Hacker News Reader

Safari has translation, bookmarks (favorites bar) can be either icon only, text only, or both text and icon at the same time, tabs can be pinned (Chrome also has it), "better" autofill/autologin is subjective. Chrome doesn't have better performance than Safari, both on macOS and iOS Safari is optimized better, both for battery and memory.

If you use Google products extensively and don't use Apple ecosystem integration features, then Chrome may look like it has better features; the same is true if you are on the Apple ecosystem (Notes, Reminders, Calendar, Passwords, multiple devices, etc). Seamless integration of Apple devices is one of the biggest advantages of using Apple software like Safari, where you can use iCloud Tabs to switch between devices. Also, Tab Groups is a neat feature; you can move Safari windows to an iPad with Sidecar and so on.

Google's ecosystem also has similar features, but you can argue that you're "locked into a walled garden pretty tight" with Google as well.

Browsers have their different advantages, but they are not so different from each other, especially when we compare Safari and Chrome. Maybe the only real difference is that Chrome has way more extensions.

Translation came out much later and isn't as convenient (no auto-loading).

Form filling and login just work better on Chrome; that's not subjective at all.

Tabs syncing works better and faster with Chrome, one of the reasons I switched is that Safari implementation was laggy and buggy (happened with the password sync problem as well).

Bookmarks favicons came back, but they were removed for many versions, which was very annoying.

I don't use Google apps much, and I don't find the Apple ecosystem integration to be that useful. At best they are a convenience, but often just gimmicks.

I still mostly use Apple devices but have a PC as well. Apple iCloud for Windows is buggy and annoying as hell and requires using Chrome anyway; might as well skip the step of using Safari.

Google definitely has some walling as well, but it works with more hardware and is generally easier to integrate. Apple really plays nice with their own stuff.

I was once a defender of Apple's approach, especially for native apps and stuff like that. They have shown they can't be trusted. We are very far from the era when Apple was making Safari for Windows because they wanted to offer a better browser to everyone. Now only the bottom line matters, even though they have never been as rich as now.

The reason they fight so hard to prevent 3rd-party browser engines on iOS is because they know they would lose market share extremely fast.

Make no mistake, I would prefer to use Apple stuff but it just isn't very competitive anymore, and they really need to put a lot of effort into it.

As someone who daily drives Safari as primary browser on Mac, iPhone, and iPad figured I would comment on each of those:

> translation

Safari has Translation built in

> favicon bookmarks

Yeah to my knowledge this is not possible (someone correct me if I am wrong), but I also fail to see the value given how large screens are today and favicons are kinda terrible.

> Google Lens

That alone is a reason for me not to use chrome.

> better autofill/autologin

I have never had any major issue with autofill or login on Safari. It pulls in my contact information when filling out a form, it pulls in my credit card information, and it pulls in one time codes from mail and messages when those happen. The only real issue I have here is that I use both Apple Passwords and 1Password and the popups for both interfere, but I doubt that is really a safari unique issue.

> better performance for web apps generally

Do we have data to back that up? Websites perform just fine for me.

> Another very useful property is being able to sync your Chrome profile on any computer, which comes in very handy when you need to do stuff on computers you do not own. Doing the same with Safari is possible but a hassle.

Not sure if syncing with a computer you don't own is really a feature that we should be encouraging? That seems really bad advice.

Regardless, outside of Windows (which I just don't care or have any desire to have my main computing sync too) Safari syncs just fine between my devices I care for it to sync too.

> Apple should go back to releasing a cross-platform version

I disagree with the "Seriously" part but I agree in spirit. I would love to have Safari on Windows again so I can never use Chrome or Firefox again. As far as other apps being on Windows, I care less but I would love to see icloud.com improved when needed in a pinch.

You just dismiss all my critics as irrelevant and not something I should care about. Translation came later and isn't as convenient as on Chrome. I don't know why you think "never use any other hardware than Apple's" is a viable argument. I need to have both a PC and a Mac; having a browser that syncs without the hassle that is iCloud on Windows is important.

If they can't make what people want, they go somewhere else, exactly what I did.

> and better performance for web apps generally

At which cost? Huge RAM footprint, deadly battery killer, slow start time. How often do you need heavy performance for web apps versus just browsing?

