293 points ivell 4 days ago 552 comments
ivell 4 days ago | parent
unified101 4 days ago | parent
First stop blocking iOS pwas from simply installing to the home screen, and don't clear out data in 7 days. Then we'll talk about your browser being better.
sdellis 4 days ago | parent
mmmlinux 4 days ago | parent
bensyverson 4 days ago | parent
bensyverson 4 days ago | parent
People are just not aware that this is a thing, and when they learn it's a thing, they don't want to do it.
brazukadev 3 days ago | parent
sdellis 3 days ago | parent
brazukadev 2 days ago | parent
FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent
jacquesm 4 days ago | parent
barelysapient 4 days ago | parent
t1234s 3 days ago | parent
yipinwong 3 days ago | parent
That's the only reason I am not switching to FF 100%. I do use it though but not as a main driver.
vasachi 3 days ago | parent
throw0101c 3 days ago | parent
I generally use Safari on my Apple devices (and YT works) and Firefox on any Linux machines. If something does not work on Safari I try Firefox on my Mac. In the past I've also sometimes used Chrome when no other option works.
So one option could be to use Firefox as a 'general use' browser, and switch to something else on an as-needed basis.
A bit of a hassle, but it may be the best compromise currently.
accrual 3 days ago | parent
asimovDev 3 days ago | parent
jacquesm 3 days ago | parent
jasode 3 days ago | parent
I keep retrying Firefox over multiple years and it's still not quite equal to Chrome for Youtube 4k playback ...
2021: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783904
2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42176450
2026 still talks about the problem: https://go.tabbit.ai/blog/firefox-youtube-4k-stuttering
And a recent Youtube comment (2026-September) notices that Firefox doesn't run as well as Chrome on his modern high-end laptop with 64GB RAM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIE_PkuFeng&lc=UgxfGeBL6sopr...
yipinwong 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
lightedman 3 days ago | parent
You must have a hardware problem, as I'm playing 4K videos on a 1st-gen Ryzen and GTX 1080 using Firefox and I've never had a single issue since I got the machine, around the 4th week the processor was available to purchase.
cwel 3 days ago | parent
jacquesm 3 days ago | parent
lightedman 3 days ago | parent
Until about the top-end of the 3000 RTX series released, the GTX 1080 was still king of raster performance.
I'm playing modern games like Marvel Rivals at 1440p no problem. Risk of Rain 2 4k no problem. STALKER 2 1080p no problem. It even runs most of my VR games perfectly fine, with me only needing to switch to my RTX 5060 machine for Into the Radius 2.
Even today, it is a very capable card, despite the power draw.
jacquesm 2 days ago | parent
lelanthran 3 days ago | parent
If FF is not working on youtube for, it's not working for you and you alone.
nicce 3 days ago | parent
Some of the related posts:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/youtube-is-slowing-video-loads...
driverdan 3 days ago | parent
pupppet 3 days ago | parent
rocketvole 3 days ago | parent
veber-alex 3 days ago | parent
I am perfectly happy with Chrome.
alt227 3 days ago | parent
jacquesm 3 days ago | parent
crazybonkersai 3 days ago | parent
esskay 3 days ago | parent
robinhood 3 days ago | parent
bossyTeacher 4 days ago | parent
glimshe 4 days ago | parent
SirMaster 4 days ago | parent
martheen 3 days ago | parent
Once apps dominate (which requires devs to have a Mac anyway to compile and debug) and turns out nobody use the Windows port, it's just a money sink.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
SirMaster 4 days ago | parent
malloci 4 days ago | parent
SirMaster 3 days ago | parent
accrual 3 days ago | parent
asimovDev 3 days ago | parent
samdixon 4 days ago | parent
ssijak 4 days ago | parent
TeddyDD 3 days ago | parent
samdixon 3 days ago | parent
csydas 3 days ago | parent
it's missing the element zapper and has some other limitations, but it works pretty well for the most part
combined with ublacklist and sponsorblock it's fairly good coverage for safari
rocketvole 3 days ago | parent
gorhill 3 days ago | parent
Support for element zapper was added more than 18 months ago in version 2025.3.23.1241.[1]
---
[1] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/releases/tag/uBOLi...
csydas 3 days ago | parent
baggachipz 3 days ago | parent
theplumber 4 days ago | parent
codehorses 3 days ago | parent
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Apple_Safa...
iAMkenough 3 days ago | parent
asimovDev 3 days ago | parent
iAMkenough 3 days ago | parent
PrimalPower 4 days ago | parent
And safari still behaves differently than my other browsers.
I usually try to give safari a chance whenever I’m working on Macs. I’m always forced to install chrome for some reason or another.
Until the random compatibility quirks stop I don’t see myself returning to safari.
carlosjobim 3 days ago | parent
pipolo 4 days ago | parent
emehex 4 days ago | parent
nitin7 4 days ago | parent
estetlinus 4 days ago | parent
freakynit 4 days ago | parent
No thanks.. I'd rather switch to Firefox, or even any other shitty browser, but not the one from any other gatekeeping monopoly.
jorisw 3 days ago | parent
They're promoting their browser as an alternative to Chrome or Firefox.
You're companing about walled gardens.
freakynit 3 days ago | parent
We can already see it on IOS where no one is allowed to use any other browser engine than safari's own.. of course, the reasoning is always "security".
hollowonepl 4 days ago | parent
nitin7 4 days ago | parent
jonhohle 4 days ago | parent
yipinwong 3 days ago | parent
I liked Konqueror but abandoned in favor of Chrome browsers and variants especially after working on frontend projects.
yipinwong 3 days ago | parent
I liked Konqueror but abandoned in favor of Chrome browsers and variants especially after working on frontend projects and stoped using KDE
TheDong 4 days ago | parent
Safari has the most obscene monopoly of any browser ever. IE 6 came pre-installed on windows machines, but you could always install Mosaic or such.
Google Chromebooks come with Chrome as the only default browser, but you can still run Firefox on Chromebooks just fine (even in two different ways, the supported android app version, and the semi-supported linux terminal + launching firefox that way).
Heck, iOS's monopolistic behavior is so bad that multiple regions (the EU + Japan) have already ruled against their behavior, though in reality Apple has complied in a way that makes it impossible to actually make a second browser engine for iOS still (going against the spirit of the law, but the courts haven't caught up to them yet).
Safari is also an awful browser in that it requires someone to buy an expensive machine to see if their site works on it.
I can run a windows trial copy in a VM to see if my site works in IE, I can run Chrome or Firefox on linux to verify if my site works in them. I can install a free android emulator on any common OS to see that my site renders right in those.
But Apple doesn't give me a legal way to freely run an iOS simulator nor even a macOS VM on my linux machine, I have to pay money, to buy their hardware to see if my site will work on Safari.
And even worse, Safari is the browser with the largest number of rendering bugs and quirks currently, while also having a huge number of users (since iOS users can't install another browser), so any web developers are basically forced to shell out for apple hardware.
brunoborges 4 days ago | parent
JohnTHaller 4 days ago | parent
bliteben 3 days ago | parent
I would bet Google's track record would easily allow them to defend this in court. More an issue with Google though.
lxgr 3 days ago | parent
ajross 3 days ago | parent
And the problem isn't abstract. Safari lacks a ton of very useful API implementations. Like, try programming a QMK keyboard on an iPhone: it's literally the only platform in the whole world unable to run the Via web app.
saagarjha 2 days ago | parent
mcraiha 4 days ago | parent
greggsy 4 days ago | parent
How is the iOS engine requirement considered a monopoly?
ur-whale 4 days ago | parent
mingus88 4 days ago | parent
Android’s global marketshare is 70% of mobile so you would have to declare a monopoly as “things I can run on an iPhone” as your position for that to work
There is plenty of competition and choice to iOS, you just won’t find that on Apple hardware for reasons that have held for three decades
protimewaster 3 days ago | parent
For example, there's a monopoly on garbage service where I live, but he company with the monopoly has basically 0% of the world market.
snapcaster 3 days ago | parent
jasonlotito 3 days ago | parent
One allows you to install different browsers, the other does not.
Being a monopoly isn't illegal (in the US). It's what they do that matters.
Now, that doesn't mean Apple is a monopoly with iOS, because the Sherman act doens't dictate it only looks at US only markets. It look at what makes sense in the context. Of course, a court could decide that regardless of what the numbers are internationall, what matters in this case is just the US market.
Trying to predict that is useless at the moment though because the US courts are all over the place.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Abusing a monopoly is illegal. Alphabet and Apple are both unquestionably monopoly businesses, and make incredible year-over-year revenue through market-damaging services like AdSense and the App Store. If they are allowed to continue, then other Fortune 500 businesses will copy their decisions, thereby destroying genuine market value that they provide in exchange for safer, more exploitative revenue streams.
In the case of AdSense and Apple's App Store both, I think that any fair FTC investigation would conclude they are shakedown services that harm the greater economy.
snapcaster 3 days ago | parent
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Fat lot of good that logic would do Microsoft when they were deliberately gimping competitors.
mithr 3 days ago | parent
In addition, I think Apple has so far somewhat successfully argued that they have reasons for restricting their ecosystem that aren't just a thinly veiled "because we want to crush competition". They argue that their devices are safer to use, and that allowing arbitrary software full access to the system would compromise that. Similarly, they limit third-party software from tracking you. They certainly aren't saints, and I disagree with a many of their choices (their app store cut could've decreased long ago, for one, and they're now adding ads into their own services) but they often seem like the only large corporation of their kind that even tries to have a set of beliefs and care about their users, and I think intent should matter.
