Google Is Working On Blink-Based iOS Browser, Contrary To Apple's WebKit Rule (theregister.com) 73
Longtime Slashdot reader Dotnaught writes: "Google's Chromium developers have begun work on an experimental web browser for Apple's iOS using the search giant's Blink engine," reports The Register. "That's unexpected because the current version of Chrome for iOS uses Apple's WebKit rendering engine under the hood. Apple requires every iOS browser to use WebKit and its iOS App Store Review Guidelines state, 'Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.'"
Google insists this is an experiment and isn't intended for release. But the stripped-down, Blink-based browser could be preparation for European competition rules that look like they will require Apple to stop requiring that other browser makers use its WebKit engine. "This is an experimental prototype that we are developing as part of an open source project with the goal to understand certain aspects of performance on iOS," said a Google spokesperson. "It will not be available to users and we'll continue to abide by Apple's policies."
Google insists this is an experiment and isn't intended for release. But the stripped-down, Blink-based browser could be preparation for European competition rules that look like they will require Apple to stop requiring that other browser makers use its WebKit engine. "This is an experimental prototype that we are developing as part of an open source project with the goal to understand certain aspects of performance on iOS," said a Google spokesperson. "It will not be available to users and we'll continue to abide by Apple's policies."
Do not want (Score:2, Insightful)
If I wanted to use Google stuff, I would be using Android.
Why the heck would an iPhone user wanted to use Google browser? To leak more data to Google?
Re: (Score:2)
If Google gets to use its own browser engine and store on iPhones, then eventually their services will likely work best with it. I don't think Google will sabotage their websites for Safari exactly, but they will push ahead with standards faster than Apple might want to follow etc. So you might want to use their browser for better access to their services, or not if you don't like the privacy bargain involved.
For the moment Apple can use their monopoly power to make sure Google can't force you into that cho
Re:Do not want (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the heck would an iPhone user wanted to use Google browser?
To have a browser that works better than Safari, obviously.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Do not want (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Do not want (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s bullshit. Safari is nothing like IE6. IE6 had massive market share and lots of crappy web content creators developed for IE rather than standards. Safari is a minority browser. Google is more like IE6, especially if this initiative ends up with web content that only works on a Google web browser.
Re: (Score:3)
Safari/WebKit is the IE6 of the 2020s
And how is it like IE again? Safari represents a tiny percentage of browsers. It only works on Apple devices which people will remind you is a fraction of Windows and Android devices at maybe 5% of devices worldwide. Webkit is open source under a LGPL 2.1 license and was a fork of KHTML. Blink itself is a fork of WebKit.
the added competition would make sure Safari on iOS supports modern web standards,
And to what modern web standards do you refer?
as it has to stay competitive vs being a monopoly on iOS due to restrictive App Store rules
And why does it have to stay competitive? It is Apple software written for Apple devices. And?
Re: Do not want (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Safari lags behind in web standards support
Which standards does Safari lag behind? Be specific.
The Safari/WebKit monopoly on iOS is due to app store rules (no alternative browser engines, forced to use WebKit, which Apple controls, at least as far as enabled features go).
So you are talking about iOS versions of Safari. And how many of these features are mobile/touch screen restrictions as opposed to desktop Safari. Also which of these are WebKit restrictions vs Safari restrictions. Again WebKit is open source so people can submit changes.
Open source doesnâ(TM)t mean anyone gets to submit patches that are guaranteed to get merged and shipped in products or decide the roadmap (and thankfully so).
You do understand IE was Microsoft closed source right? Therefore no one but Microsoft could change it. Open source has never meant anyone has free reign but it means anyone can see and mo [github.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that Chrome is the IE6 of the 2020s. A single browser that is so dominant people tend to develop for it instead of adhering to standards.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's so Google can intrude where it's not wanted, leech off others and add no value whatsoever. A bit like drinkypoo on Slashdot.
First they ignore you. Then they ride your dick. Then you win TEH PRIZE11!!
Re: (Score:3)
Your mom likes to ride random dicks.
And? Let the woman enjoy her life. What kind of worthless prude are you.
Re: (Score:2)
I regret to inform you that the scent barrier on your Depends® isn't sufficient.
(with thanks to Bob Woodward)
Re:Do not want (Score:5, Interesting)
My iPad Pro is the best ebook and pdf reader. It works wonderfully well at that task.
Web browsing on it sucks. Safari is full of bugs and guess what? The same bugs are present in Chrome and Firefox for iPad OS. Also no add ons or functional extensions to make the whole thing more useful. It is like browsing in the '90s.
Please EU, force Apple to open up.
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Facebook and probably a few others have made it impossible to use the internet without tracking. I blocked everything I could imagine and somehow Google search results still updated based on my browser usage. I'm quite sure the only option left is DNS over HTTPS to a university DNS.
But then Akamai will feed them my info instead.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why the heck would an iPhone user wanted to use Google browser?
To have a browser that works better than Safari, obviously.
Any iPhone users are free to switch to Android if they thought Google browser works better, no one forced anyone to stick to using iPhones.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Any iPhone users are free to switch to Android if they thought Google browser works better, no one forced anyone to stick to using iPhones.
True but irrelevant. Apple's policies are obviously anticompetitive. Forcing Safari on you is Tying, to a degree which harms both competitors and consumers.
Re: (Score:2)
To be pedantic, it's not anticompetitive to force something on you. It's anti-competitive to force something on 3rd parties that restricts their product or service.
Apple won't ever get in trouble for having Safar on their iPhone and not letting people remove it. But it's truly bizarre that they've gotten away with forcing competitors to make very specific changes for their platform for so long.
Re: (Score:2)
But it's truly bizarre that they've gotten away with forcing competitors to make very specific changes for their platform for so long.
I think you forgot the meaning of the words "their platform" in your statement. So all stores from Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, Google,etc have no restrictions for their competitors then?
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing Safari on you is Tying, to a degree which harms both competitors and consumers.
The legal definition of tying [wikipedia.org]: Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the > purchase of a different product or service.
How is Safari "tying" again?
Re: (Score:2)
The legal definition of tying: Tying (informally, product tying) is the practice of selling one product or service as a mandatory addition to the > purchase of a different product or service.
You can't have Safari for iOS without iOS, and you can't have iOS without Safari. You can't have the device for free. QED, it's all been sold to you, and you didn't have a choice. How is it not tying?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"My choices are the correct ones, and anyone who doesn't agree should be forced to spend hundreds of dollars on a new phone and completely change their ecosystem just to run a browser of their choice".
Yeah, we get it, you just *hate* other people having options that you don't want.
Absolutely standard Apple fanboi drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's no remotely what he said. He said he had the right to choose Apple as does everyone else has to choose Android. In actuality it is you that does not agree with his choice therefore he must be wrong.
On reflection, what I think makes this a dumb argument is that Apple is actively anti-choice, always has been, and probably always will be if they have anything to say about it because that's their entire schtick. It's Think Different, remember? Their business model is to get you to identify with them, and actively reject anything else under an assumption of superiority.
Apple's 1984 commercial was a truly brilliant piece of propaganda. The IBM PC was an open, documented, highly interoperable piece of equipm
Re: (Score:2)
On reflection, what I think makes this a dumb argument is that Apple is actively anti-choice, always has been, and probably always will be if they have anything to say about it because that's their entire schtick. It's Think Different, remember? Their business model is to get you to identify with them, and actively reject anything else under an assumption of superiority.
OP: You can choose Android if you want. No one is making you choose Apple.
Drinkypoo: That is a dumb argument because I don't like your choice.
Apple's 1984 commercial was a truly brilliant piece of propaganda.
All ads are propaganda. And?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Do not want (Score:2, Interesting)
Samesies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless they've massively improved mobile Firefox from a few years ago, I couldn't use it even if I wanted to (and at one time I did), because it didn't work.
Re: (Score:3)
I use Firefox on Android all the time, why do you think it doesn't work?
Re: (Score:2)
Installing it and it refused to render anything but a white page 80% of the time. I tried the vanilla version and also one with Adblock Plus integrated, which is the main thing I wanted.
I'm willing to concede it might have been something in the phone's OS/driver/firmware that caused it not to function. But this was a moto g6, so not something super weird, and it was running Android 8 or 9 which were current at the time.
I still use Firefox, just not on Android. I don't use Android willingly anymore. (See sig
Re: (Score:2)
I use FF on Android all the time and it generally works very well.
With enough effort you can install whatever addons you like, but without any you can still get all the most important ones.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how you can stand to use anything else. Once you've used Firefox + uBlock Origin, you simply can't go back.
Re: (Score:3)
It's OK if you only want to use Safari.
