iOS browser without webkit?
-
Hi all,
i've recently read that Mozilla is preparing a version of firefox for iOS without Webkit but using Gecko (around october 2022), so did Google with Chrome and Blink previously...Since the development of Vivaldi for iOS is ongoing, will we get it with webkit or blink?
Just wondering, i understand that having both versions would be overload for the team, but making it on webkit and then having to change seems like double work as well.
Not sure if someone has more recent information on this topic and when apple will be "invited" to stop the monopoly on their platform allowing other engines.Well just wanted to discuss, i saw few posts on unrelated topics about this, but nothing seems to be very clear
-
All I know is this: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/
-
@corconegr3 The work has started on webkit, personally I’d say it’s highly unlikely they’ll switch it up right now. The whole problem with Vivaldi’s iOS browser was the webkit requirement, because it apparently needed considerably more effort. But that effort has already been invested. Besides, webkit is not a bad rendering engine, I wouldn’t particularly bemoan it. In hindsight it would have been best had Vivaldi ignored iOS a little longer.
-
@luetage From what I've seen (on Slashdot generally), Apple hasn't dropped the webkit requirement yet - but they will have to at least in some parts of the world and everyone expects they'll just drop it universally late this year. So it's possible V will be ready before the requirement is dropped, in which case we'll beat the other guys. Whether they stay with webkit or switch back to blink later ... I can't guess (and shouldn't try).
-
@sgunhouse Is planned only in Europe or in not USA countries afaik.
I'd exclude a blink iOS vivaldi with these conditions otherwise they should manage two mobile editions.Vivaldi Stable+Snap | Patience Is The Key To Get The Vivaldi Spree | Unsupported Extensions | Github | w11 + Kde Manjaro + Android 13
-
@luetage not saying webkit is bad, but having a browser for a specific platform work with another engine is indeed extra work.
As you say could have been good to wait a bit more, but it was impossible to know at that time, and still is since it's not really clear what apple will do.
It always shocked me that this was allowed to apple by "anti monopoly" agencies... -
@Hadden89 said in iOS browser without webkit?:
@sgunhouse Is planned only in Europe or in not USA countries afaik.
I'd exclude a blink iOS vivaldi with these conditions otherwise they should manage two mobile editions.there is nothing official - and it should not happen before iOS 17 - but the most reliable rumour sources say what you have posted here. If this will be the outcome the apparently bad timing - as pointed out by @luetage - would be a good timing, since the novelty will impact only the EU, you need to keep alive a webkit version of the browser for the rest of the world.
-
I asked Jon recently about this topic. Here's his answer.
-
I personally doubt Apple will keep on enforcing webkit for other regions when they drop the requirement within EU. Keeping this would generate too much additional complexity to both sides.
And how would Apple effectively enforce for example a US user to not simply create a EU based Apple account and use that to download Chrome with chromium from the EU store instead of using the US version of Chrome with webkit. Combine in the fact that Apple is facing the reality of having to open up for additional app stores to be used on iPhone/iPads. Yeah i just don´t see any real way for them to limit this effectively.
Also dropping webkit requirement worldwide would be a fantastic opportunity for Apple to pull off some holier than thou PR (as they often do) by painting this as them being fair,open to competition etc and the good guy when in reality they are being proactive and doing it before again being forced by lawmakers.
Doing something "voluntarily" shows you as someone coming from a position of power where as doing something because you are forced too makes you look weak.
-
@pjol you made some good and valid points, but is Apple going to let its walled garden - and some of its revenues - being breached without putting up some sort of smart fight?
MacOS - waiting for iOS
-
@TalGarik I´m thinking this browser lockdown is already a lost fight on several levels so it might be at a point to just cut their losses and move on.
And i guess i fail to understand how forcing browser engine is generating revenue for them. You have any examples? Only thing i can think of the top of my head is revenue from safari extension developers. But surely that can´t be such a high source of revenue on iOS/iPadOS that it is a hill they are willing to have a public very negative pr stand on.
The indirect driver for revenue i guess is the fact that forcing webkit will offer a more consistent/predictable experience for the end user. And that is what brings and keeps many customers with Apple.