I personally like that there's one popular ecosystem that has a particular perspective, and another competing popular ecosystem that has a totally different perspective. If you think all of the above is bullshit and Apple sucks, you're free to use Android and install exactly what you want on your phone. I've never really understood why folks are so adamant that this alternative should not be allowed to exist.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Apple is responsible for market damages inflicted onto software distribution by picking-and-choosing who gets to ship, and where their money goes. It is reflected in Apple's astronomical service margins, which unfairly reward them with even higher ROI than the iPhone hardware itself (!!!), somehow. It is seen in Apple's back-room negotiations with Amazon, Netflix, Google, Epic and X, where they use their de-facto power to force unfavorable distribution terms and draw up protection fees. It's present in their entitlement system, which gives Apple the option to artificially hamstring competing services that want to integrate with iOS. It's inherent to Apple's developer program, which has been used to revoke software signing certificates when Apple simply disagrees with a competitor.
Do we really think they deserve that money and power? It's not encouraging them to make smart choices.
In a fair market, I'd say that Apple can offer their services as an option. A factory-new iPhone could use all of Apple's offered services with a hardware-attested eFuse that says the device was never jailbroken. If a user wants to do foolish things like play Fallout: New Vegas with Proton, give Dropbox system-level integration a-la iCloud, use an updated RCS client instead of iMessage, install Fortnite or use a third-party app store, then Apple can give them that choice without endangering other people. It isn't impossible, they already do this with macOS, running the same XNU kernel, and with an architecturally indistinct ARM chip.
That would alleviate the market damages that Apple is responsible for, and create a positive pressure on iOS development to improve software-wise. Right now, Apple is being rewarded for extorting their competitors, pettily attacking consumers, blocking software features, stuffing ads[0] into first-party apps, and visually degrading iOS. They are clearly being protected from software alternatives that offer a less-invasive alternative to Apple's disgraceful OEM packins. Which is a shame, since Apple was historically not opposed to taking advantage of free software and making high-quality packin software that legitimately did compete against alternatives, like QuickTime and iTunes.
[0] https://www.pcmag.com/news/how-to-ditch-unsolicited-f1-ads-n...
mithr 3 days ago | parent
But… they do offer their services as an option. One option is to use their devices and services, and another is to use a different, equally popular company’s devices and services. Why should they be forced to make hardware that can be used in ways they don’t think it should be?
I agree that Apple could change or build many of the things you’ve described. You’d like them better if they did. Maybe I would too. I still don’t understand why they should be required to. It feels odd to say that the market would only be fair if they were forced to be more similar to their main competitor in one of the core ways in which they’re different.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
It harms the market. There are good indie devs and companies being unfairly punished for trying to ship good software on iOS. Apple's double-standards are the #1, red-alert issue.
The secondary issue, and one that upset me, is that it encourages Apple to make worse products. If Apple has an adjustable taxation knob that users have no control over, they can extort developers in exchange for making the platform worse. Apple knows that alternative App Stores and billing methods will destroy this status quo, which is why they invest millions lobbying against Europe's common-sense DSA/DMA laws. If the United States adopted a similar regulation, then Apple's financials would crater, jeopardizing their company's future simply by making iOS behave like a normal Mac or PC.
Apple should not be gambling their future on an exploitative status-quo, they should be reinvesting in capabilities, security and making products that people want to buy. Just like Google and their AdSense monopoly, I think Apple's terrible choices are informed by a captive revenue stream that they abuse to boost their quarterly reports.
protimewaster 3 days ago | parent
I just don't think the 30% of the global market number is relevant to anything in terms of arguing if somebody has a monopoly. Are there even any countries who use a definition of "monopoly" that uses global marketshare to determine if there's a monopoly? Surely those definitions all look at marketshare within some specific region?
floydnoel 3 days ago | parent
protimewaster 3 days ago | parent
I imagine trying to effectively use (or market) a competing product in a region with 93%+ marketshare is a painful experience, regardless of whether the global marketshare is more balanced.
Using global marketshare hides details like that. Apple could have 100% of the market in China and India, and Android could have 100% of the marketshare in the rest of the world. This would put, worldwide, Apple at about 35% and Android at about 65%. I would argue there are clearly monopolies in that case, though, even if the worldwide numbers are 65 and 35.
imthatsteve 3 days ago | parent
Are you just being pedantic about the definition of monopoly or did you fail to understand the problem as it was explained.
Do you use ios? If so do you like using broken websites? Do you have no desire for things to function as intended?
Id imagine its very annoying as a developer to have your things broken for no reason other than pure corporate greed.
If you do use ios then you probably enjoy paying more for an inferior product so ig this is more of a feature than a bug.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
...test on more than one browser platform? Seriously? Is this how lazy the industry has become? Is this how far we've fallen?
Having websites say "if it doesn't work, install Chrome" is not choice.
lxgr 3 days ago | parent
Yes, that's pretty much it. A similar concern applies to Google and Android.
alt227 3 days ago | parent
NekkoDroid 3 days ago | parent
handedness 3 days ago | parent
Painting Apple and Android devices with the same brush in this particular regard doesn't make a lot of sense.
alt227 3 days ago | parent
floydnoel 3 days ago | parent
Also, I'm curious... can you really install an OS besides Android on a Pixel, etc? AFAIK it's just different distros of Android, it's not like you could install BSD or something, right?
TheDong 1 day ago | parent
floydnoel 1 day ago | parent
joemi 3 days ago | parent
lxgr 3 days ago | parent
mingus88 3 days ago | parent
When Ford sells me an F150 I don’t cry about them having a monopoly on their Sync platform. That’s not now monopolies work
lxgr 3 days ago | parent
And what about the other mobile platform (singular)? That one’s also making it harder and harder to sideload apps.
joemi 3 days ago | parent
Apple has neither a monopoly on phones nor on app marketplaces.
lxgr 3 days ago | parent
Maybe monopoly is not the right legal category, and maybe what they are doing is perfectly legal and always will be, but I don't think the fundamental point can be argued away with analogies like these.
floydnoel 3 days ago | parent
Still not any kind of monopoly
mingus88 3 days ago | parent
yipinwong 3 days ago | parent
Numbers say otherwise.
cassianoleal 4 days ago | parent
joemi 3 days ago | parent
foolswisdom 3 days ago | parent
Not how it works. You define a relevant market, and the market of iPhone users (which a stable market, there are barriers to just switching to android tomorrow) can be used for evaluation.
kyralis 3 days ago | parent
greggsy 1 day ago | parent
srcreigh 3 days ago | parent
But no way is it a good idea to let other browser engines onto the OS.
I can’t make it website owners problem that their site doesn’t work on non-Google browser. Apple can.
Safari sucks but it’s the only thing stopping Chrome from taking over everything.
Im happy if Google never has that amount of control. We don’t know how bad it could have been, we have enough privacy issues already.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Safari simply sucks. If WebKit was any good, then Apple wouldn't have to worry about allowing third-party engines onto iOS. The situation on Mac tells us everything we need to know.
thunderbong 3 days ago | parent
xoa 3 days ago | parent
Then do that FIRST (or at the same time). Don't give us, yet AGAIN, the tired bs song and dance about how you'll make things worse first and then totally someday address the other part properly, and oops what a surprise that turns out to be too hard nevermind.
>But forcing Safari for every Apple owner is certainly not the solution.
Objectively it is a solution though. Because it's been done, and it's been more effective than nothing, while meanwhile nothing has happened from a legal or political angles. If a better solution can be done down the road great, but a hack dealing with a problem non-optimally can absolutely be better then just having the problem completely unaddressed. And count me skeptical that any government is going to have the will or capability to actually address what a lot of us already hate about not just the Chrome monopoly but that entire approach (I don't in fact want my web browser to be a full lowest common denominator operating system with low level hardware access thanks). I dislike much of what Apple does now but I'm glad their selfish interests have happened not to align that way either. Until monopoly lock-in gets better addressed, one of the main ways to push back is via another monopoly lock-in that has different incentives.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
(I still remember when communities like Hacker News were screaming and howling at Apple for daring to rid the web of Adobe Flash, a corporate-owned proprietary monoculture cluster-f**k of security vulnerabilities. The virtue of Apple's influence on the web is painfully obvious in hindsight.)
cwaffles 3 days ago | parent
duskwuff 3 days ago | parent
jdub 3 days ago | parent
You absolutely can, and we absolutely have. You believe this because anti-trust action was derided as anti-growth in the latter quarter of the 20th century, by people who knew exactly what they were doing (see also: banking deregulation).
It's one of the major reasons we're stuck with such horrendous corporate and individual wealth inequality today.
Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick, ship a browser, or ship general-purpose client operating systems.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Silhouette 3 days ago | parent
For all the claims about security problems - and there were many and the complaints were valid - people seem a bit too willing to overlook the much greater attack surface of modern browsers that still incorporate similar flexibility and functionality but through other protocols and native Web standards now instead. For better or worse today's "evergreen" browsers roll out new functionality more quickly than before but their most important innovation was introducing frequent automatic security updates to a general non-technical audience at a time when that certainly wasn't the default for most desktop software. Take a look at how many significant security issues get fixed in any of the major browser on each update cycle and you can see that even today this is still far from a solved problem.
GeekyBear 3 days ago | parent
No.
People need to stop using Chrome and Chromium based browsers and use browsers based on implementations of the web standards that are out of Google's control.
Firefox on Android supports the full version of uBlock Origin.
Chrome on Android doesn't support it.
freecodeio 3 days ago | parent
SoftTalker 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
bigstrat2003 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
When Chrome was released, Firefox was four years old and had already gained 33% market share with momentum on its side, mostly through word of mouth. Chrome was a bit better in some respects, a bit worse in others, but it had the Google marketing juggernaut allowing its market share to skyrocket.
freecodeio 3 days ago | parent
srcreigh 3 days ago | parent
HumblyTossed 3 days ago | parent
It's my device. I should be able to whatever the hell I want with it.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
ApolloFortyNine 3 days ago | parent
This argument is terrible, we're lucky the one other competitor, for now, allows installing what you want or people like you would argue everything is fine.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Timon3 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Timon3 3 days ago | parent
HumblyTossed 3 days ago | parent
Your argument ... isn't one.
bloppe 3 days ago | parent
Easy. Just legislate that the only browser allowed on iPhones is Firefox. That way, Chrome can't monopolize the web, and iPhone users get to have a decent browser.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
And giving Apple a monopoly is a better idea?
>Safari sucks but it’s the only thing stopping Chrome from taking over everything.
Forcing users to use the Safari browser engine when they install Firefox or anything else is not the way to protect anyone from anything. It's abusive in its own way. And Apple is not going to save anyone from Google. People are still using Google services through Safari, because they are services Apple either sucks at or doesn't offer.
>Im happy if Google never has that amount of control. We don’t know how bad it could have been, we have enough privacy issues already.
So you're fine giving over all control to Apple. Apple already has way too much control. Being on the W3C board, they use their power to block any browser API that could make web browsers more capable, which would cut into their native app mafia racket where they charge 30% of any purchase done through an app. They don't offer any alternatives, or any changes - they just squash anything they see as competitive to native apps. That's how fucked up they are. They are literally holding back progress for no good reason - not security, not for privacy, it's purely for their own greed.
Gareth321 3 days ago | parent
Then maybe Apple should invest a fraction of their fortune on making Safari better. Competition is good. Apple doesn't care about competing because they have a monopoly. If they were forced to actually improve WebKit and Safari, maybe people would choose to use it.
cpt_sobel 3 days ago | parent
robotnikman 3 days ago | parent
I remember a long time ago they used to make a Windows version of Safari you could download and install, but at some point they stopped.
2III7 3 days ago | parent
oneplane 3 days ago | parent
Either way, if someone is still manually testing their website instead of using a standard automated testing system you're probably not really in a league where this matters anyway.. and if they are, you probably have a device farm already.
Not sure where the "my thing is so important, I have to test it on a real device, but I can't pay for it" niche is.
hbn 3 days ago | parent
Apple's Safari enforcement is the only reason Chrome hasn't completely taken over.
bitpush 3 days ago | parent
hbn 3 days ago | parent
Once real Chromium is available on iPhones, there will be a monopoly.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
bitpush 3 days ago | parent
I want to use Screen Studio, but it is a MacOS only app (and I'm on Windows). Is that Apple's fault?
bigstrat2003 3 days ago | parent
Diversity is not an intrinsic good. It only is good inasmuch as it enables other things which are good. If the browser diversity we have (limited though it is) isn't actually providing choice to consumers, I don't see how it provides any value even if we do preserve it.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
nticompass 3 days ago | parent
Also, you /can/ run macOS in a VM on Linux: https://github.com/Coopydood/ultimate-macOS-kvm
I use that to test our website at work in Safari, though without a GPU (there is no virto-gpu driver for macOS and my PC's GPU doesn't support vGPU) the performance isn't great.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
The difference is that Microsoft wanted to stall the web, while Google wants to accelerate it faster so that nobody else can keep up.
The commonality is the de-facto monoculture being sold to web developers. "Works best in Internet Explorer" was the problem twenty years ago. Now we've got lazy web developers who bemoan the absence of Chrome on their customer's phones. Right now Apple is the last thing standing between them and slapping a "Works best in Chrome" banner everywhere and abandoning support for Safari.
nticompass 3 days ago | parent
My gripe about "Safari being the new IE" was more about how broken some websites can be in Safari and having no good way of knowing or testing that. At work, my boss said out website didn't look quite right on his iPhone and it took more work than I'd thought to track down the piece of CSS that Safari rendered differently for some reason.
Personally, I don't use macOS or iOS and I also use Firefox. Generally, things seem to work the same between Firefox Chrome and Safari, with Safari needing the most amount of "tweaks".
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Chrome is the new IE because it is fostering the return of the lazy developer who thinks the web can be reduced to a single web browser.
Safari is not the new IE. It is highly standards compliant, it’s actively maintained, and it’s not making web developers lazy.
floorsthelimit 3 days ago | parent
wongarsu 3 days ago | parent
floorsthelimit 3 days ago | parent
hnav 3 days ago | parent
busymom0 3 days ago | parent
warkdarrior 3 days ago | parent
kwanbix 3 days ago | parent
zsoltkacsandi 3 days ago | parent
Just checked in the App Store, I can install Firefox, Opera, Brave, and many many other browsers on my iPhone.
dylan604 3 days ago | parent
timcobb 3 days ago | parent
ch_sm 3 days ago | parent
FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent
... the next time you launch Safari, it will say that the default browser has been changed, "Did you mean to do that?" and of the two options presented ("Keep using Chrome" or "Switch back to Safari") the Safari option will be the default.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Remember, you are a web developer, not a chrome platform developer. Don’t be complicit in Google’s slow-moving coup.
The only people who complain about Safari are lazy web developers who fail to appreciate what it means for the web to be an open platform. Testing your website on two browser engines (and accepting that not everything is going to work perfectly in both) is literally the lowest bar expected of you.
vrganj 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
A bit of forced diversity is wildly preferable over another collapse towards monoculture.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Says who? I certainly don't agree with that statement, the "web as an open platform" was unrecognizable when proprietary clients were the norm.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
(And before you say it, consumers can choose Android, where 99.9% of people use Chrome, but apparently that's okay because they "chose" it.)
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
WebKit is a second-class citizen on the web, and we can argue about why that is, but nobody can sincerely deny it. Apple's strategy has been dead in the water for over a decade. iOS lost.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Meanwhile we have people bitching and moaning and meanwhile, as a Firefox user, I go to Safari when I encounter a website that doesn't work in Firefox. Because at the end of the day, developers are forced to test in Safari, and that is a Good Thing. No developer is forced to test in Firefox.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
The existence of the "Switch to Safari" campaign is a clear rejection that Safari is competing - it's not, it's the laughing stock of web browsers in 2026, it holds the same place that IE6 did in the early 2000s.
>Because at the end of the day, developers are forced to test in Safari,
I'm not forced to test in Safari, because I don't have money for an iOS device. So Apple users can continue to suffer with whatever browser they use on their i-device. I really don't care, and Apple has done this - not me, because they offer no way but purchasing their hardware to test their wonky browser engine.
And yes, you can emulate an android device on MacOS, so don't bother trying that again. You don't need to purchase an android device to test on android.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
On macOS, Google plays with a lot of dark patterns to get people to install Chrome. I can't count the number of times I've visited my sister or parents and seen Chrome on their Mac, and their explanation is "because Google told me I needed it."
That's not choice either.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
It sounds like your family is using Chrome because it's more convenient. It's 2026, we can't blame anyone given what Safari spent the past decade doing. Apple does not provide convenient Safari sync for Windows and Android devices, which comprise the majority of smart devices sold. They don't support the normie extensions that people use on Firefox and Chrome. Safari lags behind Chrome in features, WebKit lags behind Blink in cross-platform support, and Apple doesn't allow Safari forks to boost their market share. Apple draws very clear and arbitrary lines in the sand, and then redrafts them once they finally change their mind about PWAs or notification support. By the time it reaches Safari, your parents have been using the feature in Chrome for 8 months.
We may have to agree to disagree. Apple's incessant marketing for their own inferior, ad-ridden packin software is part of why I left macOS to begin with. It's infantilizing to be told that I can't be trusted to make a smart decision, when Apple's own suggestion is a half baked, self-serving alternative. I empathize with Mac users that ignore Safari because that's exactly what I did on my Mac, too. I'd have been using Chrome if Firefox wasn't an option. And I still would, because WebKit is a dog's dinner on my OS.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
If you think my mother or sister have the faintest idea what a web browser is, or how one might be better than another, then you haven't met my mother or sister. To suggest that they made any kind of informed choice is absurd. They were influenced by marketing, plain and simple.
Personally, I'd be fascinated to see an in-depth study showing what percentage of web users chose their browser based on true/objective criteria, as opposed to marketing, brand preference, herd mentality, or wrong assumptions. Is exposing someone to marketing really what we mean by choice?
