Apple's Safari Browser Runs the Risk of Becoming the New Internet Explorer -- Holding the Web Back for everyone (theregister.com) 156
Scott Gilbertson, writing for The Register: The legacy of Internet Explorer 6 haunts web developer nightmares to this day. Microsoft's browser of yore made their lives miserable and it's only slightly hyperbolic to say it very nearly destroyed the entire internet. It really was that bad, kids. It made us walk to school in the snow. Uphill. Both ways. You wouldn't understand. Or maybe you would. Today developers who want to use "cutting-edge" web APIs find themselves resorting to the same kind of browser-specific workarounds, but this time the browser dragging things down comes from Apple. Apple's Safari lags considerably behind its peers in supporting web features. Whether it's far enough behind to be considered "the new IE" is debatable and may say more about the shadow IE still casts across the web than it does about Safari. But Safari -- or more specifically the WebKit engine that powers it -- is well behind the competition. According to the Web Platform Tests dashboard, Chrome-based browsers support 94 per cent of the test suite, and Firefox pulls off 91 per cent, but Safari only manages 71 per cent.
On the desktop this doesn't matter all that much because users can always switch to Google Chrome (or even better, Vivaldi). On iOS devices, however, that's not possible. According to Apple's App Store rules: "apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." Every iPhone user is a Safari/WebKit user whether they use Safari or Chrome. Apple has a browser monopoly on iOS, which is something Microsoft was never able to achieve with IE. In Windows you could at least install Firefox. If you do that on iOS it might say Firefox, but you're still using WebKit. The reality is if you have an iOS device, you use Safari and are bound by its limitations. Another thing web developers find distressing is Apple's slow development cycle. Apple updates Safari roughly every six months at best. Blink-based browsers update every six weeks (soon every four), Firefox releases every four weeks, and Brave releases every three. This means that not only is Apple slow to add new features, but its development cycle means that even simple bug fixes have to wait a long time before they actually land on users' devices. Safari workarounds are not quick fixes. If your website is affected by a Safari bug, you can expect to wait up to a year before the problem is solved. One theme that emerges when you dig into the Web Platform Tests data on Safari's shortcomings is that even where WebKit has implemented a feature, it's often not complete.
On the desktop this doesn't matter all that much because users can always switch to Google Chrome (or even better, Vivaldi). On iOS devices, however, that's not possible. According to Apple's App Store rules: "apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript." Every iPhone user is a Safari/WebKit user whether they use Safari or Chrome. Apple has a browser monopoly on iOS, which is something Microsoft was never able to achieve with IE. In Windows you could at least install Firefox. If you do that on iOS it might say Firefox, but you're still using WebKit. The reality is if you have an iOS device, you use Safari and are bound by its limitations. Another thing web developers find distressing is Apple's slow development cycle. Apple updates Safari roughly every six months at best. Blink-based browsers update every six weeks (soon every four), Firefox releases every four weeks, and Brave releases every three. This means that not only is Apple slow to add new features, but its development cycle means that even simple bug fixes have to wait a long time before they actually land on users' devices. Safari workarounds are not quick fixes. If your website is affected by a Safari bug, you can expect to wait up to a year before the problem is solved. One theme that emerges when you dig into the Web Platform Tests data on Safari's shortcomings is that even where WebKit has implemented a feature, it's often not complete.
Not without ActiveX/COM it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Aieee! was horrible for the web not just because it lagged so hard for so long, but also because it was a security and compatibility nightmare. In order to be the new IE, Safari would have to be all of these things.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, probably a more accurate analogy would be to say that Safari is the new Netscape Navigator
Re: (Score:3)
MS made the browser a front end terminal for applications. This meant that additional features were added to e
A feature, not a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
"...Today developers who want to use "cutting-edge" web APIs..."
I hate the bells and whistles and glitz for the sake of glitz in web pages. I'd consider the fact that Safari doesn't support them to be a feature, not a bug.
