undefined | Better HN

0 pointsSllX1y ago0 comments

> But just because one part of a browser is important doesn't mean that other parts of a browser aren't also important.

Sure, but both halves are still there. WebKit is just filling in for Blink.

> but it's not "Google's wildly popular web browser".

You want to know the screwed up part? It actually is. There’s no gun to Google’s head to list any web browser at all for iPhones in the App Store, but they do, and they themselves chose to brand it exactly the same as their desktop and Android browser; and that’s exactly how people perceive it: Google Chrome. It’s also wildly popular. I ask people about it sometimes when I see them using it and all that geeky crap that you and I know about how it’s not the same as Google’s “real” browser is beyond them. They don’t care and it’s just Google Chrome to them.

> It may be a functional web browser (honestly arguable given how old and buggy the iOS rendering engine is)

WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.

0 comments

lmm1y ago

> Sure, but both halves are still there.

No they're not. Google is only being allowed to distribute half their browser, frankensteined together with half of Apple's, because Apple does not allow distributing a complete browser.

> WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.

Mainline WebKit is a fine rendering engine, but the iOS distribution is significantly outdated and buggy. "Safari is the new IE" caught on for a reason.

FrozenSynapse1y ago

>WebKit is still a top class rendering engine and only about as buggy as any other rendering engine. Blink is of the same lineage given it is a fork of WebKit and Gecko is even older.

But we should have the option to choose. Apple is very anti-consumer, making all the choices (often bad ones) for us, giving us none. The court should rule to open Apple more. Android is open enough that you can do whatever you want, yet not complicated enough so people get confused with all the options you have.

SllXOP1y ago

I agree we should have the option to choose, but I’m not going to consign any statement that it should be done by government force. That’s reckless and unnecessary.

Also Epic lost their case, so “the Court” isn’t in a position to do anything here. Even if they were, there is no law on the books anywhere in the country to serve as the basis for what you want the courts to do and someone new would have to bring a case, with standing.

The Feds are trying, I don’t remember web browsers being part of their filing, but it’s also been a while since I read it so I may have forgotten; but the problem is not only did Epic lose their case, they lost it in a way that thoroughly screwed over the Feds who were trying to build an antitrust case against Apple by getting a Federal district court to rule that Apple isn’t a monopoly, and if they can’t get to a monopoly ruling under a different district court that will stand up to appeal, they’re going to have a hard time getting Apple or a court to force Apple to agree to anything.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse