No Firefox For iOS, Says Mozilla's Product Head 318
hypnosec writes "Jay Sullivan, Mozilla's VP of Product, has revealed that the non-for-profit organization is not going to build an iOS version of its Firefox web browser as long as Apple doesn't mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers. Speaking at SXSW in a mobile browser wars panel Sullivan said that Mozilla is neither building nor planning to build a Firefox version for Apple's iOS. Mozilla pulled Firefox Home from the App Store back in September 2012 following Apple's not so accommodating attitude."
Dear EU (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Insightful)
If the EU force Apple to have a browser ballot on iOS, I do believe Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave :D
On a more serious note: couldn't the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Apple has enough of a market share (yet) to be treated like a monopoly. But if they do manage to get it, the lawsuits should start pouring in.
Re: (Score:2)
Not on the desktop nor mobile markets, no. However, given that IOS, due to its widespread adoption, constitutes a big market for apps itself, and one that's artificially limited by Apple to have only one store - theirs. It could be argued that Apple's SDK provides a means to installing third-party apps, but it's not freely available. I don't see it as a big issue for consumers because it's easy enough today to jump to another similarly capable mobile platform (unlike moving away from PCs with Windows, which
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
However, given that IOS, due to its widespread adoption, constitutes a big market for apps itself, and one that's artificially limited by Apple to have only one store - theirs.
You don't come under monopoly laws for having control of your own product. That's why printer manufacturers are allowed to control inks for their printers, razor manufacturers are allowed to control blades for their razors and console manufacturers are allowed to control games for their consoles. Microsoft was different, because many manufacturers manufacture PCs, and they had monopoly levels of OS on all of them. If they manufactured their own computer, and just put their own OS on it, as Apple do with Mac
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.
Apple isn't a monopoly, but more to this specific point, they aren't abusing the market, which is what MS did. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, but when you abuse your monopoly, you open yourself to legal intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In which market does Apple have a monopoly which they use to gain an advantage for their browser?
The market in the land of make-believe in which every competitor is actually a market unto itself. Like claiming Apple has a monopoly on Macs or a monopoly on AppleTVs despite the fact Macs and AppleTVs are competitors to others.
Re:Dear EU (Score:4, Informative)
Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.
You don't need the source and binary at the same place to be F/OSS.
Re:Dear EU (Score:4, Informative)
Well that is inaccurate.
The reason there is no Firefox port on iOS is that Apple will not allow Firefox on iOS to actually be a port of gecko. Apple requires browsers on iOS to use their webkit backend, all browsers on iOS use the same rendering/javascript/etc engine.
The VLC snafu is due to the fact that Apple adds DRM and further more restrictive licensing terms on all appstore apps that are not compatible with GPL -this is a situation that could be fixed by allowing app authors to upload their own licenses, but so far that is not possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's tons of GPL software on the App Store. The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can give the binary to as many people as you want. They can't run it, but you can give it to them. But more to the point, you can get the source, which is the main requirement. No one is obligated to give away the binary.
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that all browsers on iOS are required to use WebKit. Mozilla uses Gecko. Being open source isn't the issue.
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Informative)
No, it requires all browsers to be a thin wrapper around safari's engine which is WebKit. So it very much is WebKit that's required – specifically the WebKit shipped on the device.
Re:Dear EU (Score:4, Informative)
It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.
Uhm, no, it is webkit that is the requirement. The phrase "thin wrappers around Safari" does not even make sense. Safari is a complete application, not a framework/library; there is no way on iOS to create an app that is a "thin wrapper" around another app.
This is incorrect. The requirement is that alternative browsers use the *built in* webkit and javascript engine. This is a very important distinction. Chrome on iOS is not allowed to supply and use its own webkit and javascript engine that Chrome is using on all other platforms, on iOS it is using the ones built in to iOS. Apple do not allow anyone to supply a rendering engine and javascript engine to iOS, regardless if it is webkit or not. This is why some call them just gui wrappers to the built on browser, which is basically what they are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firstly, there are zero restrictions against the rendering engine. Mozilla could use Gecko if they wanted, and Google could use their version of Webkit. The restriction is against the javascript engine, and Gecko/Webkit would not be very useful in a web browser without one. That's why they have to use Apple's library. There is at least two browsers out there that don't use Apple's library. Opera executes the javascript on their remote proxy and their local rendering engine communicates with that to feed the
Re: (Score:2)
Can't read the article?
