I've been working on a small side project and I can totally sympathise with this. Chrome has 2 features right now, and has had them for more than a year, that Firefox hasn't yet implemented. One of those is the new navigation API. There's a polyfill but it's complex and can't 100% fill the gap.
I don't want to rely on blink browsers only but when you look at being able to implement a feature in 3 lines Vs many or not at all then...
My site doesn't need either of these features. What they've implemented are nice APIs for things developers were previously doing with much more overhead. If you're making something by yourself and only have a small number of users right now then those times saving shortcuts are incredibly helpful.
If someone came to me and said they want to use it but it doesn't work in Firefox then I'd... think about it. Hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, but you can also point to features in Safari or Firefox that chrome doesn't have (weirdly often CSS features?) and make the same argument.
But if you say "only supporting chrome is the easiest option" you're also saying "I want to force my users to use the browser with the least privacy protection made by one of the biggest advertising companies on the planet with a long history of gross privacy violations".
There are also a number of features the google has put into chrome that Firefox and WebKit don't support because they have severe privacy issues. Because if a spec compromises user privacy that's a deal breaker for every engine other than chrome, because chrome's privacy model is "the bare minimum possible".
Google is literally only just talking about blocking third party cookies in chrome this year, despite that being the default behaviour of webkit from day 1. To try and divert attention from chrome intentionally disabling that privacy feature until now (because they've now got sufficient work arounds for third party cookie blocking) they're using the same terminology ("tracking protection" or some such) to describe re-enabling a basic privacy feature as Firefox and Safari use for the various technologies that protect against google's work arounds for third party cookie blocking.
If you say "I only want to support chrome" that means you're also saying "I don't care about user privacy".
Well for my example what I want to support is me to begin with, which means Brave, which just so happens to use the same engine as Chrome. Which is helpful because most folks use Chrome. I might not like that, but that is the way of things.
If I had paying customers then I would likely support Firefox. But I don't think you can appeal to companies to do so on moral grounds, which is what most of the comments appear to be saying. If the cost of compatibility is more than the benefit then it won't happen. The only moral appeal you can make is to the end users: use Firefox, it has these benefits over other browsers. Then once that happens compatible support is a no-brainer for devs.
But that hasn't happened. You can get user privacy with the blink engine with various browsers. You can argue that X isn't as good as Y in this area, but honestly, Mozilla hasn't had a great track record either, and imo they've been a very poor steward for Firefox in recent years. I used Firefox from when it was named Phoenix until around 2020 but now I feel pretty meh about it.
But see that's exactly the point. It's much easier for developers to support the majority browser, and that's what they do. MS did lots of shitty things to ensure that once IE was the majority browser it stayed there, but no one seems to remember that it was in the IE4+5 era a faster and more capable browser than netscape. It was only once they got there, and once people started making IE only sites that they were able to then leverage that position to ensure they remained there.
Saying you can use non-chrome versions of blink is entirely moot: if every site requires and is only tested in chrome, then privacy filters in literally every non-chrome engine or blink wrapper is moot because sites will break (cynically I'd guess first breakage would be blink based engines - or UA strings - on google sites). Saying "they're the same engine so they're equivalent" is nonsense. If you use a privacy-preserving blink wrapper then it's disabling a bunch of the chrome-only features that webkit and gecko don't implement, and it's blocking a bunch of tracking mechanisms that chrome uses to support google's revenue. Both restrictions in a non-chrome blink wrapper will cause sites to fail, and we know this is the case because there are already sites that fail in safari and Firefox due to those privacy protections, even though developers know there's a major (? still not sure if this is actually true in the EU) platform where testing a non-chrome browser should be required.
There's nothing you've written that I don't disagree with but it doesn't invalidate my points either. Companies did not support Firefox until it became popular. It became popular by being better than IE despite ms efforts to keep users.
An alternative browser needs people like us to rally behind it and build the user base, be better than Chrome so sellable to enough people that supporting it as a platform is worthwhile. Sorry but it's not Firefox for me while it's backed by Mozilla as things stand. I'm totally dismayed by their direction and how they spend their money. As far as I'm concerned Mozilla has been compromised by the executives and board that controls it and Firefox can't do anything useful unless the board is replaced or it is spun out into an independent oss project - which wouldn't surprise me if it happened anyway, I think the only interest those execs have in Firefox is the money the search bar brings in.
The only privacy related feature that has broken sites for me is third party cookies and that used to be the standard, not some chrome only feature.
> Will new browser engines eventually make it to iOS for EU users?
Yes, but Apple _just_ announced yesterday the criteria and plans for that. I doubt any browser makers (except maybe Chrome?) have their browser ready to go and it uses new APIs so they would still have some work to do.
