why is that? because Safari is a subpar experience.

I think that's an oversimplification and mostly wrong. People don't uniformly use one reason for things. Some are too lazy to change a default, are used to one browser, genuinely like it, use it reluctantly because the big company developer is doing its best to hobble the competition (hey, here's a challenge, guess which one I'm talking about), or simply think Google (Chrome) is the internet. Based on usage alone compared to Google Chrome every other browser offers a subpar experience right? I don't agree with that. To take the most obvious example, the fact that Firefox allows me full control over the adblocking experience is the single biggest quality of life improvement over Chrome in using the internet.

> You can try to justify it all you want

I didn't "justify" anything. What works for me doesn't have to work for you. Two things can be true at once. My personal data and privacy are a priority for me so Google cheating me out of them trumps any fuzzy argument that doesn't hold water even over a two line comment. Because...

> Apple is giving users a worse experience

Wait, let me try your argument for size. Apple is close to being the biggest phone manufacturer on the planet, as voted by people with their wallets, despite making the most expensive phones. And why is that? Because everyone else offers a subpar experience, right? I voted for Firefox and I'd rather use Safari than Chrome because we have different priorities and definitions of what makes for a good experience.

Sibling comment had the right idea. The only fix for this is one that globally addresses via regulation the issues any company's dominant positions poses.

"mostly wrong" except it's not. Safari is under developed, restrictive and... bad.

"Based on usage" Chrome is doing something right but that doesn't mean better options don't exist. JS exists and is massively popular but that doesn't make it the "best". Most popular also doesn't mean it's not horrible in its own right - like Safari (and JS, etc).

"firefox" You use firefox because it's better... better than what? Safari for one.

"let me try your argument for size" Just because people pay doesn't mean it's better and because it's popular doesn't mean it's better. People buy ripped up clothes at a massive markup because it's "better". You keep saying Firefox is better even though it's not "in" or cool.

Nothing in your response addresses the fact that SAFARI is subpar amoungst its peers because Apple uses that to push people to the App store. Likewise, they "pair bond" stuff to phones so 2ndary markets can't fix their stuff. Not because safari is better... not because their parts are better... because they get 30% on the store and they get the fees for fixing stuff "properly". Same for their custom connectors (which are on the way out)

Your focused on Safari vs Firefox. You're ignoring the forest for the tree.

Apple as a whole can be a better product (arguably, the complete package is "better" because it's more consistent and "secure" and all that than say Android) while also having parts that are worse. Safari is a part that's worse (and as incentive, the 30% cut on app store $$$).

"different priorities" I'm all for better regulation and some places are headed in the right direction (IE: USBC requirements, sideloading requirements, banning google from monopoly practices on their store, etc)... but that doesn't change the fact that safari is the IE of today - forced on customers, ignored by its creator and clearly worse as you admit in your stalwart defense of Firefox.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com