There are few reasons because of which third party browsers are not so comfortable with the iOS environment. First and foremost may be the hurdle of not able to carry their rendering techniques and javascript engines over to iOS
Can't use Google?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57439936-93/browser-choice-a-thing-of-the-past/ [cnet.com]
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-problem-with-chrome-for-ios [buzzfeed.com]
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/945460 [mozilla.org]
It's like you're not even trying. I don't think a "rogue" mod is responsible for your karma.
Re: Dear EU (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There are open source apps on the Apple iOS App Store. Only one that comes to mind is xpilot, but there's probably others.
Re:Dear EU (Score:4, Informative)
I was of the understanding that the reason Firefox hasn't been ported to iOS because it is open source. Same reason that VLC got yoinked from the App Store. Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.
That's quite clueless. All MacOS X and iOS apps are stored in "bundles", which are basically directories with a flag that tells the OS to show them to the user as one unit. You can put _anything_ into a bundle. Including the complete source code. So it is quite easy to distribute the source code to _everybody_ downloading the app, without giving them even the choice to get it.
VLC was pulled because one of the developers of one of the libraries that it uses threatened to sue Apple, so Apple pulled it. Whether distribution on the App Store is a GPL violation is an open question, but clearly Apple is right to respect the wishes of the copyright holder (whether they are required to do so legally or not).
Re: (Score:2)
That is nonsense. First of all the only thing mildly problematic is GPL and no other F/OSS license.
On top of that, every iOS application is bundled as a 'directory'. You can easy put the sources into it. The 'backup' on the Mac or on windows youcan simply open with Finder or Explorer and browse to the included sources.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with GPL software and some app stores is that the GPL requires distributors to also provide the source code (for at least 3 years after they distribute the binaries), with Apple's app store they are the distributor but are unwilling to accommodate the distribution clause of the GPL, this is what causes issues with certain FOSS apps.
I don't think that's it. A simple link pointing to source code on the description page in the App Store would be enough to fulfill the requirements of either Apple or the developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the claim is that the GPL (both v2 and v3) say you can't add additional licensing restrictions on end users when you distribute it, which distributing via the App Store does [as you have to agree to Apple's licensing terms to download apps].
I think it is more complicated. I think copyright allows you to do almost nothing, and a license gives you rights to do things. Like the GPL license gives you the right to do certain things, the App Store license gives you different rights. To distribute through the App Store, a developer must agree that anyone downloading from the App Store will have (at least) the rights that Apple states; if the developer has their own license that gives more rights, the user will have those rights as well.
Clearly App
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem arose due to the fact that if someone links a piece of proprietary code (A) to a GPL'd piece of code (B), piece of code (A) will fall under the GPL (excluding run time linking through process communication mechanisms). It was this issue that resulted in the LGPL (library or lesser gpl) which allowed dynamic linking of (A) to (B) and not have (A) become open source.
If VLC is licensed under the GPL, then any code that Apple attach (ie, the DRM module) would result in the Apple code becomin
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.
So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.
Re:Dear EU (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.
If I recall correctly the specific issue was that Apple's standard terms and conditions limits use to 5 "authorized devices", which is more restrictive than the GPL and so in violation of "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Of course you can have as many iTunes accounts as you like so infinite*5 ~= infinite, but technically he was entirely correct.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.
So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
That's not the point. The point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store because people do not understand the story and just assume that Apple pulled it. They removed it by request of one of the developers, and as you explained, because he did not consent to it being there.
The iOS App Store's policies were changed to make it compatible with the GPL before that (due to a different case) and there are plenty of GPL apps up in there to this day.
The lack of VL
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.
So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
That's not the point. The point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store because people do not understand the story and just assume that Apple pulled it. They removed it by request of one of the developers, and as you explained, because he did not consent to it being there.
