Google Chrome now works on iOS
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
There was plenty of sounds from them at the time when they wanted to release a Firefox for iOS, but that was a few years ago by now and it didn't get picked up in the media like the Windows-complaints.
Really? Care to link to some of them?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-...
Honestly, we are just as upset about Apple's restrictions on iOS, but we the Windows 8 case may prove different because of Microsoft past agreements with the US DOJ. If the courts decide that agreement should apply to Windows desktop on ARM then that provides very different leverage than anyone has against Apple.
"Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us." ... The danger of a gatekeeper like Apple on the iPhone is that innovation is stifled, Lilly argued. "These vertical silos don't enable innovation," he said. [1]
Our general counsel gets involved where there is a legal case to be made or legal questions to be answered. There's no current legal case against Apple; I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if a legal complaint would make sense. But in the meantime, we have no real ability to change Apple's actions.
I think we would complain more loudly or frequently in the press if we thought it would get picked up and have some positive outcome. My personal experience is that, after four years with no change in the situation, people either agree with us already or they think we're just whining. And Apple itself has never really cared when third parties complain about this policy. I'll add that there's not total agreement within Mozilla about this. Some people think we should stay aggressive in these political battles regardless of outcome; others think it's better not to "go negative" and that we should focus more energy and attention on the platforms where we are able to carry out our mission.
[1]: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128119/Mozilla_backs...
(That story was mainly about Mozilla/EFF testimony in 2009 in favor of the DMCA jailbreaking exemption, which Apple lobbied against. These exemptions must be renewed every 3 years, so Mozilla mobile developer Brad Lassey just presented at the Library of Congress last month in favor of renewal -- but the press did not even report on this year's hearings, which perhaps shows how people lose interest once something is "old news.")
http://www.quora.com/Will-Firefox-Mobile-ever-be-released-fo...
It's possible some of the blog entries/twitter posts I seem to remember have been lost over time, though. Excuse me, and feel free to downvote my original post. I should have done some searching myself before posting it.
EDIT: This is somewhat related, but more about pushing B2G as alternative than to improve the situation on iOS: http://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/mozilla-fires-...
http://blog.mozilla.org/mobile/2010/09/28/firefox-home-looki...
I have not heard them use the monopoly complaints against Apple. I'm sure Mozilla is worried about Apple, but is using a different strategy since an argument that Apple is abusing monopoly is weak or underdeveloped.
Mozilla might believe that Apple is a better actor in the open web space than Microsoft.
>We are working to bring as much of your Firefox experience as possible to Firefox Home. People have asked about adding more browser-like features to Firefox Home, but there are technical and logistical restrictions that make it difficult, if not impossible, to build the full Firefox browser for the iPhone. We are focused on building Firefox Home as a rich, cloud-based application and making it a valuable product that people will continue to love and use.
Compare it to the tenor of this post:
http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users...
See the difference? Mozilla didn't even make a call for browser choice officially on the iPad before resigning itself to making just Firefox Home and Sync. Also, if you notice, Mozilla hasn't mentioned Apple or the iPad/iPhone even once in their long blog post. My guess is that is because it undermines the point they're trying to make.
>I'm sure Mozilla is worried about Apple, but is using a different strategy since an argument that Apple is abusing monopoly is weak or underdeveloped.
Yet, we keep hearing things like "There is no tablet market, there is only an iPad market" and then Mozilla tries to go after the platform that has 0% share leaving the 800lb gorilla alone, maybe because that generates the most PR?
Mozilla could be wary of a long-term Microsoft gambit. When does Windows and Windows RT just become Windows?
Apple gets to do things that Microsoft as a proven monopoly and past abuser of that monopoly. I'm as worried about the future Apple as I'm about the current Microsoft. As long as Apple continues to clearly differentiate its more open software ecosystem MacOS from its less open software ecosystem iOS, perhaps it's not as much of a worry?
Microsoft bundled IE with Windows at a time where the internet was still painfully slow and it was difficult to download a different browser. They also allegedly put IE-specific APIs into Windows, giving it an unfair advantage.
However, neither of these would have been enough to convict, if Microsoft hadn't also had a monopoly over the PC. Back in those days, Windows was _the_ operating system. Linux was still new and unknown, and Macintosh wasn't a threat by any means. Bill Gates was sometimes compared to the president in terms of power and influence.
Bundling Windows and IE was an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market, in a successful attempt to take over the browser market.
Apple has no such monopoly. Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products. When you say they're being anti-competitive, you're implying that iOS and OSX are massive ecosystems which include meaningful competition in sub-markets that Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage in. No such sub-market exists.
It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly.