It's worth remembering that choice isn't necessarily the pure good we intuitively believe it to be. Western consumers have an extraordinary choice of food, yet that hasn't necessarily translated into healthier diets. This is especially problematic when the choices themselves are shaped by corporations whose interests aren't well aligned with the consumer's.
bigyabai 3 days ago | parent
Apple is a corporation too, and they have their own (quite sizable) financial interest in gimping the web as an alternative to native app distribution. Apple used to recognize this, and prioritized interoperability with OpenGL and OpenCL as a hedge against the web becoming the only cross-platform API that the Mac supported. The Apple of today has abandoned those interests and lost all pretenses of humility. They are equally as mask-off as Google or Microsoft is, pushing Metal and WebKit just as shamelessly as Microsoft crams the corpse of DirectX into things. This isn't a charity project, it is another way for Apple to control iOS software distribution, their primary service cash cow, Tim Cook's pride and joy. Apple is happy to give Google money for their Apple Intelligence integration, this isn't a grudge that they take seriously.
Apple could have supported KHTML upstream, and killed Blink in the cradle. They could have made Safari a billion-dollar cross-platform product, and won. They made this horrible bed, and now they want to users to moralize Google's victory. Why would anyone, knowledgeable or naive, insult themselves by standing with Apple here?
vrganj 3 days ago | parent
themanualstates 2 days ago | parent
tisdadd 3 days ago | parent
themanualstates 2 days ago | parent
themacguffinman 3 days ago | parent
Consumers choosing Android isn't a choice of which browser to use, it's choosing which operating system to use. That doesn't sound like you care that consumers get to choose which browser they use, that's letting Apple choose which browser that Apple consumers use then telling them they can choose a different operating system instead.
vrganj 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
edoceo 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
leptons 3 days ago | parent
This isn't browser diversity, iOS is a browser monoculture, it's all Safari under the hood. How can you not understand this??
leptons 3 days ago | parent
The only lie being told in all of this is the one Apple tells when you install Firefox on an iOS device. It's not Firefox you're installing, it's Safari. Every browser on iOS is Safari - you have no choice at all.
>The health of the web as an open platform is defined by browser diversity, not browser choice.
Then put your money where your mouth is. If Safari can compete then let other browser engines on iOS. If it can't then it deserves to die. Artificially inflating it by forcing on iOS isn't the utopia you think it is.
>A bit of forced diversity is wildly preferable over another collapse towards monoculture.
Apple iOS is a monocoulture - every browser is Safari whether you want it or not.
There's no argument you can make to escape the fact that Apple is helping nobody but Apple by forcing Safari on iOS.
randbyte 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Choice is what the individual (supposedly) has. Diversity is what actually exists across an ecosystem. iOS is the last bastion of browser diversity, because despite all this supposed "choice", it's pretty much all Chrome everywhere else.
randbyte 3 days ago | parent
LocalH 3 days ago | parent
https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser
Real Gecko on iOS
themanualstates 2 days ago | parent
Chromium on iOS can also be compiled with blink, using the ‘use_blink’ flag.
doginasuit 3 days ago | parent
This is a wild statement. For an individual user, what is the point of browser diversity if you are locked into your browser by OS? A weird number of people here are okay with this particular example of anti-consumer behavior simply because it offsets the chrome monopoly. That's not a healthy web, that's competing layers of dysfunction.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
edoceo 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
There's no reason for Safari to have a sub-par experience except for the laziness of some web developers.
doginasuit 3 days ago | parent
How about a browser with a captive userbase that has less incentive to stay up to date with web standards?
Your argument is that we should expect developers to target/test their app on many different browsers where any random CSS property behaves differently. They will have to buy a device just for this purpose. Because it is obviously developers who should have to pick up the slack here, not Apple.
ryandrake 3 days ago | parent
Rohansi 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Safari is a better browser because it doesn’t support them.
Rohansi 3 days ago | parent
> Safari is a better browser because it doesn’t support them.
It has supported them since iOS 16.4. The issue is they made enabling them so high friction for users that you're better off publishing a WebView wrapper to the App Store instead. More work for app devs, worse experience for users, but great for Apple because it's still on the App Store.
doginasuit 3 days ago | parent
Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent
Though an interesting consequence is that allowing iOS users to install firefox but not chrome would be a strict improvement over the current situation.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
If diversity fails to occur naturally, some amount of forced diversity helps to keep the ecosystem healthy.
verdverm 3 days ago | parent
To me, chromium is the kernel and the browsers are the distro. We do like that there is a shared kernel in linux, yes?
I acknowledge that this is reductionist, as there exists another lack of diversity for consumer operating systems, in there really only being Windows and Mac / iOS and Android.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
And the Linux kernel isn't a good analogy because the web is a standard, not an implementation. In that sense it's more akin to UNIX, or IP-based networking.
verdverm 3 days ago | parent
https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/chromium/contri...
Still, there is a difference between contribution and control, which I hope and dream can and will change.
https://www.learninternetgrow.com/who-controls-chromium/
I will add that I appreciate your response, generally, but especially the missing hyperbole. This civil discourse is very preferable.
TheTon 3 days ago | parent
Linux is GPLv2, it has many outside contributors, it was built from scratch, and it has Linus as a neutral party as the final decider in terms of the direction of the project and what gets included.
Chromium is a mix of LGPL, BSD, and other licenses depending on the component. Chromium was originally forked from WebKit; it isn’t a from scratch project. Google decides what changes get merged to Chromium.
philwelch 3 days ago | parent
However, if Apple allowed different browser engines, eventually no one would be able to choose anything but Chrome regardless of what phone they bought.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
Maybe you don't understand that I have to spend several hundred dollars for the privilege to debug Safari's shitty bugs. That's FUCKED UP. It isn't "being lazy". I shouldn't have to spend money so I can cater to a shitty browser. And Apple does some weird-ass things with their browser that make it wonky, and you can't debug some things without an apple device. Touch events are one particular iffy thing Apple does differently, because "think different" apparently means "we do whatever the fuck we want so pay us to debug things that shouldn't need debugging".
>Testing your website on two browser engines (and accepting that not everything is going to work perfectly in both) is literally the lowest bar expected of you.
Give me $500 to buy an Apple device and I'll fix things so it works for the shitty browser iOS users are forced to use. It has not a single fucking thing to do with "being lazy", and you're a shitty person for suggesting that's how this works.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
If the cost really is an issue for you, I'm sure you know that you aren't forced to pay $500 to Apple. You can easily find hand-me-down Apple devices that still runs a current operating system for a pittance -- or free if you have a network of friends or family. No need to pay Apple anything.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
And I can't even buy only an iOS device, because the iOS device has to connect to a laptop/desktop version of Safari to use its debugger - so I need to purchase two Apple devices!, just to debug the mobile device.
I wouldn't be complaining if I could install the iOS simulator on any other platform - but even on iOS the iOS simulator sucks badly, and it only works on MacOS. It doesn't "simulate" touch events correctly, as they function differently on a real iOS device.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
Nobody says you need to pay Apple anything. Apple devices can be incredibly cheap on the second-hand market -- potentially free if you have friends or family. An older Mac and an iPhone 11 are all you really need. If that is still too much for you, then what can I say? I don't see Microsoft giving you a Windows PC or Google giving you an Android device for free.
I suppose you can quit your job and become a chef, but you'll still have to buy your own set of knives and an apron.
leptons 3 days ago | parent
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
leptons 2 days ago | parent
Tell me you're not a web developer without telling me you're not a web developer. And if you are, you must be new here, or really bad at it. I've been developing websites for 30+ years, so I have no doubt I've been in this game and paying attention way longer than you have. Go have a seat over there, this pointless internet interaction is OVER.
simondotau 2 days ago | parent
leptons 1 day ago | parent
Only in your dim-witted head.
Go have a seat over there, this pointless internet interaction is OVER.
hungryhobbit 3 days ago | parent
This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding, much like how many think standards groups (e.g. W3C) decide how the browsers works.
(Standards groups can invent the best feature ever for the Web ... and it won't matter in the slightest if browser makers don't adopt it. ALL STANDARDS ARE SET BY BROWSER MAKERS ... the standards bodies are just the mechanism they use to do it.)
Likewise, the browser a web developer user uses is already set for them. EVERY web dev (except those at companies big enough to care about the "long tail" of browsers) uses one browser: the most popular one.
It has nothing to do with politics or being complicit, and everything to do with "You have a job to do, why would you make it take twice as long by testing everything with an unpopular browser, when 99 out of 100 times that testing will find nothing and be a total waste of your time?"
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
No, it doesn't. I wasn't talking about web standards bodies. I'm talking about the practical reality of the web as a platform that is resilient against slight differences between browsers. Such resilience can only come from developers who understand that their job is to target the web and not just Chrome.
It is you who misunderstands:
> It has nothing to do with politics or being complicit, and everything to do with "You have a job to do, why would you make it take twice as long by testing everything with an unpopular browser, when 99 out of 100 times that testing will find nothing and be a total waste of your time?"