The iOS App Store's policies were changed to make it compatible with the GPL before that (due to a different case) and there are plenty of GPL apps up in there to this day.
The lack of VLC has nothing to do with it not having a compatible licence, or Apple being "hostile" to open source, as is so often repeated; it's merely the choice of one of the original developers to not allow it to be distributed that way (as is his right).
If what the App store is fully compatible with the GPL, and VLC is released under the GPL, then in fact the original developer has no right at all to stop you me or anyone else from releasing it there. So, why then has no one released it if it is compatible?
Re: (Score:2)
Because Apple doesn't want to get in the middle of a copyright fight between people posting the content and people issuing C&Ds for the content. Apple was happy enough to post it, and when they got a C&D, they pulled it. If anybody else tried to post VLC, the zealot would just C&D Apple again.
There's a ton of GPL content in the app store, and there's nothing about the way it does DRM that violates the GPL. But that doesn't matter to some people, they just plain hate Apple and will send a C&D
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.
Nothing to do with that. VLC doesn't require developers to assign copyright to the main project (unlike most other GPL software). The jerk claimed his own copyright rights in order to pull VLC from the App Store because he didn't like Apple.
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Insightful)
. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM...
That one prefers to respect users & developers alike makes him a "purist"? I'm feeling better about my 20 year descision to avoid Apple products more and more.
Re: (Score:2)
. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM...
That one prefers to respect users & developers alike makes him a "purist"? I'm feeling better about my 20 year descision to avoid Apple products more and more.
Who says purist is a pejorative term? It's simply an accurate descriptor of the developer in question who did not agree that supplying the source separately to the downloaded app was an acceptable interpretation of the GPL. Others have disagreed, and GPL apps have been up on the store before and since. This particular developer's stance is more of a purist one, however. It's not a bad thing, just a different thing.
Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Who put VLC on the Apple App Store? Was it not the other developers or some subset of them? So when the developers lack concensus, Apple is to blame? This is interesting. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he respects users so much, he won't let them use software he helped with.
No, he will let them use the software. It's Apple that's saying no, it must all be locked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dear EU (Score:5, Informative)
It is. But since Apple don't have an overwhelming share of the mobile space, that's allowed: customers got other options.
MS got sued because on the desktop, there is no other option, and that OS monopoly gave MS leverage in other areas (browsers, apps...). Apple don't have that kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
It is. But since Apple don't have an overwhelming share of the mobile space, that's allowed:
This may be changing - in terms of usage, Android market share seems to be progressively taking more and more Apple market share (correct me if I'm wrong). However, in terms of developer mindshare, I would think Apple is still beating out Android, particularly in tablet space (source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/divine-intervention-googles-nexus-7-is-a-fantastic-200-tablet/3/-lasttwoparagraphs [arstechnica.com]).
customers got other options.
It's not inconceivable that someone would be in a position where they have to buy an Apple product. I k
In the only metric changing, Apple not monopoly (Score:2)
Android market share seems to be progressively taking more and more Apple market share
In that case there's even less of a call to force Apple to provide alternate browser choice, since overall they still have no-where near a majority of the market nor a trend to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. But I would sure hate if someone forced me to buy an Ipad.
Re:Umm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Try to buy a non-MS machine at any retail store other than Apple..... Yup... That's called MONOPOPLY
No, it's not.
what about windows phone and the win 8 app store (Score:2)
what about windows phone and the win 8 app store they may hit the same laws.
Competition Laws (Score:3)
No, not according to the more pro-active EU competition/monopoly laws or similar US laws. Apple's market share is too small to fall under "monopoly" in any or all European countries, where the distribution is quite varied from nation to nation. Scandinavia is not at all representative of the European handset market as a whole, my dear neighbor.
Furthermore the fact that a product only sup
Re: (Score:2)
No, not according to the more pro-active EU competition/monopoly laws or similar US laws. Apple's market share is too small to fall under "monopoly" in any or all European countries, where the distribution is quite varied from nation to nation. Scandinavia is not at all representative of the European handset market as a whole, my dear neighbor.
