Whether it's garbage or not ultimately doesn't matter much. What's more important is the fact that it's the only choice for users on iOS right now.
WebKit will never have an incentive to get improved without healthy competition.
I, for one, am eagerly anticipating unlocking the full monetization potential of the web with the demise of functional adblockers like uBO! No longer will Google be forced to support adblockers to remain competitive with Webkit and Gekko! Developers rejoice!
Thank you open-web-advocacy.org for finally killing off all browser competition! You are doing god's work, son.
Why can't Apple?
Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat?
Mozilla has reversed a browser monopoly? When? Do you mean back in the late 90's when Mozilla's predecessor (Netscape) lost their monopoly to IE? I guess that's technically true they reversed a monopoly back then... but that's not exactly helping your argument.
Google did it not by creating a good web browser, but by forcing their browser on users of the most heavily-trafficked search site and video steaming site (by breaking features for those who used a different browser). You know, the very same anti-competitive arguments that so many people are wringing their hands about.
> Why can't Apple?
Safari already is a better browser... for users. I'm sorry that it doesn't have let you do the same tracking bullshit that you can do in Chrome, but having Bluetooth and serial number APIs is not something I want in my browser. I'm ever so sorry that it breaks all the cross-site tracking cookies.
The reason Apple can't reverse a monopoly with a better browser is that:
1. Safari is for iOS and MacOS only. By definition it won't ever rise above the user base of those OSs, which are a small minority in almost all markets. That is also why you don't have to worry about it become it's own monopoly, like Chrome did.
2. Safari won't add all the user tracking bullshit you want because that is the whole proposition of Apple's ecosystem. You seem to have forgotten what a browser is: It's a user agent. It's supposed to work for the user. But if website owners have the option to steer everyone to the browser that lets them reach into the operating system and pull out the device serial number, they'll do that.
> Why is Apple entitled for a free pass on forcing browsers down their users throat?
1. We often let minority players do things that we would not let a monopolist do. For example, Spotify is a gatekeeper to music streaming in the EU (I have to license to them if I want to stream my music to any significant number of EU customers), but the DMA does not apply because they are too small. Apple is a small minority player in the browser market, too.
2. Building a Chrome-only website (and enforcing that with DRM) today is a non-starter because it means shutting out the small but lucrative Apple customer base. But if iOS users have the option to use Chrome, websites can force visitors to use Chrome instead. Maybe Google will even pay higher ad rates to sites when the customer is a "verified real person". Google will have a hard time determining who a real person when they aren't using Chrome... but I'm sure that won't incentivize websites to steer users to Chrome, right?
3. If users don't like Safari they have the freedom to pick a different platform. If users don't like Chrome, they have a degraded experience with the primary purpose of a web browser: To visit certain websites.
When Safari is dead and your web browser has become a TV, you can thank the standup folks at Open Web Advocacy organization. It would be so simple to add a provision to the DMA that website owners are not allowed to steer users to a different web browser... yet they don't. Funny, isn't it? I guess this isn't really about anti-competitive behavior after all.
Bold claim, wanna know how we test it? We let Safari compete with other browsers like it does on Mac. And having spent a lot of time around startups, I can assure you that the majority of Mac developers I've seen aren't daily-driving Safari.
> When Safari is dead and your web browser has become a TV, you can thank the standup folks at Open Web Advocacy organization.
If Apple is the only thing enabling an Open Web, then our web was never open to begin with. Let Safari die, for all I care. Maybe it will encourage Apple to try something different.
It was circa 2002 (introduction of Firefox).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#/media/File:Brows...
Maybe you should have done some research before throwing out all that seething condescension?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#/media/File:Bro...
This later graph (from the same Wiki article) covers 2009-2022, and is much more telling: once Chrome launches, it overtakes Firefox in two years, and then IE in another year. By the time Firefox manages to overtake IE, it’s fighting for third and has only ~15% market share.
Today, Chrome has ~66% market share, and it’s somewhat clear that the remaining 34% of non-Chrome traffic is mostly iOS/Safari. Apple is absolutely being anti-competitive, but that anti-competitive position is the only thing blocking Google from taking control of client and forcing a browser monoculture.
Obviously the person who made this comment was unaware of Firefox single handedly kickstarting the new browser wars (and the removal of IE as the only option).
I made no comment about what came later.
Firefox presented not only a viable alternative, but was a demonstrably better browser. According to this site [0] Firefox peaked at 47.5% (vs IE 40.2%).
That is reversing a browser monopoly. Period.
[0] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/the-rise-and-fall-of-pop...
Meh, people say this, but what exactly is Safari doing to push back against Chrome hegemony? Supporting Chrome/Safari is still less work than supporting Chrome/Safari/Firefox. And in the meantime, Safari has a more restrictive adblocking API than Chrome (which is saying something), is pushing device attestation in the browser for circumventing captchas (which would be a death-knell for Firefox), and can't be run on non-Apple devices. And it gets billions of dollars every year from Google to influence its search engine (which weirdly enough, is a criticism that only gets lobbed at Firefox despite the fact that Apple gets way more Google money).
I'm convinced that the only thing that Safari exclusivity is going to guarantee is that websites list 2 supported browsers instead of 1, as well as giving Google more ammo to use when it inevitably tries to push device attestation for the web a second time. "But Apple did it" was already a common refrain during Google's last attempt.
Apple doesn't play well with other standards-makers and isn't taking a proactive role right now in the web standards process. In that vacuum, Chrome dominates and pushes anti-user specifications. So yes, Safari is an alternative to Chrome, but I'm not convinced it's a useful one or that it's doing anything to push for progressive enhancement or to push against user-agent sniffing. Does it really matter if there's an alternative to Chrome if it's only available on iOS, has a terrible extension API, and leaves every single other device to be Chrome-exclusive?
We need to break Chrome off from Google and examine the anti-competitive privileging that Google performs in Chrome. Safari isn't a substitute for that. Relying on Safari to hold off Chrome is effectively the same thing as ceding control of the web to Chrome.