> I don't really see that as Apple trying to kill web technology as much as them just not profiting off it. Apple doesn't make any money from the "web," they make it from their platforms which aren't HTML/JS/CSS.
While true, this was also the reasoning behind Microsoft's treatment of Internet Explorer which caused web tech to get stuck for a decade. I think we were all glad those times were over.
Tangential rant, but this appears to be intentional. As far as I can tell, Apple is intentionally lagging behind supporting various web technologies, to make the web as unattractive as possible (within their ecosystem), and by extension, to make native app development as attractive as possible, so they can take a cut of the profits.
If their reasoning is correct, then they would actually lose money by not investing into their own browser engine, which is somewhat amusing, because the worse of a job they do, the more money they make.
(I find this idea particularly painful in the context of "we at Apple love web technology so much, we're going to use our love of web as our main excuse for killing Flash"...)
> then the developers will simply follow the users.
That didn't happen with IE6. I think the web as platform is bigger than Apple as big as it may be. It's amazing to me that you're OK with a single company holding back the entire platform because of a single device. People use the web with machines that don't even have batteries.
Really to a developer who cares about the open web and standards, just throwing the whole concept of the web out of the window for the sake of Apple's priorities is so, so bad and it will never happen. At least that's my hope and prediction. The open web as a platform will guide my behavior with regards to how I engineer applications that run in the browser, whether Safari is on board or not.
> If Apple had their way, the web wouldn't even exist anymore.
Apple certainly doesn't run any web technology—they don't have skin in the web-app game like Google and Microsoft and Amazon do. (They have a web store, but on iOS it heavily suggests its native-app equivalent.)
But that doesn't mean they want their users to not use the web. Web-browsing is a feature; Apple invested a lot of energy into WebKit for a reason.
Apple just don't give a damn about the supply side of the web; they don't care if they kill every web business in the process of giving users the best web-browsing experience possible.
I have high confidence that if Apple could integrate something like e.g. Tor into Mobile Safari without a latency hit, they'd jump at the chance. Better privacy for their users! Breaks analytics and ad targeting? Who cares?
WebKit was forked from our KHTML, even if it definitely had significantly deviated by 2007, and particularly UX-wise Mobile Safari definitely had many fantastic ideas. I didn't mean to be dismissive of it, it was more to point out that they also don't create in a vacuum, even their successes.
> From one point of view it's good that Apple still develops his browser and didn't choose to use Chromium like all the others (except Firefox)
Technically, sure, and I'm all for browser diversity... but i'm kind of tired of this comment because Apple barely put any work or money into webkit while being excessively profitable (and there are good "business" reasons for them not doing this). At this point it's just not excusable for Apple... The way to support browser diversity would be for Apple to fund webkit properly rather than keep it on life support, locking their OS to safari is not the healthy solution for the web, it's the healthy solution for the App store's bottom line.
Apple played a massive part in the success of the mobile web and responsive design. The release of Mobile Safari and WebKit was a watershed moment. Before that point, the mobile web largely consisted of separate, pretty awful sites on WML. Afterwards, most mobile platforms had a default web browser based on WebKit, and the mobile web transformed as a result.
I'm not saying Apple are perfect, but saying that they've "always been awful for the open web" is grossly overstating things.
> Do people upgrade? I still see a bunch of old safari versions in our web traffic. It’s the biggest thorn in my side supporting them.
I believe Apple is pretty good about keeping people on the latest versions of their software, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few stragglers or people using EOL devices that are stranded on an older build. I can definitely believe that it's a PITA supporting them, though. Working around MacOS shenanigans is the most frustrating part of my job too.
> One thing that is a problem is that web pages get bigger and bigger and more resource intense.
Eh... I'm not sure if I agree with that sentiment. In the early 2000s there were also people saying "desktop apps are going to get bigger and more resource-intensive", but that never really happened. In fact, the Java runtimes people used in that era were usually heavier than modern applications today, or evestn Electron-bundled programs. IMO, the web has been resource-intensive ever since Javascript became the lingua franca. Nowadays, I think we're making progress to reduce the resources used on websites. Things like WASM and lighter JS frameworks are going to make all the difference here. In fact, I can even see ourselves in another Web2 golden age in a few years. I personally don't think the SAAS landscape is long for this earth, and once it fades away, there will be less incentive to make bloated, broken applications and more of a focus on refining user experience and performance.
> I spent years hoping for Apple to see the light, allow other browser engines
as soon as apple tried to remove flash, they've shown their hand tbh. While it was generally considered good, the ideology behind removal of flash is the same ideology for their policy to not allow other browser engines.
> I just had a shower thought the other day that with the growth of WASM, Apple could target the web as well
Lol you don't remember how Apple's been specifically trying to hold back web technologies to encourage native apps? Embracing WASM is completely against everything they've been doing for the last decade.