Monopoly questions tend depend mostly on the definition of "the market" - you are talking of the "handset market" which is the view someone who would not like Apple to be a monopolist would naturally choose, others would prefer to talk about "the smartphone market" or (even better) "the tablet market".
With some effort you will always find a market that is narrow enough to rationalize regulation on grounds of a monopoly- the question is whether you want to, and that's a political question first and foremost.
Re: (Score:2)
If the EU force Apple to have a browser ballot on iOS, I do believe Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave :D
On a more serious note: couldn't the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?
Apple's tight control over their iOS operating system has creeped me out so much that I have ditched my Macbook Pro of five years for a Linux laptop. I know OSX is not so tightly controlled, but I believe that iOS shows Apple's long term intentions for operating systems, and I don't like it one bit. I don't like the idea of a single company controlling what I can run on my own computer. I don't care if they are permissive or restrictive. The very fact that a single company controls what can run on comp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple might not be a de-facto monopoly as was MS in the days of the browser wars.
Nor does say Ford have a monopoly for car tyres. Yet would Ford claim a 30% cut every time you want to sell your tyres to a Ford owner you'd tell them to see you in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear person who doesn't understand what anti-competitive behaviour is. The reason MS had to change things was because they were leveraging a monopoly in the OS market to gain a monopoly in the browser market. Apple is not doing this. In fact, if anything, google is the most likely next on the chopping block, because of exploiting their search monopoly to heavily advertise and drive into the browser market.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, quite the reverse. If you have more than one browser, the attacker has to find a vulnerability in either, making it much easier to attack.
That said, the argument "it's for security" is still bullshit.
Cydia please. (Score:2, Interesting)
Dear Mozilla,
Please don't worry about what Apple wants, release Firefox for iOS in Cydia.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. Having been given an unwanted present of an iPad (and now I can't get myself a real tablet for fear of offense), I'd really like to see a port of Firefox to Cydia. Actually, given that the GNU utils and X server already exist, why not port a window-manager too, and run a real OS on it?
Re:Cydia please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Choice of tablet is a fairly personal decision. Why are you worried about offending anyone? Just buy yourself the tablet you want and be done with it. Just be honest if asked. "This tablet does things I can't on the iPad," " This tablet has better specs than the iPad," etc. There are a LOT of reasons to want an upgrade from an iPad to something non-Apple.
Re:Cydia please. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what I hate about perceptive generous people and their expensive and thoughtful gifts. They always manage to get whatever you need almost right. That "almost" part is enough to leave you slightly uncomfortable with what you have but not enough to invest money into something better, since your gains would now be disproportionate to the amount spent. Just give me a cheap, ugly fucking novelty tie I can throw away and we'll both be a lot happier.
Re:Cydia please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good god! You're the idiot buying up and distributing all those fruit cakes every year, aren't you? I wish I could hate you to death...
Re: (Score:2)
Phew that was lucky. We just give booze. If they don't like our choice, not to worry they can just dump it off at the next party they go to :)
Critical Mass Needed (Score:2)
Firefox may be open source, but Mozilla has demonstrated their need to divert resources where they count the most. This is, for instance, why Firefox is no longer developed on Maemo.
So beyond the potential political or legal ramifications, the sliver of market share that Cydia possesses is simply not worth the engineering effort. And the gamble that releasing it for iPhone would somehow influence Apple to allow third-party browsers, given Apple's stubborn history, would likely be foolhardy.
aside: I have a
Re:Open Source please (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple IS competition. There are two very strong platforms for smartphones right now, and they both improve almost daily because of intense competition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not the only competition, though, If that's a factor on your choice of phone, wait a bit and buy comething with Tizen, Ubuntu, Firefox OS etc. Because, from an user's - and society's - point of view, there's good and bad competition. And competition that litigates aggressively to ban competitors, like Apple, or to extort competitors, like Microsoft, is surely bad competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, any company is free to fork Android. Take a look at Amazon. They seem to be perfectly content right now.