You are literally arguing for the web to become the Chrome Platform for the convenience of web developers. Sure we can have other browsers, so long as they're perfectly compatible with Chrome's quirks. This is precisely what it means for the web to be the Chrome Platform, not the open web. We've already reached the point where it's assumed that Chrome is perfect and anything that deviates from Chrome is someone else's bug. It's sad.
hungryhobbit 1 day ago | parent
The reality is that 99% of web developers all use the exact same browser, and it isn't Chrome or IE or any one browser its "whatever is the most popular browser currently" (really it's "most popular for your customers but 99% of companies have customers who use the same browsers as everyone else).
You can bury your head in the sand and say "oh the mean web developers aren't using my pet browser" ... but it won't change the fact that no one wants to test on an unpopular browser, then test again on a popular one: EVERYONE is going to test their site with the browser most likely to use that site.
waterTanuki 3 days ago | parent
It's obvious Apple isn't doing this to "protect the open web" because if that was true, they wouldn't have stopped developing Safari for Windows.
ryandrake 3 days ago | parent
Wild how low the bar has gotten. The web would be so much better if there were ~10 browsers, each with around 10% market share. Web sites would have to suck it up and put some effort into browser testing and compatibility. And stop relying on features of a single browser. I remember writing software that had to work on over a dozen platforms. But developers today can’t manage to support more than one browser?
Gigachad 3 days ago | parent
If your website doesn't work on one browser, you probably need to raise a bug report for that browser rather than change your site.
jonhohle 3 days ago | parent
realusername 3 days ago | parent
There's multiple issues with Safari and people complaining aren't "lazy". To start with it's a much buggier browser than Firefox or Chrome. Sure if you go on caniuse.com, almost everything is marked as supported but with Safari in reality it's always ""supported"" and you will deal with non-sense bugs, most of the features are sort of 95% there and they stopped development claiming it's good enough. They also have very poor QA and regressions happen often.
Next, Safari is the last non-evergreen browser, it's still tied to the OS and thus lags behind in updates.
And to finish with, Safari is also only available on Apple devices (harder to test with) and tied to a specific OS version (how are you officially even supposed to test the bugs on version X without paying a third party company? I don't know).
I'm not against Safari but Apple really needs to put some money to make it more modern if they want to actually compete with Firefox or Chrome without their OS lock-in.
TheCoelacanth 3 days ago | parent
Lack of browser diversity is bad because it puts too much control in the hands of the only browser vendor.
Lack of browser choice is bad because it puts too much control in the hands of whatever browser vendor they use.
We need both for a healthy web.
simondotau 2 days ago | parent
[0] Imagine that everyone was mandated to use one of five different browser engines, such that each had exactly 20% market share.
[1] Imagine that you are free to choose between five different browser engines but everyone else picked #3 and websites are only ever tested on #3 and all the others don't work so well.
chasil 3 days ago | parent
Primarily, incognito mode is difficult to access. Android allows a shortcut to be dropped to start in this mode.
Cut and paste is also awkward and uncomfortable in Safari compared to Android.
My first move on iOS is to install Firefox Focus, to get Safari's history under control.
nalekberov 3 days ago | parent
Apple is all about control.
molszanski 3 days ago | parent
TLDR
Apple since mid 2024 was forced by EU and Japan to allow other engines.
There are hurdles but the path is open.
Both Chrome / Blink and Firefox / Gecko have made prototypes but haven’t moved past that.
It seems that there is no money or will to see it through.
So it’s not all “Apple bad doesn’t allow it”
greazy 3 days ago | parent
No, mate. You need to provide details. The onus is on you to support your claim.
molszanski 2 days ago | parent
I’ve been following this subject for years and this is my best and honest personal summary.
It’s just people don’t know that this is a thing and are “locked” into believing that things are the same as in 2020.
If anyone is interested in details, LMK. It’s one Google search away anyway.
Lammy 3 days ago | parent
infecto 3 days ago | parent
giancarlostoro 3 days ago | parent
Damn thats pretty evil, I just looked it up. For those curious, Apple forces you to release your EU app with a different browser engine specifically for European users as a completely separate app, meaning you would have Facebook World edition with WebKit, and Facebook EU Edition with whatever new engine they want. Basically not worth the hassle to maintain two separate apps.
Gareth321 3 days ago | parent
And it gets worse. Developers have reported limitations on testing, restrictive contractual terms, and uncertainty surrounding updates when users travel outside the EU.
Not even Google has managed to navigate this gauntlet. Our EU leaders are asleep at the wheel.
giancarlostoro 2 days ago | parent
robertoandred 3 days ago | parent
Your Linux download is right there.
lkbm 3 days ago | parent
Mosaic was a fair bit earlier, but yeah, I ran Netscape 4 until Mozilla M18. Never used IE as my main browser in many years of Windows use.
EDIT: I guess Netscape 4 and Mozilla M18 were both pre-IE6, too, but still Mozilla/Firefox for the IE6 era.
creatonez 3 days ago | parent
Try GNOME Web (Epiphany). It's webkit based, keeps up with Safari, doesn't disable access to the Safari devtools, and it sends the exact same user agent string. Should be essentially bug-for-bug compatible. It's otherwise an anemic browser, but you don't need much for testing.
curt15 4 days ago | parent
2OEH8eoCRo0 4 days ago | parent
icantevenhold 4 days ago | parent
cosmic_cheese 3 days ago | parent
2OEH8eoCRo0 3 days ago | parent
armadyl 4 days ago | parent
I feel like most people who make MV3 complaints didn’t bother actually trying it, they just repeat the default anti-MV3 talking points.
icantevenhold 4 days ago | parent
AdGuard just blocks much less.
toomim 4 days ago | parent
moi2388 3 days ago | parent
jshier 3 days ago | parent
ctkhn 4 days ago | parent
Mashimo 3 days ago | parent
AuthAuth 3 days ago | parent
zaphar 3 days ago | parent
AuthAuth 3 days ago | parent
s0ulf3re 3 days ago | parent
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/cre...
fluidcruft 4 days ago | parent
Grimeton 3 days ago | parent
mkirsten 4 days ago | parent
j45 4 days ago | parent
This has caused many issues because Apple controls what can run in a web browser and that web browser (safari) is in no way up to date, or worse, selectively implements standards. I'm writing this in the hopes that it will publicly improve.
Since Safari is forced at an OS level on all Apple's iOS and iPadOS users, that's a place to start when it comes to choice.
On MacOS, Safari is actually pretty interesting - it can be much more efficient with battery usage than other browsers and unsurprisingly well integrated. It's nice to use on MacOS because there is choice.
I understand there maybe concerns about security, but also will come out is likely that safari enjoys some OS level integrations that other browsers probably won't be welcome to, similar to the Internet Explorer/Edge days.
The switch to safari is likely tied to something else, given Apple's growing advertising revenue. Meaning, move away from one advertisement engine (Chrome), and move to another (Safari).
tkdb 4 days ago | parent
The UX of Pages and Keynote are, IMO, far superior to Word/Powerpoint and Google Docs/Slides, but they lag adoption from... ecosystem inertia? I mention this as evidence of my objectivity in reflecting on UX.
DrBazza 4 days ago | parent
hiros-neko 3 days ago | parent
oefrha 3 days ago | parent
Gareth321 3 days ago | parent
desolate_muffin 3 days ago | parent
cpt_sobel 3 days ago | parent
idbnstra 4 days ago | parent
jorisw 3 days ago | parent
maidaman 4 days ago | parent
surgical_fire 4 days ago | parent
bob1029 4 days ago | parent
For everything else, I use some chromium derivative that can traverse pirate streaming sites and ChatGPT without disintegrating under their weird JS workloads.
ur-whale 4 days ago | parent
But Safari is not the solution until they make it fully (FULLY) open-source, because all Apple trying to do is replace the king of enshitification hill by their own.
firefox ftw
bensyverson 4 days ago | parent
ur-whale 4 days ago | parent
This is about as wrong as you can possibly get.
This would be true in a stateless world (assuming you can remember the site you want to visit).
Which the web hasn't been since a very long time.
bensyverson 4 days ago | parent
Unless you have a web app which is entirely local and doesn't save its state to local storage, what could you possibly be doing that requires a tab to remain in residence?
bensyverson 4 hours ago | parent
hanlec 3 days ago | parent
I am really curious about data proving these.
I am not aware of any benchmarks proving or disproving.
bensyverson 3 days ago | parent
drnick1 4 days ago | parent
ur-whale 4 days ago | parent
Yes, absolutely. But then they wouldn't be able to lock the flock in the barn, which is so contrary to Apple's DNA that you can't event talk about it in a 1 mile radius of 1, Infinite loop.
pcdoodle1 4 days ago | parent
tamimio 4 days ago | parent
jillesvangurp 4 days ago | parent
The history of Chrome is that it first displaced Firefox as a reasonable alternative (while funding that via a nice ad deal). And then they just steam rolled Internet Explorer to the point where MS gave up and rebuilt their browser around Chromium. It was that good. Fifteen years ago.