Upon reading the article, did I get it correctly that this is talking solely about the default browser choice? I.e., if I understood it right, it still won’t allow non-webkit browsers with their own browser engines.
Here is the relevant quote from the article:
> EU users will see a choice of browsers when they first launch Safari that can be set as the systemwide default browser. For each country, that list will contain the 12 most popular browsers from its App Store storefront displayed to the user in a random order.
Again, assuming my interpretation is correct, the US users aren’t losing out on much, since they are able to install those same browsers from the App Store. They would just have one less menu to click through when setting up a new phone (because that “choose your default browser” dialog would be skipped).
Note: the ability to set the default web browser app on iOS has been present since iOS14 iirc.
> If I understood it right, it still won’t allow non-webkit browsers with their own browser engines.
No, Apple is going to allow 3rd party browser engines but initially it will be the same apps everyone has access to. Browser makers that want to use their own engine have to apply and be granted permission.
> Browser makers that want to use their own engine have to apply and be granted permission.
Apple and their approvals. Did the EU (or the Epic v Apple judge) say anything about approvals or that they shall allow these behaviors. Don't approvals imply denials which would violate the law?
> I was talking about this article specifically, which has zero mentions of third party browser engines.
I mean this article itself doesn't talk about non-webkit browsers but just yesterday Apple said they were allowing them in the same post they talked about how they were going to presenting this screen. These things go almost hand-in-hand. Anyone who said something to the effect of "Yes, they still won't allow non-webkit browsers" would be 100% wrong, even if this article didn't cover it.
> Upon reading the article, did I get it correctly that this is talking solely about the default browser choice?
The answer to this is "Yes" but your next bit:
> I.e., if I understood it right, it still won’t allow non-webkit browsers with their own browser engines.
What an odd response. Your entire comment was predicated on the assumption that Apple would not be allowing 3rd party browser engines, so I'm not sure why you're acting like it's irrelevant to point out that that's wrong.
> Sure, Apple might have plans to allow that, and there are probably articles mentioning it.
Not "might", they do have plans to allow that, and there are articles mentioning it.
Sincere question - why does this matter? From what I understand, all iOS browsers are basically just safari with a different skin on top. I don't see much point to me using Firefox on iOS except for the syncing. I'm probably missing something though.
They released new APIs and policy yesterday to allow non-Webkit based browsers in the EU, among many other changes to comply with the EU's Digital Millennium Act.
It is hard for me to imagine any browser makers switching to a non-Webkit-based implementation if they can only do it in the EU. They would need to support the Webkit-based code as well for other regions, which seems like a lot of work.
With the third-party appstore also being available in the EU, someone will surely roll a non-webkit browser, though I have no idea how hard that is going to be as I don't develop for iOS.
You are not wrong and that's probably what Apple is counting on. Especially since if you rely on services from outside the EU then those people can't really test their website on the non-webkit browser engines. Of course if more countries force Apple to allow 3rd party browser engines the scales could flip.
And when lots of people choose Chrome and Google is the default is that a win?
I’d argue a massive step forward and back. People should be able to choose. I want to choose a different search engine than Google or the others, and I want Firefox too here in the US. Chrome as the dominant browser comes with its own issues.
Vivaldi got pretty screwed, excluded from all wealthy European nations. How is this even legal in EU, its supposed to be a common market with equal access.
39 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 43.1 ms ] threadThis seems like more of an awareness thing than an actual change in functionality.
Can’t blame them, the title is rather misleading. I originally thought the same thing until I read the actual article.
there was an article posted yesterday that claimed that they would be forced to do just that.
I do however recognize web developers looking forward to just saying “you must use chrome”, just as they spent decades saying you have to use IE.
I don't want to rely on blink browsers only but when you look at being able to implement a feature in 3 lines Vs many or not at all then...
If someone came to me and said they want to use it but it doesn't work in Firefox then I'd... think about it. Hasn't happened yet.
But if you say "only supporting chrome is the easiest option" you're also saying "I want to force my users to use the browser with the least privacy protection made by one of the biggest advertising companies on the planet with a long history of gross privacy violations".
There are also a number of features the google has put into chrome that Firefox and WebKit don't support because they have severe privacy issues. Because if a spec compromises user privacy that's a deal breaker for every engine other than chrome, because chrome's privacy model is "the bare minimum possible".
Google is literally only just talking about blocking third party cookies in chrome this year, despite that being the default behaviour of webkit from day 1. To try and divert attention from chrome intentionally disabling that privacy feature until now (because they've now got sufficient work arounds for third party cookie blocking) they're using the same terminology ("tracking protection" or some such) to describe re-enabling a basic privacy feature as Firefox and Safari use for the various technologies that protect against google's work arounds for third party cookie blocking.