What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed.
What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store.
In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion.
The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.
Like not allowing third-party browsers to compete with your own on anything remotely resembling a level playing field? That's what we were talking about here, remember? Apple won't allow alternative browser engines at all, and if you decide to build a browser using the engine Apple provides for third-party devs, it's worse than the one Apple uses in its own browser.
> Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad.
Macs were not particularly less available than PCs in the '90s. I didn't know anyone who really wanted to buy a Mac, but just couldn't find one. They were just radically less popular and generally considered to be a bad choice (I liked them even then, but I didn't have a lot of company with that opinion). Much like non-iPad tablets.
Since Apple sells a hardware device with software they are entitled to do whatever they want with it. This is true of Android of course too, as we know device manufacturers often modify Android to suit their needs or the needs of their networks, why else do people speak of having to root their devices?
That's what makes it an non-abusive monopoly, they aren't dictating the rules for the vast majority of device makers, and doing so in a way to benefit their products unfairly.
And also like many others have said before, that's not a difference. You could choose not to buy Microsoft products in the '90s. I did it. The place I worked did it. Most people and places simply didn't make that choice because Microsoft seemed like a safer purchase.
Also, Apple has pretty much the same position in the tablet market that Microsoft did in the PC market. I can't remember the last time I saw someone holding a non-Apple tablet who wasn't trying to sell me one.
Rather than blindly speculating, we can look at actual facts.
Today Microsoft has 93% of the desktop OS market.[1] Considering the recent rise in popularity of both OS X and Linux I would guess that was higher in the 90s, but I have not done enough research to be sure
Apple's iOS today has 63% of the mobile market.[2] While that is still the majority it is not close to Microsoft's desktop dominance even today.
So maybe you only socialize with Apple fans but your circle does not represent the market as a whole.
[1] http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar...
[2] http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar...
I'm too young to know for sure, but I bet Microsoft only ever had a monopoly in the desktop market and never in servers or the like.
Perhaps this is how Apple sees it:
The browser might create a SDK that makes web apps work more like native apps thus resulting in reducing Apple's control over apps. Also, look at things like NaCl and how plugins like Flash might be enabled by browsers with rendering engines.
This claim come up occasionally. It always seems silly because web apps were the ONLY apps in the original iOS. Native apps came later and only with pressure from the development community.
I don't know why it seems silly to reckon that Apple's priorities on web apps has changed now that they have their own app store and control over it. You mean Apple's opinion on web apps has to be unchanged from the original iPhone?
When was this page last updated? http://www.apple.com/webapps/
Also, even after Jobs' Flash post more than two years blasting Flash and promising HTML5 improvements to replace it, we still haven't seen much improvement in HTML5 in iOS, with things like audio still suffering. If there were no App store, Apple would've easily devoted more resources to this.
I think that is a silly claim, web apps were pretty useless at the time, there were almost no html5 features at the time so web apps were no threats at all while Apple was adding support for apps.
The issue with this theory is that Apple did not want to add support for native applications, only developer pressure made them (Steve Jobs, mostly) relent, and order the cleanup and release of a native SDK.
"Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework."
This doesn't forbid third-party interpreters; what it really does is control distribution of code. All code that is run on an iOS device must be downloaded either through the App Store or through Apple's WebKit.
This means there are no distribution channels on iOS that use their own non-Apple mechanisms to obtain and run software -- no Flash Player, no Chrome Web Store with NaCL, not even MIT's Scratch programming environment for kids (whose runtime was banned from the App Store in 2010 [1]). Web apps on iOS are less controlled than native apps, but Apple still gets to decide which capabilities to expose to them. This is one of the major things that gives Apple such tight control over the user experience, security, and evolution of the platform.
[1]: http://computinged.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/apple-removes-sc...
A cynical mind might think they did that specifically to keep HTML5 from getting any closer to replacing the app store.
Maybe it doesn't have to be a tradeoff. But until all major carriers are selling an unlocked, rooted Android phone with guaranteed long-term OS updates with build quality and software stability as good as the iPhone, I'm going to continue to defend the idea that Apple's design choices are a perfectly valid set of tradeoffs to bring to market.
Some people (myself included) love Apple products because Apple's abstractions don't leak (much). If my grandmother has to be aware of the fact that she's using a "browser" with a "rendering engine," much less understand which one or which version, Apple has no UX advantage.
Chrome's features like private browsing and tab/bookmark syncing are nice, but the defining feature of the brand IMO is that it is a very fast web browser. By linking the name to an app that will always be inherently slower than Safari on iOS, the brand is lessened with no significant upside.