But these days you have to put up with a lot of crap from Google. Ad blocking works better on other browsers. Even some Chromium browsers (like Brave). But the thing with Chromium is that all Chromium derived browsers outsource most of the browser internals to Google. Google decides what features to implement, what PRs to merge, what features not to implement, etc. They set the standards. Safari, Firefox, and hopefully soon Ladybird are the only alternative browser engines keeping them somewhat honest on that front.
zaphar 3 days ago | parent
lobf 3 days ago | parent
watermelon0 3 days ago | parent
fouc 3 days ago | parent
Alex_L_Wood 3 days ago | parent
jiehong 3 days ago | parent
linguae 3 days ago | parent
Then came an upstart web browser from Google named Chrome....and now we're back to the bad old days of web developers coding to the dominant web browser again.
mr_toad 3 days ago | parent
I have cursed too many websites to count because of their broken form designs (like assuming a particular postcode format) or reliance on cookies from ad vendors for basic functionality. If your website needs to generate “a new google recaptcha cookie” (whatever that means) before I can enter payment info, then sorry, no es bueno.
cosmic_cheese 3 days ago | parent
If you visit a Google property using a Gecko or WebKit-based browser you'll get hit with banners nudging you to switch to Chrome and Google's iOS apps ignore the long-available default browser setting when linked are tapped, prompting you to choose between your default browser and Chrome even if you don't have Chrome installed.
And then there's the whole thing with how Chrome for Android conveniently never gained the ability to run even pared-back MV3 blocker extensions. Massive conflict of interest there.
I wish Google were called out for this stuff way more, but more often than not they're given a free pass.
oldsklgdfth 3 days ago | parent
My take is Safari is the new IE.
It is packaged with the OS. I can't get an older version of Safari without an older version is macOS. From a testing standpoint, this means we have a bunch of hardware or images we never update so we can test against.
That was the IE thing, it was baked into the OS. Also, trash dev tools. Crashes pretty easily with the console open for more than 30s.
bitpush 3 days ago | parent
Most people who say this didnt go through the pain of why IE was such a PITA. IE held back web development by years because either they refused to add features or they added features that only worked with Microsoft approved.
Chrome came along and accelerated web platform development since their products relied on a thriving web ecosystem. They did it using open source software, and built out consensus using web platforms.
Chrome is the new IE will only be true if other browsers are out innovating Chrome (not true), or Chrome has abandoned web platform (not true).
There's only one browser that drags their feat adding features, and that's ironically Safari. Firefox too to an extend, but that's mostly mismanagement and lack of resources. Apple has no excuses.
cosmic_cheese 3 days ago | parent
Also worth noting that some of the discrepancies in capability are in features that Google decided to push despite opposition from other members of the consortium (like WebUSB).
bitpush 3 days ago | parent
That's a strange argument. I dont see HN saying this year all of us are going to buy Android, because iOS has become too popular. That sentiment is only valid is iOS is dragging their feat and if they stop innovating, effectively holding the market back.
I still havent seen an example where Chrome is holding everyone back. If anything, the complaint is the other way - they are doing way too much and we want them to stop.
And for HN crowd to be against that is very silly.
cosmic_cheese 3 days ago | parent
It’s not just Apple. Mozilla has pushed back against Google’s proposals plenty of times too. Google doesn’t always know best and often acts more in their self-interest than in that of the web.
So the issue isn’t that Google is moving too fast or doing too much, but that they’re unilaterally deciding the future of the web, which is not something any single party should be capable of.
bitpush 3 days ago | parent
How does Google or any company control the web? I can launch a website fuckgoogle.com today and Google can do nothing with it. However, I cannot publish fuckapple on Mac Store or App Store.
cosmic_cheese 3 days ago | parent
bitpush 1 day ago | parent
It is either one company 100% controlling the ecosystem (Apple with iOS) or a committee controlling the ecosystem (web platform).
Between these two, there's only one that is truly open and democratic.
Washuu 3 days ago | parent
hk1337 3 days ago | parent
I did and "Chrome is the new internet explorer" is more accurate than what has been uttered since Chrome split from WebKit, "Safari is the new internet explorer".
IEs problem wasn't that it was behind in features, it was that it used IE-specific plugins and was heavily integrated with Windows Explorer. Safari is and has not been either of those.
bearjaws 4 days ago | parent
The absurdity of every week another AI feature, another way for data to leak to their services, another crash report.
They are exhausting and abusing their positions of power.
latexr 3 days ago | parent
They just announced something which might be relevant to you.
myko 3 days ago | parent
t1234s 3 days ago | parent
t1234s 3 days ago | parent
alt227 3 days ago | parent
t1234s 3 days ago | parent
2OEH8eoCRo0 3 days ago | parent
lightedman 3 days ago | parent
ssttoo 3 days ago | parent
- iMessage works so I can participate in the family group chat
tantalor 3 days ago | parent
KerrAvon 3 days ago | parent
ssttoo 3 days ago | parent
martheen 3 days ago | parent
reaperducer 3 days ago | parent
Which Apple apps can't be removed?
kaelwd 3 days ago | parent
Aozora7 3 days ago | parent
Even if they did all of that and also allowed unrestricted sideloading, iOS is still awful overall, and iPhones themselves are terrible value. Even 16e and 17e start at €600/800. I can get a better android phone for €300, and I can't imagine spending more than €500 on a phone, let alone €1000 to get a basic feature like 120Hz refresh rate.
slashdave 3 days ago | parent
charlesabarnes 3 days ago | parent
I am not interested in jailbreaking or rooting my device to run my apps. I am not interested in the testflight process. I am an adult and can pick and choose what apps I want. And I would like to exercise the whole "voting with my wallet" thing when a company makes an anti-consumer decision.
KerrAvon 3 days ago | parent
thraway3837 3 days ago | parent
It is so tiring to keep hearing of this whole sideloading/let us run other engines nonsense for a decade+ now. It's like watching all the nastiness that tech companies do and then asking for all that trash on iOS. This is tantamount to wanting Adobe Flash on iOS, and quite honestly, that's exactly what allowing 3rd party browser engines is going to do. First it maybe some extension, and then all of a sudden you find that the extension has full access to photos, location, and contacts because you granted 1 website access to those things.
No thanks.
mococa 3 days ago | parent
stychos 3 days ago | parent
LoganDark 3 days ago | parent
- it doesn't like to serialize the state of tabs. Chrome is pretty good at somehow snapshotting the entire state of tabs to the point where it can be reconstructed after relaunch, even offline.
- webpage loading is sort of janky. Chrome will show the webpage streaming in live, but Safari will simply freeze in place until it's done. Maybe this is due to an Apple philosophy decision, but I don't prefer it.
- similarly to how Safari doesn't seem to serialize tab states, navigating forward or back usually needs to load the page from scratch, including resubmitting forms or whatever.
- speaking of forward and back navigation, I'm kinda annoyed that each time I use the trackpad to navigate history, I have to wait for the swipe animation to finish before I can interact with the webpage. I try to always use cmd+brackets instead now, because it's much faster.
- IIRC, it seems the newer macOS 27 betas caused Safari to develop an issue where after it's been open for long enough, certain types of videos will stop being able to play at all until the browser is quit and restarted. kind of annoying, combined with the lack of tab snapshotting, because I have to manually visit each tab to load it on each launch.
I still daily drive Safari and use it as my main browser. But I keep an instance of Chrome open for tabs that I never really close. And then I have an instance of Orion for spreadsheets. (I use spreadsheets to keep track of medication usage, sleep times and finances)
dbg31415 3 days ago | parent
Also... not sure all of those ads would still hold up today.
reenorap 3 days ago | parent
Maybe have an Edge mode as well to convince the Edge users to come over.
secretsatan 3 days ago | parent
OTH, i use safari on my other mac, it’s fine most of the time, but i also have have chrome installed as some websites are so buggy otherwise, linkedin is a particular culprit, it barely works on chrome too.
latexr 3 days ago | parent
I was on Sequoia all throughout Tahoe and still updated Safari to the 26.x versions. There might be a limit to how far back they let you do that, though.
secretsatan 3 days ago | parent
FireBeyond 3 days ago | parent
I had an M1 MBP that I needed to re-pave with Monterey. Yes, it's end-of-support, but it's also only 4 years old. And runs on that Mac.
So, first step, I make a USB installer, and run it. Great. Reboots, and says "FYI, this is an unsupported OS. You can install a newer OS instead, or run Monterey in "Reduced Security" mode." That was fine for me.
"Installation of Reduced Security mode failed." Nothing else. Eventually my understanding of this was because the machine had been upgraded previously all the way to Tahoe, that somewhere along the line some firmware or something in the EFI had been upgraded and was too new for Monterey. No thanks to Apple. No info, debug logs, anything, just "Installation failed. Reboot?"
So what then?
Hmm, more research. "Do an IPSW image restore via DFU", i.e. pave it with a largely installed image. Could work, might have the same issue, but since I'm stuck right now, with a Mac I can't install anything on, a four year old $3,000 brick, why not?
Alright, I have a Mac Studio. I get the IPSW image, and Apple Configurator. Connect the two as per Apple's instructions and the MBP does indeed show up in Configurator as being "not booted, DFU mode".
Apple's instructions, "Drag the IPSW image onto the DFU 'box' for the target Mac". No. It doesn't light up like it's accepting a drag and drop, and indeed it doesn't. Nor does it accept a "restore..." or similar from the Configurator menu options. There's nothing in Configurator that seems to allow you to image the MBP. Again: no error, no instructions, just the error "bonk" noise.