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1fguko2/everyone_say...

> In my 3-hour tests, Safari consumed 18.67% of my battery each time on average, and Chrome averaged 17.33% battery drain. That works out to about 9% less battery drain from Chrome than Safari. Yes, you read that right, I found Chrome was easier on my battery than Safari.

With how much engineering was poured over V8, I don't doubt.

Yep, it's just the reality distortion field. Apple fanboys can never admit they don't have the best stuff.

In similar veins, they'll say that Windows uses more RAM than macOS. Yet on both an iMac that was bootcamped and a custom-built hackintosh, macOS almost always used more RAM after booting.

Apple makes great hardware but the software is often very mid, its only visually pleasing.

Safari has used way more RAM than Chrome for a decade. It uses more battery in some tests.

It starts way slower, Chrome is one bounce and usable immediately, Safari is 2-3 bounces and 3-4 seconds before it starts accepting input.

Since MV3 Chrome has not had better extension API support, although Apple’s insistence on publishing them on the App Store means availability is still restricted. I’ve found that using `xcrun safari-web-extension-converter` on almost any Chrome extension works fine and I’ve self-signed a few (eg. Bypass Paywalls Clean) with Xcode to run on my Mac and iPhone.

> Apple’s insistence on publishing them on the App Store means availability is still restricted.

This is not true. You can distribute Safari extensions outside the Mac App Store.

While it's true that you can't distribute Safari extensions outside the iOS App Store, mobile Chrome doesn't even have extension support, so in this case, Safari has vastly better extension support.

You do still need to notarise it with an Apple Developer membership, right? Else you have to enable unsigned extensions every time you open Safari. The cost barrier is still there even if the approval barrier isn’t.

Yes, but your initial comment was kind of a strange way to phrase a cost complaint. After all, Google insists that extensions be published in the Chrome Web Store, and that requires Google's approval, a process that can often take much longer than App Store approval.

I suspect that the difference in extension availability is mostly due to desktop market share, since Safari is nonexistent on Windows and Linux.

There’s quite a difference between a one time $5 fee and an annual $99 fee for the economics of publishing a free browser extension.

Given almost 100% compatibility with the same Web Extension APIs that Chrome uses, I think you’d expect near-parity in extension availability between Chrome and Safari if that barrier didn’t exist.

> There’s quite a difference between a one time $5 fee and an annual $99 fee for the economics of publishing a free browser extension.

Yes? I didn't deny that. I said your initial comment didn't mention cost.

> Given almost 100% compatibility with the same Web Extension APIs that Chrome uses, I think you’d expect near-parity in extension availability between Chrome and Safari if that barrier didn’t exist.

It feels like you ignored the points I made in my last comment. Why would you expect near parity in extension availability when you can't even develop Safari extensions on Windows and Linux computers?

“publishing them on the App Store” was intended as (perhaps imprecise for you) shorthand for all of these distribution issues.

You very much can develop Safari extensions on Windows or Linux because they use largely the same APIs as Chrome extensions as I already mentioned. Any differences are well documented. The only thing you need a Mac for is, again, distribution. If not for that it’s really not that different to developing a website that will open on Safari without access to an Apple device.

Once upon a time Apple had a separate Safari extensions website where they allowed extension developers to publish or sign extensions after registering for free as they recognised these barriers. They could either be distributed on Apple’s extensions gallery or you could distribute the files yourself.

> Any differences are well documented.

LOL, I wish.

I would note that I'm a professional browser extension developer and have a great deal of experience with this.

> The only thing you need a Mac for is, again, distribution.

Or, you know, testing your software. Or are you in the habit of shipping software without any testing?

> If not for that it’s really not that different to developing a website that will open on Safari without access to an Apple device.

Also a bad idea.

> They could either be distributed on Apple’s extensions gallery or you could distribute the files yourself.

You may have still have needed Safari to package the extension, though I don't recall for sure, because that was 15 years ago.

In any case, I'm glad you mentioned it, because there was not near-parity in extension availability back then either.

You can load unpublished extensions with developer mode. It's not as convenient but works just fine. Try that with Safari.

API level maybe, but what I care about is being able to install an extension with one click and no hassle. Apple makes this too hard to extort money via the App Store, so they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.