Oh wait, you're talking being in the inner circle where they're privy to what's being developed before it's released and dropped to the AOSP. Explain why anyone should help the competition? Putting the code to AOSP is currently miles ahead of most other companies.
Ideals (Score:2)
I wish more large developers would do the same. All they need to do is allow an 'install external app' checkbox to make most happy, but that would break the app-store lock-in. Personally, I think your business should rely on people wanting to use it, not being forced to. The app store has value, but to me it's unacceptable to have no alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
the risk to the 99% of users who don't care is too high, for only 1% of users who care (though that 1% is very vocal, especially on nerd sites)
OK then... (Score:5, Insightful)
... will they allow other browsers on their new mobile OS?
Re: (Score:3)
:>)
Why wouldn't they? That's the whole premise of free software: the freedom to be able to do what one wants and needs, not just the "free" aspect of its cost being zero. If it's possible to build a browser in javascript or java, then you could run a browser in a browser. And you could run a browser in the mozilla mobile OS. [warning, i am not a spokesgirl for mozilla, firefox, godzilla, gojira, or any other software projects other than
no, not any ridick excuses for FFox OS here! (Score:2)
.
??? You must be mixing me up with someone else. I was neither "prepared to make the most ridick excuses for Firefox OS" nor "making the most ridick excuses..." nor "making ANY excuses for FFox OS". The GP post to this is my first post on this topic, so must be thinking of someone else's beliefs or belief statements.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was possible to run a browser in a browser, then you could do it on iOS too.
Yo, dawg! I heard you liked web browsing, so I... Oh never mind.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They've neither forbidden it nor made it extra difficult, though it may not be easy.
Have a look at the comments over at http://samuelsidler.com/2013/03/firefox-os-and-browser-choice/.
Yes. (Score:2)
Anyone is welcome to make their own alternate browser for Firefox OS. (Mozilla would surely encourage it it.)
Re:OK then... (Score:4, Informative)
The comments here are explain this pretty well:
http://samuelsidler.com/2013/03/firefox-os-and-browser-choice/#comment-183 [samuelsidler.com]
Summary:
FirefoxOS is roughly an Android kernel, Gecko-based userspace, and the Gaia HTML+JS homescreen apps. Anyone is free to replace the Gecko-based userspace with something else, e.g. a Webkit-based userspace. We (Mozilla) are assisting with this by standardizing the phone-specific HTML+JS APIs so they can be reimplemented by others, by trying to ensure Gaia doesn't have unnecessary dependencies on non-standard stuff, and of course by making everything under our control open source. Your OS should be able to run FirefoxOS apps and we have open-sourced our app store so you might even be able to run our app store (I'm not sure). Apple obviously provides nothing comparable for iOS!
However, if you replace Gecko then the result isn't really FirefoxOS any more and you wouldn't be allowed to use the Firefox trademark (nor would it be appropriate for you to do so).
If you're asking for the ability to install an alternative native-code Web engine alongside Gecko on FFOS, the answer is no; giving Gecko sole control of FFOS userspace simplifies a lot of problems and increases performance and security. See http://robert.ocallahan.org/2013/03/canonicals-new-mir-display-server-and.html [ocallahan.org] for more.
Re: (Score:2)
To elaborate on that last point: supporting native apps or a different engine in FFOS alongside Gecko would require us to write extra code to support new APIs specifically for that --- the APIs and integration points you'd need simply don't exist in FFOS currently. In contrast, the infrastructure for native apps already exists and all Apple has to do to support alternative browser engines is relax some of their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
So the answer is no. In FirefoxOS there will be only one browser engine. They are providing access to the API (for compatibility with apps) and kernel but after that you're on your own and will be distributing your own fork and btw the Firefox browser won't work on it either unless you also fork that and roll your own as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if emacs can get an editor http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/02/16/0251239/evil-almost-full-vim-implementation-in-emacs-reaches-10 [slashdot.org], why can't firefox have a browser?
hawk
Apple is good (Score:2, Funny)
Apple takes care of me -- I don't have to thiwnk about words like standards, or openess, to see the content Apple provides. All my friends like Apple too. Apple is the only company whom provides a user esperience -- I don't need anything else -- people think I'm cool.