So... off to ChatGPT, Reddit, etc., I go.
Much repeating of the same. However, ChatGPT pokes a little button. Near the very end of its answer, it says "Newer versions of macOS may have limitations on the age of the image they might restore. You may need a slightly older macOS to do this. Even an Intel MBP running Ventura could work."
As fortune has it, my fiance happens to still have her old i5 MBP with touchbar, and the latest version of Ventura... let's plug it in, let it catch a little charge and boot...
Alright, I need Configurator on this laptop.
No soup for you, says the App Store, "You need macOS Sequoia to install Configurator".
Back off to Reddit, where I find someone who has helpfully zipped up an older version of Configurator that runs on Ventura, and in the end, I'm able to re-pave via IPSW.
But Apple's docs absolutely are incorrect/incomplete about Configurator, and DFU restores.
"You can use Restore... in the Configurator menu to select the software image". No, you can't, even leaving aside the "old/unsupported". It actually means restoring from a "backup" (presumably Time Machine, though it doesn't specify) and you can't select any file or image.
"Drag the image onto DFU". Doesn't work in that situation, no error, no "hey, you're doing the right thing but I can't do this", just acting like a fool trying to drag the image onto DFU only to have it bounce off.
Like I said, I didn't have DFU port issues, but Apple's docs on how to make this happen were either non-existent, or incorrect about the process, or flat out told me I couldn't do it. But mostly non-existent and overly simplistic covering the most basic scenarios only - which I get for general support, but by the time you are "connect to a second mac in DFU mode and run Configurator" in their own words, we're way beyond simplistic "you can just install a newer macOS" type "instructions".
kurtoid 3 days ago | parent
wereHamster 3 days ago | parent
oldsklgdfth 3 days ago | parent
Also trash video playback.
tikotus 3 days ago | parent
techgnosis 3 days ago | parent
I setup two of them for my Google account but I made them both in Safari. Only one of them worked. What if both of them failed? I would have been fucked.
I re-made them on Chrome and they both worked.
jedberg 3 days ago | parent
Safari is always the best on my Mac, but my complaint has always been the lack of plugins.
But just now I ported one of my favorite plugins from Chrome to Safari using ChatGPT. I told it I already have it installed in Chrome so it can get the source code there, and then told it to port it and install it.
After 20 minutes and few bucks in tokens (estimated, I actually used my 6% of my $20/mo plan), I have Session Buddy in Safari.
So maybe the plugins aren't a problem anymore...
reaperducer 3 days ago | parent
Why use ChatGPT? Safari has a built-in plugin builder now.
jedberg 3 days ago | parent
2. I have an M1 chip and I'm not sure it's supported.
3. ChatGPT can open both browers, not sure if Safari plugin builder can
But if it does all those things, great. My point was more that plugins won't be a problem anymore because AI can build them.
advisedwang 3 days ago | parent
source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-dodged-a-20-billion-hit...
waynecochran 3 days ago | parent
freetime2 3 days ago | parent
On the plus side, though, Safari will also translate text in images.
LoganDark 3 days ago | parent
Gareth321 3 days ago | parent
gigatexal 3 days ago | parent
jakequist 3 days ago | parent
parasti 3 days ago | parent
bobmarleybiceps 3 days ago | parent
azuanrb 3 days ago | parent
I do get it. Chrome has the majority of users, so it’s easier to just develop and test on Chrome and know you’ve covered most of your users.
But isn’t that just pushing us towards a Chrome monopoly? Safari holding back some web features is annoying, sure, but having Chrome decide what the web should support and everyone else having to follow doesn’t sound much better to me.
floydnoel 3 days ago | parent
As soon as Apple is forced to allow Chrome on iOS, I won’t even have that opt-out available to me. If you want to use Google, they have a whole mobile OS you can use. Why take away my choice as a consumer that prefers Safari? And Apple's on the device they build and sell? Not to mention all the security flaws that would entail...
leptons 3 days ago | parent
Those are quite the mental gymnastics you're doing here. You know, you could just choose not to install Chrome, right?
>If you want to use Google, they have a whole mobile OS you can use.
If someone bought an i-device, they don't get to choose, Safari is forced on them.
>Why take away my choice as a consumer that prefers Safari?
Calm down, nobody is taking away your choice by allowing Chrome to run its own browser engine on iOS. You're totally delusional and making shit up that would never happen.
Apple is the only one that's forcing you to do anything. They are the ones that took away your ability to choose. You seriously sound totally brainwashed.
labcomputer 3 days ago | parent
amazingman 3 days ago | parent
leptons 3 days ago | parent
Maybe Apple shouldn't hold back web standards to force people to install native apps where Apple can extract 30% of all purchases from the apps.
azuanrb 3 days ago | parent
Personally, I don’t care about most of those Chrome specific features. I use Safari because it’s fast and battery efficient. The fact that it’s not made by a company whose main business is advertising is a nice bonus.
Sure, Apple has an advertising business too, but it’s nowhere near the scale of Google’s.
leptons 2 days ago | parent
Browser vendors come up with improvements.
The W3C board (which Apple and Google are a part of) gets to vote on the implementations and suggest changes.
The new feature either becomes a standard or not.
Apple wields their power here to block any new feature that could make a web browser compete with native apps where Apple can extract 30% of all purchases made through apps.
Apple isn't making suggestions for any changes to the proposals, they just block any new feature that might let browsers become as functional as native apps, purely out of greed.
soraminazuki 2 days ago | parent
https://web.archive.org/web/20200329112109/https://twitter.c...
amazingman 2 days ago | parent
soraminazuki 3 days ago | parent
rendaw 3 days ago | parent
floydnoel 3 days ago | parent
i think as developers it's easy to forget that, and just think about our own difficulties having to maintain IE compatibility. but that was the post-IE transition era, not really having to do with the "IE problem" of being forced to use IE for certain sites as with Chrome today. At least IE back then wasn't spyware like Chrome is today.
floydnoel 1 day ago | parent
> Our website has detected that you are using an unsupported browser that will prevent you from accessing certain features. An update is not required, but it is strongly recommended to improve your myPay experience.
> The current list of browsers supported by myPay includes:
> • Chrome 72 or later
> • Edge 80 or later
themanualstates 2 days ago | parent
Look at the developer blogs: https://blogs.igalia.com/gyuyoung/2024/08/08/chrome-ios-brow...
You can also compile your own, with ‘use_blink = true’ ‘in your .setup-gn file’: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/i...
tcfhgj 3 days ago | parent
cyanydeez 3 days ago | parent
janinge 3 days ago | parent
However, previously you got an exemption on the 7 day TTL on Web Storage, by being installed as a PWA. This must have been too generous. I guess they figured that if you combine lack of stable local storage, with no support for the Background Synchronization API, nobody should be able to implement anything of value on top of these APIs.
And just in case this isn't enough, let's just hide the install option even deeper than before. On iOS the path is now something along the lines of
1. Tap site's domain name 2. Meatballs menu 3. Share 4. More (Meatballs again) 5. Scroll until you find "Add to Home Screen" 6. Leave "Open as Web App" switched on 7. Add (upper right corner)
There is no obvious install prompt, and no clear browser level affordance. Nothing in the flow even tells you if PWA functionality is supported by the website. You might end up with just a weird shortcut that opens a URL full screen.
desolate_muffin 3 days ago | parent
pjmlp 3 days ago | parent
Additional note those are also the same people pushing Electron garbage, Chrome in a box.
tailrecursion 3 days ago | parent
microflash 3 days ago | parent
tail_exchange 3 days ago | parent
koinedad 3 days ago | parent
caycep 3 days ago | parent
CuriousRose 3 days ago | parent
If it gets particularly bad, I'm sure some impartial team will make another browser engine with Opus 5.5 but for now I can tolerate the minor inconveniences in Safari.
aristofun 3 days ago | parent
I doubt people developing safari and mail app are actually using them outside of work.
Apple keeps holding a “hardware company” flag, despite some occasional wins.
mazaltime 3 days ago | parent
mintflow 3 days ago | parent
One thing I do not like is no native dark mode on chrome, but that's okay, I just do not use phone when I preparing to sleep
For the adblock/tracker issue, recently just added builtin DNS-based adblock (backed by several public block list) to my VPN app, it seems works well, given same engine and same network filtered by the same VPN, i guess they are same to me
verdverm 3 days ago | parent
waterTanuki 3 days ago | parent
The irony of using a Google platform to promote ditching another Google platform lol.
bibimsz 3 days ago | parent
geuis 3 days ago | parent
Chrome was fast, did the basic job of correctly rendering pages, and its js runtime was groundbreaking. Node.js was direct outcome of that revolution.
Now these days the only thing keeping me tied to chrome is finger muscle memory. The death of manifest v2 is the 2nd to last nail.
Honestly Opus 5.5 had gotten good enough I've been considering a project to have it build a new browser based on the open source Chrome and keeps the v2 in place. Just customize it specifically for my preferences and call it done. No more unexpected breaking updates. Just a browser that does its job and nothing else.
