Apple probably have similar motives to MS when it comes to crippling the browser and enforcing its own rendering engine in iOS and that is to protects its app market.
However, Apple did not attempt to divide the web then use its dominant position to make all the content only compatible with their stuff.
With the IE situation, you couldn't just download Firefox and live happy thereafter because every website was made to work in IE and any other browser would simply fail to display the webpages properly either due to the way HTML/CSS is handled or due to some proprietary technology. Apple hasn't done that, maybe only because its tiny marketshare compared to the alternatives but that's how it is. Unfortunately, due to the marketshare of Google Chrome, they can pull an IE and there are signs of it.
The hate towards Safari comes from the Web devs who are angry that they can't send push notifications and have to pay 99$ to Apple to embed their webpage into a WebView to pass as an app.
There's no much hate towards Safari in its userbase, it's by far the most convenient Web browser in Apple's ecosystem, by far the most battery efficient and the performance is top notch too.
Completely different situation with the tragedy of IE.
It could also be argued that right now Google's domination of the web allows them to throw their weight around and introduce bad "standards" just so everything can be moved to the web, which again, they basically own.
For example the "standard" implementation of web push is straight up bad. I don't think websites should be able to throw popups asking users with enable notifications, because users are so used to accepting TOS agreements and cookie prompts that they just click "ok" and "accept" on everything, and now your grandma has gambling app ads in her notifications because she accepted notifications from some sketchy site she was linked to on Facebook.
Apple made the right move by requiring you to add a website to your home screen before it's allowed to send you push notifications.
I love how sites are now taking the mobile strategy of checking first and then showing a sugary popup explaining that they’re about to pop the native prompt for perms, and why. It brings me joy to click affirmative on those so I can permablock by clicking no on the native prompt.
> However, Apple did not attempt to divide the web then use its dominant position to make all the content only compatible with their stuff.
Excuse me? We are talking about "App store" Apple here, right? The Apple that prevents any 3rd party browsers on their platform so devs have to support safari? The Apple that refused to support progressive web apps to push devs into their store?
The Apple which literally won't let users install software they don't approve of, Apple? That Apple?
That's the company you're picking as "didn't attempt to divide the web"? Ooof.
You've been drinking so much Kool-aid your tongue is purple.
We are talking about browsers actually. The grunge that web developers have against App Store is baseless because its what saved the open web so far.
Check out the linked article, the moment Chrome have its way into iOS, the web will die because Google will have IE level dominance. The web as we know it goes away, the browser becomes an AppStore where everything is optimised for data collection and ad serve. We already have an AppStore, let's keep having a WWW.
And about the anger towards the AppStore? Well, you should be able to overcome it by drinking some herbal tea.
Yes - we are. I'm talking about how Apple acts as a huge resistive force by dividing the web to push their app ecosystem (biggest growth in revenue for Apple is digital/store services).
You do understand that a browser is an application?
And that Apple cripples literally ALL of them on iOS to push devs to their own non-compatible app ecosystem?
How in the ever-loving fuck is that not dividing the web in your eyes?
In all seriousness - which half of the new Google WEI divided web will you so confidently declare "That's not the web" for?
Because this is the half Apple broke off to sell as iOS apps. A domain that is entirely exclusive to apple, and requires all sorts of hoops to gain access to (including purchasing Apple specific hardware).
Further - they enforced that domain by strictly locking down down the capabilities of literally ANY browser a user might try to install on iOS. Because otherwise users might have chosen to use a progressive web app and Apple wouldn't get their fucking 30% store tax.
The problem isn't that other clients exist, a company that wants to have complete control of the UI can make an App that ensures it, they can deep link into it - no problem.
The problem starts when the main platform used to consume the web starts having specialised features which make some websites work only on this one platform because the developers build specifically for this one platform.
And no, this is not the same for the AppStore because the AppStore is not the web. Apple controls a minority share of the market, its not universal and it's not supposed to be universal - its a an additional distribution channel of content to Apple specific devices.
So that's a website, but if you look at the URL, it's on the apple.com domain name. So that doesn't really count as "the web".
The "App Store" might look like a website to you but it's actually what we call a "native" app, which means that it's not a website at all but a computer program that runs on your iPhone if you have one.
The definition of WWW is that it consists of web resources being accessible over Internet via HTTP. Also the term URL is a core part of WWW conception.