News? (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this news?
a) Why would Mozilla build a browser Apple has already said it won't allow?
b) This same stance has been repeated by Mozilla multiple times.
Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
bs updates that I never noticed really effected me!
why does it bother you so much, do you keep score?
Re: (Score:3)
How many BS Firefox updates were there last year with nothing significant delivered.
You know, those of us who work in IT would appreciate it if people would learn to appreciate it when there's maintenance and stuff doesn't break.
And Android Rules (Score:2)
Now Android has it's own issues - namely upgrade paths. But it does run your choice of browser without complaint.
I remember when I got my Android phone - I worked with a bunch of iPhone users. I used to listen to them complain about they couldn't install cool app x, and said I had no trouble putting on my Android phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I got my Android phone - I worked with a bunch of iPhone users. I used to listen to them complain about they couldn't install cool app x, and said I had no trouble putting on my Android phone.
In your dreams.
Who cares? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
My browser blocks ads and scripts, customizes pages with Greasemonkey scripts, and removes tracking elements on pages. The built-in Safari doesn't do anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
And those things have nothing to do with the rendering engine or JS engine.
Mozilla could absolutely provide something that could support those features on iOS.
BTW Safari does support extensions and has an adblocker and user script support available via 3rd party, as does Chrome. Clearly you haven't cred to look at options in 2-3 years, being smug and all.
http://safariadblock.com/ [safariadblock.com]
http://extensions.apple.com/ [apple.com]
https://github.com/os0x/NinjaKit [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, by that reasoning, Opera is written in Objective C, seen as it does have an iOS version?
Also, Firefox can hardly be said to be written in XUL, it's more than likely written in C/C++ and uses XUL internally for user interfaces.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about language: you have a choice of several. It's about the rendering engine: Apple only allow their own on the platform.
Chrome (and Opera Mobile, if it's available for iOS, not sure) use Safari's rendering engine; only the user interface is different.
Opera Mini (as opposed to Mobile) does its rendering on Opera's servers, which then send over a compressed and simplified version of the page, and apparently that's allowed... or not, and maybe Opera Mini also uses Safari's renderer.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome on iOS uses the same WebKit version as Safari?
Re: (Score:2)
Opera is not available on iOS. Opera Mini is available, but it is not a browser strictly speaking.
Once Opera converts from Presto to Webkit it may have an iOS version.
Re: (Score:2)
Counterexample:
My employer has deployed a heavy-handed security environment on all Windows workstations along with an antique version of IE. Chrome consistently crashes and hangs to the point that it's unusable. Firefox runs like a champ and has become my browser of choice at work.
Anyone can find a single sample to prove anything.
Re: (Score:2)
My employer has deployed a heavy-handed security environment on all Windows workstations along with an antique version of IE.
Forcing IE5 or IE6 for security reasons is, at least, unusual.
Re:Not a problem for Chrome (Score:5, Informative)
Well, save for the fact that 'Chrome' on iOS is just a skin over Apple's WebKit with the slower JS engine Apple 'graciously' lets apps us vs the faster one their browser can access on the same device.
Re:Not a problem for Chrome (Score:5, Informative)
You mean "writable executable pages," not directory memory access. The reason Safari is faster than UIWebView is because it can use a JIT to compile JavaScript into native code. Doing this requires the ability to create a writable page of memory that can be written.
Apps in the app store aren't allowed to do this. iOS loads the app into memory, marks all the text section pages as read only, marks all the data section pages as no-execute, and only then passes control to the program. This means that an App store program can't run the JIT because it can't create a writable page that is executable.
However, even given that, I find it impossible that there's no way Apple could give UIWebView access to the JIT. It would just take some amount of effort to architect it and write it, and the end result would probably make their own Safari more secure, but why bother doing that when you can just make every other browser on the platform be unnecessarily slower?
Still not Chrome (Score:2)
True, but it's still not really Chrome as it doesn't use their version of webkit or their JS engine.
Just a skin.
Re:Good riddance to an anti-consumer product (Score:5, Informative)
I can feed trolls with the best of 'em. Burn, karma, burn!
