In the case of Electron, the application is the webpage. Apple allows web apps built with Cordova on iOS, but warns that they may be rejected in the approval process if they run too slow.
I kind of doubt it. My understanding of the rule is Apple will not allow any alternate web renderer on their platform. You might be able to get away with the old opera mobile thing of having another server render the image and just serve the image on the phone, but no one wants to actually do that.
Allowing a custom web browser is different than allowing a system wide custom WebView... Since you can't currently do anything similar that's a weird complaint.
For example, I have Google Maps installed, but if I make an app and add an MKMapView it is the same old Apple Map it is everywhere.
"Just as much" is a bit of an overstatement considering how primary web browsing is. I mentioned one reason: it's what lets them advertise the battery life for web browsing that they do. Web browsing is a distinctly primary use case for a wide range of people and a fundamental value proposition of the iPhone from day 1.
Another thing that makes browser engines special is that they can be used to build "native" apps. Apple famously banned Flash. But if they allowed you to use any old web engine they could run into the same problems with poorly optimized apps on their platform. So Apple's not just forcing other browsers to adhere to their efficiency-first priorities... it's forcing all apps.
They could easily stick a "* using Safari" on the battery life claims if it was about advertising.
Apps are free to be inefficient. You can use some horribly slow JavaScript engine and build all your code that way. You can use Python or Ruby. Another comment mentions that Cordova apps are allowed, so it doesn't seem like the WebKit requirement even applies when building "native" apps.
No one cares, no one reads asterisks. There often useful/important, but they might as will not be on boxes. Either that or they signal a lie. Like the old windows laptops that used to advertise great battery life is long as you didn't actually move the mouse or do anything and had the display brightness at zero.
The other commenters are right. If people bought an iPhone, downloaded Chrome (the REAL Chrome), and use their phone and got six hours of battery life who do you think will get blamed? Apple.
People here all sorts of stories about how Apple doesn't have good battery life in the use chrome on their computer and it doesn't cause their computer to have five hours of battery life (even though Chrome is a known battery hog) so it must be Apple's fault. Blame the $900 phone.
For battery reasons alone I completely understand Apple's decision. There are plenty of other issues, such as keeping things updated with the latest iOS API is that are needed by the default browser, although some of that could be worked around with large third parties like Google.
I know they were missing features the people are absolutely clamoring for here on HN, but every time I asked they never seem to be something that I care about. I don't really care about web RTC, I don't remember the last time I wanted to have a webpage record audio, the fact that local storage doesn't persist across private browsing tabs is a FEATURE to me.
I think this fits well with the other article that's currently on the front page. Lots of people here in another text sites trounced Apple for their computer updates this year, but normal users seem to be very happy with them. A lot of these positions seem to just be too far out of Main Street (and there are so many iPhone sold that mainstream is GIGANTIC).
And when they download Clash of Clans or whatever the hot new game is, and the battery lasts 90 minutes, Apple doesn't get the blame? If it was about ensuring battery life stayed high even when the user is clueless, they'd be doing more than they are.
The only thing I can say is games are different. People seem to have a since the games can use a lot of power and be willing to accept that. And you're definitely not wrong, many of them are written terribly and destroy battery life unnecessarily.
But the other thing is it's obvious when I play a game. Where is I don't really think about using Safari, but I'm sure I use it dozens and dozens of times a day. So I'm very conscious of the fact that Pokémon go or whatever else I'm playing eats my battery, but all the little interactions with the web browser eating an extra 20% probably wouldn't raise a flag for me; I'd just think my phone's battery life got a lot worse.
> And when they download Clash of Clans or whatever the hot new game is, and the battery lasts 90 minutes, Apple doesn't get the blame?
Correct. If it lasted 90 minutes they would clearly attribute it to playing the game. If however a regular mix of typical daily activities gets low battery life, that's just the phone's fault.
But I would add that Apple has done a lot of work to make their game APIs power efficient. Metal is a perfect example of a more proprietary approach that achieved significant speed and battery life gains.
You're right, they have done a ton of work. Unfortunately, you can't make developers use it. So you find some games that don't seem to do too much but waste your battery, and others that are very impressive and barely touch it.
Note: I see that "no one cares, no one reads asterisks" sounds really harsh, if anyone is taking issue with that, and wasn't aimed at the GP. I simply meant that people (including myself) don't tend to take them into account so I don't believe it's a good solution to the problem.
reply