zlacker

>>dochtm+(OP)
I think it's bizarre to conflate Apple's refusal to allow other webkits on iOS with the fact that Safari remains a viable alternative engine. They're far from heroes here. I think it's great they maintain a Chrome alternative kit that mostly works but let's not pretend they're saints or kid ourselves about the reasons for it. The only reason they disallow Chromium and Mozilla is they want their users locked into their environment and they want to leverage that substantial locked-in user base to dictate terms. It's only being one of the richest companies in history that gives them a seat at the table. If they're afraid of having to open the platform, that's because they're not keeping up.

It's not that they're one judgment away from that day. They know that. It's just that they want to get as much mileage as they can before they too abandon Safari and first allow, then switch to Chromium. That will happen in the next 5 years.

What might come of it all would be a reset where new branches form and new innovators get to introduce new proposals. Standards aren't a bad thing if they're open. If Safari dies then Google will be next in the line of fire for antitrust action anyway... things will fragment again. I'm personally pissed at the number of great technologies left as litter along the road, not least AS3, just to get to this shitty middle ground / cold browser war between two companies I hope die and one that won't help itself. Let the standards win and let's have a standard platform to innovate on top of.

>>noduer+Zd
> The only reason they disallow Chromium and Mozilla is they want their users locked into their environment and they want to leverage that substantial locked-in user base to dictate terms

That's one reason, but not the only reason. Security is another big one in that the WebKit process is running with privileges that Apple does not want to award to any other app process on the platform, much less a third-party one.

They also want to make sure that if they fix the next security flaw what will undoubtedly be reported in WebKit, that all the apps with an embedded browser will get the fix and won't continue to be vulnerable due to them not updating whatever version of Chromium they were embedding.

Of course, between sandboxing and not allowing JIT compilation, those vulnerabilities couldn't do do much harm, but that embedded Chromium also wouldn't be much fun to use.

Which means, if you let me make a prediction of the future, that when Apple is forced into allowing other browser engines, articles will be written about how Apple is complying by the letter of the law but not the spirit by "seriously hampering 3rd party engines" compared to their own by now allowing JIT compilation.

If they had to then also allow those 3rd party engines to do JIT compilation and bypass the sandbox in means that browser engines need to, then we'll be in a much worse position security wise.

We'll see how this is going to play out, but I'm pretty sure exerting control is not the only reason for Apples' stance.

>>pilif+Wi
Having a smartphone battery that lasts more than an hour is also a pretty good reason.

It’s like the skepticism over the Steve Jobs “Flash” memo… why do nerds have such a hard time accepting that Apple might actually be sincere about wanting to make a decent product?

>>Eric_W+Fz
It's because there's nothing magical about HTML that makes it more battery efficient than Flash was. Quite the opposite really - Flash is a compact binary format designed specifically for high graphics performance in an era when HTML4 thought floating menus was cutting edge.

The Jobs Flash memo was crystal clear about why Flash was being booted off his platform. It was to avoid "a third party layer of software coming between the platform and the developer".