> With Microsoft and Google, we just expect them to Do More Evil, with Mozilla we expect Good
And with Safari, a loathsome browser that's intent on recreating the IE6 conditions of yore, we give it a free pass.
I'm sorry, but comparing modern Safari to the worst software ever widely used is just not remotely reasonable.
I don't know if I am rewriting history but when Chrome came out it felt like Google went "hold my beer" and in 6 months developed the first decent browser.
I can imagine the 7 people who used Netscape on Linux were very annoyed every so often.
Most of the iOS / MacOS software issues are things that more bodies could fix.
Apple designs their own processors (now), specs/sources their components (e.g. screens), and then does all the integration engineering.
That's the bulk of device work.
Which isn't to say that semi manufacturing isn't hard, but is to say there's a lot of effort between a chip and a device.
I don't think you realize how much work goes into building and cerifying a working, mass market device.
There were some other problems with Safari as well; profiles didn't work quite the way I needed them to, limited extensions (no uBlock Origin!), etc. I probably could have worked around them but I didn't need to; Firefox was almost perfect.
Plus the incompatibility with various sites... Just sticking with FF. I can certainly appreciate an OS-integrated browser, though. It makes life simpler for users and if you have the full Apple ecosystem, the tab sync is useful.
There’s something to be said for adding _less_ features to web browsers. A simple web is a web where open source solutions can compete with chrome. It helps avoid a browser monoculture.
PWAs are a great example of this. The general idea was even a product of the Jobs era of Apple, before the App Store.
Safari and iOS’s poor support of PWAs is exactly a result of Apple wanting to prevent app distribution channels other than their App Store.
Choosing safari is choosing a more closed web, where missing standards means that you, as a safari user, are unable to access certain features or apps that Apple doesn’t want you to access.
Maybe I don't care about PWAs (which I don't), maybe I don't feel like the majority of APIs introduced lately belongs in the browser. There's very little of what you should be able to do on the web that you could not do 10 years ago. Yes, flexbox is awesome, let's have that, so is the dialog tag. WebGL, Blutooth, USB, device memory, battery status... No, the browser doesn't need to support that.
I don't want to have to install more apps, and more web APIs means more things can be done inside of the browser shell without having to install software that could literally do anything on your computer (and is often hard to remove completely when you're done).
Nah, it's because PWAs were a standard created by Google, with Google being the primary market driver, solely with the interest of advancing Google's own interests (both in undermining Apple, and making lower-end devices more usable in developing markets). Don't think Google invented PWAs, or heavily pushed them, out of some charity. Notice also that as the ultra-cheap phones (~$100) have become more powerful, and as Apple refused to take the bait, that Google's efforts behind PWA have mostly ended.
The same goes for RCS, even though it was initially made by a neutral vendor forum. Google became the heavy pusher of RCS, not just for the sake of Android, but because they had carrier deals to use Google's own infrastructure (Jibe) for RCS, and forcing Apple to accept and integrate with their own infrastructure is a better position to be in.
This is also, let's be clear, not the first time that Google has tried an "open" standard to advance their interests and bludgeon competition. AMP is what happens when the standard catastrophically fails.
We all know that the best web development tools ever to be created was those that shipped with Opera when they still used Presto.