If you say "I only want to support chrome" that means you're also saying "I don't care about user privacy".
If I had paying customers then I would likely support Firefox. But I don't think you can appeal to companies to do so on moral grounds, which is what most of the comments appear to be saying. If the cost of compatibility is more than the benefit then it won't happen. The only moral appeal you can make is to the end users: use Firefox, it has these benefits over other browsers. Then once that happens compatible support is a no-brainer for devs.
But that hasn't happened. You can get user privacy with the blink engine with various browsers. You can argue that X isn't as good as Y in this area, but honestly, Mozilla hasn't had a great track record either, and imo they've been a very poor steward for Firefox in recent years. I used Firefox from when it was named Phoenix until around 2020 but now I feel pretty meh about it.
Saying you can use non-chrome versions of blink is entirely moot: if every site requires and is only tested in chrome, then privacy filters in literally every non-chrome engine or blink wrapper is moot because sites will break (cynically I'd guess first breakage would be blink based engines - or UA strings - on google sites). Saying "they're the same engine so they're equivalent" is nonsense. If you use a privacy-preserving blink wrapper then it's disabling a bunch of the chrome-only features that webkit and gecko don't implement, and it's blocking a bunch of tracking mechanisms that chrome uses to support google's revenue. Both restrictions in a non-chrome blink wrapper will cause sites to fail, and we know this is the case because there are already sites that fail in safari and Firefox due to those privacy protections, even though developers know there's a major (? still not sure if this is actually true in the EU) platform where testing a non-chrome browser should be required.
An alternative browser needs people like us to rally behind it and build the user base, be better than Chrome so sellable to enough people that supporting it as a platform is worthwhile. Sorry but it's not Firefox for me while it's backed by Mozilla as things stand. I'm totally dismayed by their direction and how they spend their money. As far as I'm concerned Mozilla has been compromised by the executives and board that controls it and Firefox can't do anything useful unless the board is replaced or it is spun out into an independent oss project - which wouldn't surprise me if it happened anyway, I think the only interest those execs have in Firefox is the money the search bar brings in.
The only privacy related feature that has broken sites for me is third party cookies and that used to be the standard, not some chrome only feature.
So it will just be giving them a choice between the existing browsers (that use webkit) in the store?
Will new browser engines eventually make it to iOS for EU users?
https://developer.apple.com/support/dma-and-apps-in-the-eu/#...
https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
Yes, but Apple _just_ announced yesterday the criteria and plans for that. I doubt any browser makers (except maybe Chrome?) have their browser ready to go and it uses new APIs so they would still have some work to do.
Here is the relevant quote from the article:
> EU users will see a choice of browsers when they first launch Safari that can be set as the systemwide default browser. For each country, that list will contain the 12 most popular browsers from its App Store storefront displayed to the user in a random order.
Again, assuming my interpretation is correct, the US users aren’t losing out on much, since they are able to install those same browsers from the App Store. They would just have one less menu to click through when setting up a new phone (because that “choose your default browser” dialog would be skipped).
Note: the ability to set the default web browser app on iOS has been present since iOS14 iirc.
No, Apple is going to allow 3rd party browser engines but initially it will be the same apps everyone has access to. Browser makers that want to use their own engine have to apply and be granted permission.
Apple and their approvals. Did the EU (or the Epic v Apple judge) say anything about approvals or that they shall allow these behaviors. Don't approvals imply denials which would violate the law?
Sure, Apple might have plans to allow that, and there are probably articles mentioning it. That’s not what this article is about at all tho.
I mean this article itself doesn't talk about non-webkit browsers but just yesterday Apple said they were allowing them in the same post they talked about how they were going to presenting this screen. These things go almost hand-in-hand. Anyone who said something to the effect of "Yes, they still won't allow non-webkit browsers" would be 100% wrong, even if this article didn't cover it.
> Upon reading the article, did I get it correctly that this is talking solely about the default browser choice?
The answer to this is "Yes" but your next bit:
> I.e., if I understood it right, it still won’t allow non-webkit browsers with their own browser engines.
This part is why I said "No, ..."
> Sure, Apple might have plans to allow that, and there are probably articles mentioning it.
Not "might", they do have plans to allow that, and there are articles mentioning it.
Am I wrong?
If Google expects these rules to be imitated globally over the next 5-10 years it might make sense to invest in a non-WebKit based implementation.
Also new EU roles force Apple to have other browser engines.
I’d argue a massive step forward and back. People should be able to choose. I want to choose a different search engine than Google or the others, and I want Firefox too here in the US. Chrome as the dominant browser comes with its own issues.
Notice that the Onion Browser is listed in all 27 member states as among the 12 most popular browsers.