Murdered? Thanks in large part to the work Apple did to transform KHTML into WebKit, WebKit and its derivatives (like Blink) have utterly dominated the browser marketplace. I have a hard time reconciling your characterization of Apple's action with the facts.
> Apple, intentionally or not, is holding back the development of the web in 2016.
Like they've been holding back the development of games for years? I have a Mac for work, and it's good at what it does. But I wouldn't choose one for a home/personal PC. The lockin and limitations aren't worth it (not just for games, generally). It would be like using IE6 for web browsing.
If they choose to not keep up with web development, that's not going to hold web development back, it's going to hold Apple back, and make them obsolete. Currently, they have a good share of the 'devices used for web-browsing' market, but if they don't keep up, it'll dwindle to match their share of the gaming PC market.
> It seems like if things keep going this way, Safari also would inevitably end up rebasing Safari onto Blink too (with their strategic changes).
I'm not sure about that. WebKit is lagging slightly behind Blink (and Gecko to lesser degree), but I don't think it bothers Apple. Budget to develop WebKit is for Apple hardly a problem as well.
Having independent browser engine gives them quite a lot of strategic power given their exclusive market share. Look no further than how they managed to single-handedly kill PWAs few months ago since it does not fit into their strategic goals (all apps must go through app store).
At some point they had a new browser that they provided to windows as well and could have expanded way further. They could have made Safari a true alternative to IE, Chrome, Firefox. They didn't, it didn't make sense for them.
So yes, Apple isn't big on the web, but it's in part of their own doing. Safari not being a viable browser outside of the mac and iOS is nobody's fault except Apple.
On wether Apple can face Google...let's put it in perspective:
- can Apple face Facebook: sure, at one point they killed their stock value overnight through a single policy change on iOS
- can Apple face Microsoft: a long time ago no. Today they're showing Microsoft the middle finger when they're trying to let users stream games on Apple's platform.
- can Apple face the US government: welp, they sure do. We've seen nothing coming out from any trial or policy happening in the US.
So, can Apple face Google ? I kinda think they can, yes. They have the money, the lawyers, the lobbies and politicians in their pocket. If they really wanted to, they could probably force Google to change on any front they're competing on.
> But Apple has a reason not to like this recycling of web technology. It wants its Mac App Store to be filled with apps that you can’t find anywhere else, not apps that are available on every platform.
And that's where I stopped reading. Apple doesn't give a toss if your app is cross platform. Frameworks that started back in the day like phonegap have matured into things like Electron, and the core problems are the same:
They run like crap. Animations are jerky, oftentimes the app simply "refreshes" when things go too far off the rails. This is a poor UX.
The apps are not able to adapt to newer devices without additional work. For MONTHS after the release of the X, looking at the Spotify app on it, the controls at the base of the screen were below the multitasking gesture indicator. If this app was built with AutoLayout as Apple encourages, this would've never been an issue.
I know, instantly, when an app I've downloaded is using web based cruft, I can catch it at a glance with the first tap, and the first slow interaction begrudgingly kicks off. Yep, it's a web-based one, and no, I will not be keeping it unless I have no choice to. Unless it's critical in some way, it's gone.
Apple outright banning Electron-powered crap is the best reason I've heard yet for buying my new iPhone.
> That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps
That was 2007. Can you show me how exactly Apple was big on the web in 2007?
> It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web
They never de-prioritised the web. Implementing Chrome-only non-standards isn't what being big on the web means.
Open a list of most-visited websites and show me Apple properties on it.
> The web is the last place left where developers feel they have freedom
Come on, we have excellent open computing platforms; it's just not where the money is right now.
Nobody can see passed their nose for profits though so we end up with lowest common denominator everything: which forces you to run a whole code interpreter on everything.
Apple said "no, you can't" and that's where the money is, so you had (and continue to have) a choice and your business chooses to use it.
So, you have to play by those rules.
I mean, I'm not taking a stand here; despite people believing that I'm defending apple. You don't get the sit around though and reap the benefits of the system they built (and developers helped build) while simultaneously trying to tear it down.
They set the rules, you all agreed to play by them; so why are we complaining?
If you actually care you would make programs on one of the many open standards platforms which in turn would turn them into more attractive platforms as the ecosystem improved.
But nobody does, everyone just wants the money now.
> I’m guessing that Apple will start hindering web apps because the new mouse support in iPadOS is going to be such a boon to web apps.
As a web developer, I've never believed Apple has hindered web development on their platform, purposefully or not. They just don't spend their resources adding in WebBluetooth or whatever new API-of-the-day Google has decided to come up with.
As I see it, their focus is on the user, which is why they've been slow to adopt APIs that are privacy concerns, or drain battery, or have other negative implications.
While true, this was also the reasoning behind Microsoft's treatment of Internet Explorer which caused web tech to get stuck for a decade. I think we were all glad those times were over.
reply