It's not OK that you don't want to allow other people to use other browsers in their mobile phones.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read and analyzed and compared the TOS's of many companies, Apple, Google, included. They are all the same, but use different words to say i
Re: (Score:2)
I use Chrome on my iPhone for the sole reason of having a desktop version of a website. I hate mobile sites and excessive white space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they have a modern browser that can use modern browser features?
And what are these modern features?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, let the market decide. Apple seems to think that if they let the market decide, they will lose market share.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think someone would force you to install and use that browser? Who? Why? Heck, I am on Android and my browser is Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the heck would an iPhone user wanted to use Google browser?
Because they aren't you and their needs may be different?
Seriously, what's up with this acceptance that everybody needs to be forced to do certain things for their own good?
Re: Do not want (Score:2)
Ain't that "monopoly"... (Score:3)
...forcing any vendor to use your own browser technology and not allowing any other one competitor?
Does this apply also to their computer, tablets, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
Only iOS, macos still allows installing third party signed apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how Apple have been getting away with this so far...
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how Apple have been getting away with this so far...
Just take a look below at all the people commenting who support Apple forbidding use of particular software on devices that they've purchased.
Tribalism leads to some really weird results sometimes.
Re: Ain't that "monopoly"... (Score:1)
Yes it's "weird results from nerd tribalism" and totally not a failure of Android-fan's zealotry to stay on the side of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Just take a look below at all the people commenting who support Apple forbidding use of particular software on devices that they've purchased.
Just look at all the people commenting how because they have chosen Apple's they must be forced Google software policies on Apple devices despite having already purchased the device with this in mind.
KDE (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How many imperial flagons in a metric arseload, though?
3rd party engines are laggy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: 3rd party engines are laggy (Score:1)
> Apple does not have a monopoly on ANYTHING.
Except the browser engine on iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't, and neither do you.
Yes please! (Score:3)
I'm stuck with an iPad 3 that Apple has bricked due to age. No software updates. There are many sites that don't work at all due to the oldish Safari, which is by the way so buggy that I have to reboot regularly.
Screen, battery etc. still work fine. I just use it to listen to/watch something mindless just before I sleep.
I'm looking forward to the EU order taking effect. I'm never going to own an Apple device again, but I don't want to buy another tablet until this one is dead. I would actually prefer a native Firefox, but Chrome is okay too.
Perhaps I can also get rid of the stupid autocorrect and actually use it to browse forums (it always gets the language wrong). Oh, my.
apple can to go far as that can being pro china (Score:2)
apple can to go far as that can being pro china with there app store lock down and web kit lock in.
Apple has removed / banned apps in china / HK and to say that is for security of IOS makes them look really bad in the USA / EU.
all apple needs to do is ok side loading like google and then all the issues go away. Or even open the store up more to things that are in the google store like
wifi analyzer apps
emulators with rom loading
remote game play apps
others
Re: Yes please! (Score:1)
That sounds a lot like Chromebooks, where the browser wasn't upgradeable independent of the OS. Once they stopped supporting the OS, the browser wasn't upgraded either, and sites gradually stopped working, and/or giving warnings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm stuck with an iPad 3 that Apple has bricked due to age. No software updates. There are many sites that don't work at all due to the oldish Safari, which is by the way so buggy that I have to reboot regularly.
To be clear, you are talking about a tablet made in 2012. That's over 10 years old at this point. Personally I don't have any PCs (Sandy Bridge era) that old as they could barely run Windows 10 much less Windows 11. The last software update to that device was in 2019.
I'm looking forward to the EU order taking effect. I'm never going to own an Apple device again, but I don't want to buy another tablet until this one is dead. I would actually prefer a native Firefox, but Chrome is okay too.
So your complaint is you have an ancient computing device not supported by the manufacturer. What do you think would have happened if you bought an Android tablet like the Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 [wikipedia.org] instead? The latest official OS update would have b
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's a strawman. I don't have a big problem with Apple not supporting the hardware anymore, although I do think they're cheap that they don't. I have a problem with them locking things down so that others cannot step in. That's what the EU ruling is fixing.
There's a bit more nuance to my story, but I was just trying to make the point that there are people out here who may be helped by the EU ruling.
Re: (Score:2)
ChromeOS (Score:1)
Is this issue different to Chrome's? There's only one browser on there, iinm. Perhaps you can also install other browsers on ChromeOS now - the ones I have only have chrome and chrome is tied to the OS upgrades, so they're gradually becoming useless.