Will be interesting to see how this will end up.
-
@pjol I am sure that people at Apple don't care if a guy on a forum isn't ok with their policies. They always dictated to their customer what they can buy and at which price they can buy, and there's no 2nd option. Their customer are happy to do what they're told to do.
Any discussion is just pointless. You can only ignore Apple products if you're not OK with them.http://iancoog.altervista.org/
--=[]=-----------------------------------------------------------------------=[]=--
Windows10 64bits - 8core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz - 16Gb RAM - nVidia GT1030 -
@iAN-CooG said in iOS browser without webkit?:
Any discussion is just pointless.
Why is discussing things pointless? If discussion really is pointless then what is the point in engaging in this conversation?
You can only ignore Apple products if you're not OK with them.
Of course! That is the beauty of free choice!
-
@pjol thanks to Safari Apple controls 24% of browser usage on mobile - that's revenue, how much of its success is due to the common belief between iOS users that "every ioS browser is just a reskinned Safari?" - how much of that market share will be lost the day the webkit limitation will be lifted? I bet Google and Microsoft will advertise heavily to promote their new and real browsers to get a piece of that market share.
If that day will come I will stop using Safari, the day Opera on iOS will be the same as on Android there will be no point to even think about Safari.
-
@TalGarik they already had to drop some of their "walled garden". Not long ago you could not set up any browser/mail client as default in iOS except for the ones from apple. Which was very annoying by the way!
But now you have a setting to do that.I agree with @pjol that they are doing this because they must see it as a lost battle and they chose to still make something out of it, so they are seen as "good guys" when they have been blocking this for so long (which is totally the opposite).
Not sure about the revenue part but i think the ecosystem factor plays an important role here, apple (as many others) built an ecosystem of services around their products.
If you use their browser, mail client, calendar... fully integrated with iCloud you are more likely to get a subscription, add to this itunes store and other services (don't know about others they might have).
Also, most of the population using a smartphone has no knowledge/does not care about how to put other companies services into an iPhone or the other way around. -
I think it is helpful to realise in this discussion that Vivaldi could have built a "Vivaldi" based on 'Apple-WebKit' long ago.
Only then it would have become a 'Safari' knock-off, like 'Firefox' did, which can only be explained by sponsoring Mozilla.Vivaldi probably didn't want to get involved in this deal.
According to the motto, take this or you won't get in with us.'WebKit' is an open source application that is also included in 'Chromium'.
So Apple could take it, shut it down and build its own 'Apple-WebKit' out of it.
Only Apple knows what it does exactly and is unlikely to tell Vivaldi. (Trade secret)If Vivaldi were to build a browser on top of 'Apple-WebKit', they wouldn't know exactly what their browser does.
It is only good and wise that Vivaldi has not and will not get involved in this game.
Still, Apple has not given in.
-
Interestingly, Apple allows Vivaldi in 'macOS'.
They probably know exactly where it's more worthwhile to grab data. -
@ingolftopf sorry, it is not interesting, it is apples and oranges, MacOS - unlike iOS - it is not a closed platform, every software developer can create a product running on it, you do not need to be "allowed" by Apple to produce a software for MacOS.
btw Safari on iOS is usable (as a fact I use it as my default alongside Opera), on MacOS it is ridiculous - if you are used to FF or whatever chromium browser - one could argue that Apple does not care what browser you use on a Mac.
As for iOS we can only speculate about Apple's reasons, security was certainly a factor, if you go to the Play Store you can install even a developer edition, in iOS betas and developer edition have to go through "Test Flight" which is an application that you have to be willing and able to use, it is not something that an unexperienced user can do by chance as it happens on Android.
Then it is easy to argue that Apple knew Microsoft's lesson: there is an advantage having an OS with a built-in browser: market share means money, monopoly ensures the control of the market share.
The way I see it Vivaldi made a colossal mistake ignoring the mobile market for so many years (don't forget that the beta version for Android saw the light in April 2020, a time when the mobile browsing market had already become bigger than the desktop market).