I understand their desire to allow Chrome desktop users to have some meaningful interop between their desktop and mobile browsers, but I think they would have been much better served by not pretending this is an actual Chrome experience (much in the way Firefox allows some interop but keeps the distinction clear).
(App Store apps can't allocate pages with the executable bit set, which is a good idea really.)
http://www.johnwaynehill.com/blog/2010/06/16/perceived-speed...
The point is, the Chrome guys executed well enough on their iOS app that the inherent performance issues really don't seem to be a problem (though I've only been using the app for about 5 minutes so my opinion is limited). And it's quite a pretty app. It brings just enough of the Holographic UI to look nice without looking alien on iOS. They did well.
Edit: Which, from the vast majority of users' perspectives, are functionally identical.
So the renders may or may not be the same, depending. And various DOM features that are part of UIWebView won't be the same (e.g. any DOM or HTML feature that Chrome has but Mobile Safari does not will be missing).
still use Apple's WebKit-based engine required by the App Store developer guidelines
The real case is somewhat more complex:
1. It is not possible to replace the built-in browser (there are no hooks to have an other application handle e.g. `http` links), but it is perfectly possible to release (and sell) a "browser" application through which websites can be accessed
2. It is allowed to render any content, but it is not allowed to execute downloaded code save through the built-in interpreter, so a browser can't run javascript code locally. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to have a "thin-client" browser and do all rendering on a remote server, that's what Opera Mini does.
Even without that, the easily accessible incognito mode (Safari's is through the system wide Settings app), request desktop site, and bookmark sync is still worth more to me than Nitro/V8.
On the jailbreak side, Browser Changer doesn't support Chrome yet. Hopefully that will come soon.
Ironically that means that 99% of the iOS users can use Chrome, while only 10% of the Android users can.
Everything else seems to be working just fine, not slow or anything. The omnibox is really nice.
(rounded) square side = 114px = 2*57
tau=2pi
area:= tau*r*r/2
Chrome: margin: 16px; radius: 41px = 57-16; area:= 840.5*tau
Wordpress: margin: 12px; radius: 45px = 57-12; area:= 1012.5*tau
Clock: margin: 9px; radius: 48px = 57- 9; area:= 1152.0*tau
Circle: margin: 0px; radius: 57px = 57- 0; area:= 1624.5*tau
So Chrome's circle area is 73% of Clock's and only 52% of the theoretical limit.
While I was playing with this I got inspired by Google+ for iOS and Metro and asked "What if it doesn't fit, but insead fills the (rounded) square?"
See for yourself. http://biserkov.com/pics/Chrome-on-iOS-icon-ideas.png
Blue circle radius: 21px; White circle radius: 25px
Disclaimer: I used the svg Chrome logo from Wikipedia. I'm no designer.
Don't see that rule changing. Let's hope Apple let other browsers be the default though.
Doesn't the UIWebView do that for you? And isn't it written by Apple? Why couldn't Apple make it use Nitro? Not sure where the security risk would be.
"Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework."
https://twitter.com/viviancromwell/status/218402587760795648
I much prefer knowing apps can't surreptitiously create new executable parts of themselves.
It may be one of these things they were planning to do later, and then someone pointed out it would possibly be detrimental to what they want the iOS ecosystem to be, so they scrapped plans.
I wonder if its possible to sandbox a thread as opposed to a separate process. I doubt that Apple consciously neglects HTML5 app SDK functions. iOS has been the best platform for HTML5 for a couple of years already, supporting features (CSS 3d for one) that Android didn't.
Tab syncing is one heck of a benefit, I can't wait to switch. Now I'm definitely going to stick with Chrome on my desktop, even though I'd been considering going back to Firefox. Quite disappointing on Apple's part that its only in iOS 6 that Notes and Calendar will be synced with OS X, still not Safari tabs.
My point was that one of Chrome's main allures is V8, and if it's using stock WebKit (and therefore JavaScriptCore) there doesn't seem to be much point in using Chrome at all.
Although having to use UIWebView might constrain them.
I'm on a 3GS
Would it be accurate to state that IE now works on the iPad if Microsoft ported the IE browser chrome(UI) to the iPad?
It's not like they are using completely different rendering engines.
That would be redundant. Long before Google had a browser, the URL bar, buttons, scroll boxes, etc, of a browser (as opposed to the rendering engine) were called chrome.[1]
Developers didn't refer to browser skin, developers referred to browser chrome.
This is — quite literally in the original sense of the term — Google Chrome for the WebKit rendering engine.
1. "chrome: the browser UI around the web page" - https://developer.mozilla.org/Talk:en/Chrome