The problem is I use safari on iOS. Generally not a bad browser. Equivalent and superior to Chrome is certain aspects. I don't really need to run Chrome on my phone. Safari is good enough. However... for a local build only I use maybe it's possible.
yareally 3 days ago | parent
You wouldn't be worried about vulnerabilities that the vibe coded browser could produce? I use plenty of LLM generated code, but a browser wouldn't be something I'd try on the Web.
simondotau 3 days ago | parent
xeonmc 3 days ago | parent
koito17 3 days ago | parent
It's pretty much the exact opposite of security through obscurity.
avhception 3 days ago | parent
LocalH 3 days ago | parent
mlazos 3 days ago | parent
Projectiboga 3 days ago | parent
keyle 3 days ago | parent
nonamee 3 days ago | parent
jdub 3 days ago | parent
steady on, youngster
abroadwin 3 days ago | parent
dualvariable 3 days ago | parent
onion2k 3 days ago | parent
chrismorgan 3 days ago | parent
FranOntanaya 3 days ago | parent
Lio 3 days ago | parent
pjmlp 3 days ago | parent
jimmydddd 3 days ago | parent
procone 3 days ago | parent
I mean, helium exists. https://github.com/imputnet/helium
dannyfritz07 3 days ago | parent
Also good context for why the launch of Chrome was such a big deal.
sjamaan 3 days ago | parent
A good context for why the market dominance of Chrome is such a big deal.
wodenokoto 3 days ago | parent
Why hadn't you moved on to Firefox?
klustregrif 3 days ago | parent
I remember developing web pages with the purpose of ensuring they would work in both, so Phoenix was my main driver, but whenever anything was “done” the real work started of also getting it to work in IE, it was always a monumental effort. Sites with buttons for “go here for pheonix/go here for ie” where common. My friends who worked in the windows ecosystem mostly saw Phoenix as some “crazy hipster trend” and didn’t have a care as to if anything they made worked in it or not.
csnover 3 days ago | parent
In any case, nobody got to quit dealing with the misery of IE6 until some YouTube engineers did a little caper[1] that gave everyone else an excuse that their big brain business bosses would finally listen to.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars#/media/File:Brows...
[1] https://blog.chriszacharias.com/a-conspiracy-to-kill-ie6
wodenokoto 3 days ago | parent
It's not like Firefox wasn't a "viable" browser at the time. It was quite mainstream.
yoz-y 3 days ago | parent
bryanrasmussen 3 days ago | parent
due to IE not being a standards compliant browser.
As others noted, Firefox was around for a long time before Chrome and was not called Phoenix all that time, so it sort of seems like you looked at a piece of technology a month after launch, didn't like it, and refused to took at it again for 10 years? I mean that right there is at the level of moral complaints, not just performance or rendering.
rob74 3 days ago | parent
Yes, but unless you wanted to exclude >90% of users, you could still not ignore it...
bryanrasmussen 3 days ago | parent
klustregrif 3 days ago | parent
Also being “technically most standard compliant” doesn’t mean anything to the average user who’s just angry that their browser isn’t showing their MySpace page correctly.
Calm down. Not every bit of real perspective on software short of “Firefox is perfect” is an existential criticism of it existing.
ahartmetz 3 days ago | parent
eptcyka 3 days ago | parent
This is eerily similar to how I feel about using Firefox today. Not that I am sticking it to the man - I just want there to be diversity in the market and not have every viable option be a way for a megacorp to have presence on my computers.
scrame 3 days ago | parent
testing22321 3 days ago | parent
Mi was a web dev then too, forced to develop for ie6.
At the time I remember asking why is google making a browser? How do they make money, and in the long term will their browser work for my best interests, or theirs?
So that’s why I’ve always used Firefox.
boxed 3 days ago | parent
I think you're misremembering or you didn't try Safari at the time. The first version of Chrome was not very different from Safari which it was just a shell of anyway.
reichstein 3 days ago | parent
V8 kept getting even faster, including adding faster RegExps, which pushed the other browsers to speed up their JS too. Firefox is now using that RegExp implementation too, even if they're not using V8.
WebKit was itself a fork of the KHTML browser engine. And just like WebKit diverged from KHTML, Chrome diverged from WebKit.
kalleboo 3 days ago | parent
The main reason I stuck with Chrome was the tab isolation. WebKit was super crashy back then, with Safari crashing several times a day just browsing the web. In Chrome only one tab would crash instead of the whole browser. This was one of the original selling points in addition to performance.
I switched back to Safari when I got my first Retina MacBook Pro, since Chrome had terrible performance in HiDPI for the first two years of retina Macs.
monegator 3 days ago | parent
shevy-java 3 days ago | parent
Yeah. I think Google underestimated how many people they pissed off here. There is a reason I and many other think that Google has to be disbanded.
Either way welcome to the resistance!
rob74 3 days ago | parent
And things went downhill from there...
pjmlp 3 days ago | parent
rienbdj 3 days ago | parent
Rust compile times are an issue for agent throughput.
C# can approach Rust speeds with some effort, but generally has faster compile times and is less verbose.
weezing 3 days ago | parent
So basically not very old. Also Firefox existed long before and had pretty significant marketshare. In some countries it was well above 50%.
Yizahi 3 days ago | parent
midtake 3 days ago | parent
da_chicken 3 days ago | parent
Yizahi 3 days ago | parent
roryirvine 3 days ago | parent
But Chrome won the vast bulk of its market share not because it was technically better in every way, but because they spent much more on marketing at the exact time IE entered terminal decline.
pjjpo 3 days ago | parent
Currently I am feeling this too but only for one site, GitHub. Which is where is spend most time during the day...
Quite sad, I don't know if it's GitHub's fault or not but Firefox needs to figure out what's going wrong here soon or people like me may be literally forced to Chromium.
mmcgaha 3 days ago | parent
adithyassekhar 3 days ago | parent
Also had safari 5(?) on windows because I liked seeing a progress bar for page load. Which opera 12 also had.
Maybe I just like progress bars.
Yizahi 3 days ago | parent
pronik 3 days ago | parent
Yizahi 3 days ago | parent
desolate_muffin 3 days ago | parent
ChrisRR 3 days ago | parent
x0x0 3 days ago | parent
That's some revisionist lies. Slow, crashy, a memory pig with a big leak problem, stuck on a single process architecture. It was none of fast or modern. Whether it was extremely nice to use is debatable, but lots of people rapidly voted by switching.
It very regularly crashed and took down the entire process.
It's fine to lament the Chrome monoculture, but we misdiagnosis it if we don't remember the seeds were sown via Mozilla's incompetence. They made it crystal clear they couldn't and wouldn't do better, and the next 5 or more years made that inarguable.
RunSet 3 days ago | parent
As one would expect of a browser made by the world's largest advertising corporation.
ImJamal 2 days ago | parent
dv_dt 3 days ago | parent
voshond 3 days ago | parent
Melatonic 2 days ago | parent
seanclayton 3 days ago | parent
2muchcoffeeman 3 days ago | parent
crossroadsguy 3 days ago | parent
Though what stuck with me from that page is why the fuck they would have default browser setting inside something like "Desktop & Dock" (that combo!). That is just intellectually challenged UX/UI design.
And it seems they have fired everyone from their propaganda (or marketing?) dept.
tl;dr: Is Safari better than Chrome? Yes. How? Because this webpage is live.
pswar444 3 days ago | parent
keyle 3 days ago | parent
A browser should allow you to not download content by URL masks, and not silently load it and hide it. This is advertising/tracker shenanigans and frankly horrid tech.
TingPing 3 days ago | parent
keyle 3 days ago | parent
TingPing 3 days ago | parent
mikelitoris 3 days ago | parent
potatoproduct 3 days ago | parent
shevy-java 3 days ago | parent
Instead, we should treat browsers like water in that everyone needs access to it at all times without any top-down control or restrictions.
tippa123 3 days ago | parent
I only noticed now because recently I have been wanting to incorporate the logos of tech publications on my website that have genuinely reviewed my product but apparently doing so isn’t without risk.
pantulis 3 days ago | parent
jorisw 3 days ago | parent
There's a whole chapter on it in Creative Selection (by Ken Kocienda who started the project) on how they were only allowed to release versions as fast or faster than the one before.
esskay 3 days ago | parent
jorisw 3 days ago | parent
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safari-release-not...
rf15 3 days ago | parent
Sorry what was that about your compliance with web standards?
> Chrome slurps
Nintendon't level of advertising is never a serious contender.
> Can I use Safari on Windows or Android?
I guess here's your problem, Apple: You are clearly marketing to Apple-Users to stop using Chrome on your MacBooks. Whatever is going on here, this campaign makes you look afraid. Especially with a weak hand like that.
...So what you're saying is: we should switch to Firefox?
sent from my Android Emulator inside OpenSuse inside Windows
jeroenhd 3 days ago | parent
wastedpotencial 3 days ago | parent
But, every time I open it and my back and forward mouse buttons don't work, I get so infuriated that only thinking about Apple engineers being forced to use the Magic Mouse relieves the pain. Seriously, WTF? Just fix that and bake uBlock Origin in and I'm sold. Meanwhile, Firefox.
jjjegly 3 days ago | parent
www.github.com/jegly/iris
Pesthuf 3 days ago | parent
hi41 3 days ago | parent
How did Chrome go from being magical and aw inspiring to being viewed unfavorably by the HN community?
ksec 13 minutes ago | parent