Yes you are very right. The App Store is what Apple calls their way to put programs onto your iPhone. These programs however are not websites because you don't access them with your browser (like Safari or Chrome for example).
It's almost like there's two things here, and they do mostly the same thing, but someone... I don't know... "split" them.
Divided them, if you will. Made it so that there is a closed system of software that only users on certain "approved" hardware can access and use, and also locked those users into that system by preventing real competition.
I certainly am unable to see how that is entirely related to this conversation. It's a real puzzle to me...
I think you're not being serious, but I can see what you're trying to say. I don't think I agree because if you don't have an iPhone like my mum does, you can still do everything on internet. You can look up recipes and do all sorts of work. To her it's not really divided because everything already works. Apple hasn't done her any harm.
Gosh, I'm so silly. I hardly even noticed that the web is also a distribution platform for perfectly acceptable applications. They come with their own code and logo and everything! They even... wait for it... run locally on your iPhone if you have one!
Except they don't do it so well on iPhones - because Apple refused to implement or support a bunch of features that might have threatened their revenue on their app store. Which is fine, but then... they also stopped ANY other developers on the planet for being able to do that work on their platform.
They sure are nice fellas, those Apple folks.
Did I mention their app store is also an internet site? Literally. It has to be. Apple did a shit job making the HTML view, but the whole fucking shebang of a platform is delivering content to users over... the internet. Through a website.
They just locked the UI their users see for that content down to something they call "an iOS app" which is really code for "We turned your general purpose computer into a less general purpose computer for you!"
Which... is exactly the same fucking thing Google is doing now. Making my general purpose computer less general.
Read it assuming the blatant sarcasm and cynicism are meant to be helpful "fun facts" and it reads like the author is being mean to themself. Text is there to let you accidentally intentionally misinterpret things due to the lack of intonation that comes with speech.
Would that not mean you can't install any browser other than Safari? Because I'm running Firefox right now on iOS. Or does "ban" mean something else in this context?
> However, Apple did not attempt to divide the web then use its dominant position to make all the content only compatible with their stuff.
Of course they didn't, because they outright want to kill the web so all your content is locked into Apple reviewed and taxed apps. Why would they divide the web when their goal is to make sure it's not a viable platform for their newest devices?
To me it seems like hollow virtue signaling to the FTC. It’s so bad. I’ve been pollyfilling and bug hunting a web app to fix and work around bugs / limitations / missing APIs in Safari for weeks and the result is an inferior experience.
> because every website was made to work in IE and any other browser would simply fail to display the webpages properly either due to the way HTML/CSS is handled or due to some proprietary technology.
Ah. I know of this, but I've never experienced it first hand.
This is more of a nuisanc for users than devs though, but I see what you meant now.
Maybe I am too young, but I vaguely remember using IE5.5/6 and it already slowly being slowly phased out. I also remember the struggles as it tried to stay relevant. I can't even remember a website that was made "for IE"; all I remember is sites saying IE is poorly supported and to download literally anything else lol
Safari doesn't feel battery efficient to me. If a web site has video ads, I can watch my battery drain to zero in real time. Orion does better since it doesn't play these ads, but it would be better if I could disable whatever video type is causing this behavior altogether.
Flash died due to its own sins. Apple never had a dominant marketshare to do that, Apple simply did not let that crap on its mobile platform which had %0 marketshare when that happened. Then the open web standards that can do most of the stuff that Flash was used for took over.
Google tried to support Flash, even it was listed as Android's "strength" over iOS but the tech that came to handle the most use cases of Flash was much superior and it killed Flash on desktop too.
However, Apple did not attempt to divide the web then use its dominant position to make all the content only compatible with their stuff.
With the IE situation, you couldn't just download Firefox and live happy thereafter because every website was made to work in IE and any other browser would simply fail to display the webpages properly either due to the way HTML/CSS is handled or due to some proprietary technology. Apple hasn't done that, maybe only because its tiny marketshare compared to the alternatives but that's how it is. Unfortunately, due to the marketshare of Google Chrome, they can pull an IE and there are signs of it.
The hate towards Safari comes from the Web devs who are angry that they can't send push notifications and have to pay 99$ to Apple to embed their webpage into a WebView to pass as an app.
There's no much hate towards Safari in its userbase, it's by far the most convenient Web browser in Apple's ecosystem, by far the most battery efficient and the performance is top notch too.
Completely different situation with the tragedy of IE.