The fact that the rendering engine would be Gecko on their PC and WebKit on their iPhone just doesn't fucking matter.
Apple limits third party IOS developers to UIWebview, while Safari gets to use the Nitro JIT javascript engine. It's an automatic performance disadvantage for any aftermarket browser. That fucking matters.
It really shows that Mozilla's focus is on themselves and software developers, not on the consumer end user, who has been running Firefox on their PC for years now and Safari on their iPhone for years now and just wants a Firefox interface and bookmark syncing on their iPhone.
No, it shows that Mozilla is smart enough to recognize and avoid pitched battles with Apple. Why fight to have a weird mutant version of their flagship project on a closed device, damaging their brand with artificially limited performance and a rendering engine that doesn't act like Firefox?
If that is Mozilla's focus, then they don't belong on iOS and good riddance.
Mozilla's focus is on opening up the web [mozilla.org]. You're right - they don't "belong" on closed, controlled iOS. They will, however, try to encourage Apple to let them in.
On iOS, the end user is at the top of the hierarchy, and software developers and content producers all work for the user. The user already has an HTML5 renderer in their iPhone, they already have a TCP/IP stack. You do not need to replace them to build a browser, and in fact, it is much better security that you can't replace them. That is what is best for the consumer: a secure renderer that is highly-optimized specifically for their device.
Who decides what's in your interest? If it's Apple, then Apple is at the top of the hierarchy, not users as you say.
As a user myself, I value the ability to use Firefox over Chrome on my Android device. With Android, I can decide what's in my interests. The defaults work for "most consumers", and for everyone else there is a measure of freedom.
There are plenty of reasons that software monocultures are bad, and Google is your friend there.
There are hundreds of 3rd party browsers on iOS, many with very innovative features. Like Skyfire, which converts Flash Video to ISO standard video on a server and essentially enables you to run Flash on iPhone or iPad. There are browsers that are exploring lots of gestures, or deep social integration.
Cute little user-interface experiments are one thing, but that's all niche-market small time stuff. Deep social integration and gestures? Tee hee. Calling a UIWebview wrapper a browser is kind of endearing.
Mozilla is missing out on all of that because they are pouty, entitled developers who want their feet rubbed and cheeks kissed before they deign to bless us with their bloated, mangled code.
You realize that Firefox is the best browser on the memory usage front, and near tops in performance right? If your gut feeling about Mozilla is based on a 2006-era opinion, you might want to look at what they've done lately.
And of course, Mozilla knows better than Apple what Apple users want. As if.
Most users want options and the ability to use their devices as they see fit. Mozilla has only ever supported users' rights. Apple can't say that.
And finally, Mozilla's hypocrisy: note that the one and only HTML renderer on Firefox OS is Gecko. And Firefox OS has zero 3rd party browsers as of right now.
Hey now, third party browsers can just wrap Gecko (actually, it's more like just opening an IFRAME, since the UI is all HTML.) In your world, using the system renderer is a good thing, right? What are you complaining about? /s
In all seriousness though, it could be done with some work. I
Re: (Score:2)
Given that a typical netbook [primatelabs.com] is slower than an iPhone [primatelabs.com], and significantly slower than an iPad [primatelabs.com], it's maybe not such an issue.
Re:Why do I feel that sometimes... (Score:4, Funny)
...were I to own an Apple device, it would be like living in North Korea?
You are confused. It's Samsung, and it's not North Korea, it's South Korea. Apple devices make you feel like Southern California. Which is on an altogether different continent on the other side of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple devices make you feel like Southern California.
They really don't, because southern california has hookers and blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the app store I see roughly 2 dozens of browsers for iPads/iPhones. Most of them iOS only. So independend developers easily can make a browser for iOS ... and even make money from it, but Mozilla can't?
Sorry this claim is ridiculous.
The limitation is that those browsers must use the Webkit built into iOS, so Chrome was an easy one - they already use Webkit. All of those other browsers also use it, but Firefox uses Gecko as their engine.
They just don't see the need to create an iOS version that would be considerably different to what they currently have.