Re: A feature, not a bug (Score:3)
Re:Not without ActiveX/COM it doesn't (Score:4, Informative)
>"In order to be the new IE, Safari would have to be all of these things."
"IE-only" wasn't just about updates and security, it was about not having real browser choice because sites coded against a browser, not open/approved/actual standards.
You can also achieve "IE-only" on most platforms, where the IE = Chrom*. When it pushes out the ONLY remaining non-Chom* browser on MS-Windows, Linux, and Android, it will be the new IE. Code to whatever Google dictates, whether it is a "real" standard or not, or your site will break. And lazy programmers will just start with the "This site doesn't work with Firefox" (or whatever non-Chrom* browser might later appear) crap.
Make no mistake, Chromium might be "open source", but only in such that you can see the source and use it. Nobody can effectively fork the base code because they can't maintain it and will lose compatibility quickly. Only Google controls the actual code, what goes it in, how it behaves, and what "standards" it is going to support/create/enforce.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Re:Not without ActiveX/COM it doesn't (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why we use FireFox.
Re: Not without ActiveX/COM it doesn't (Score:2)
Safari does have that problem as there have been many exploits that rootkit iphones via safari alone. You can't really do that with chrome or Firefox as they aren't deeply integrated into the OS like IE and Safari.
Re: Not without ActiveX/COM it doesn't (Score:2)
Yeah. I did not even know Ozzy Osborne is a slashdotter.
Why does this matter? (Score:2, Insightful)
The buyers of Apple products know, or reasonably should know, that they are giving up the enormous choice of software available for every other ecosystem, in exchange for something that I've yet to be able to discern.
IMO: code to Internet standards, and if users complain "Waaah, this doesn't work inside my walled garden that purposely limits my choice of browser to just one that doesn't work properly," then tell them that they should be complaining to Apple, and not to them. Make sure the app gracefully de
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO: code to Internet standards
The problem with that is that google has hijacked those very "internet standards" by force-feeding the WHATWG bullshit down W3C's throat (who rolled over and submitted, spineless bastards).
This gave us HTML5 that got declared a "living standard", ie it is what google says it is and every week there's something new to implement. That means that unless you have a very latest browser you are guaranteed not fully capable of everything that "living standard" has to offer.
So this is the complaint: Safari isn't keeping up with google's HTML5 demands. This gets spun as "holding back the web for everyone", but s/everyone/google/ is the more accurate description. For everyone else it's a blessing in disguise, for it forces webdevs to stay compatible with the boring old last week's browsers used by the laggards. As abhorrent as that is for typical webdevs.
That's how we got IE to stop holding the Web back, and if Safari has inherited that unfortunate role, then we need to do the same thing. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the stink of vendor-specific HTML is a distant memory.
The thing is that it's the vendor (google) that's trying to force the web forward regardless of utility to end-users. So it's really vendor against vendor, not laggard vendor (apple) against users. If anything, and in this specific case, them being a laggard is a boon for everyone except google.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes exactly. Safari is doing a good thing here, being a counter-balance to Google's approach.
I'm not saying new browser features are bad, I'm saying that Google often pushes half-baked changes into the browser without coming up with a solid design. To do a proper design, you need people to criticize and act as a counter-weight, giving their own viewpoints. It takes time, but that's not a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Example of a half-baked change:
I have a business email and a personal email that both run through google. One is their $3 a month service on a custom domain (business), the other is gmail (personal). I like having them in different browser tabs. Every time the browser restarts it tries to get me to pick which Chrome profile I'm using. If I don't click right my twi tabs with two different email addresses turn into two tabs with the same email address, and I have to log-out of both tabs, and log back in, to g
Re: Why does this matter? (Score:3)
This is absolutely right.
But it is also worse than this. Google has been pushing web standards to allow direct access to hardware, which is mainly for ChromeOS. Naturally, Apple balks at the idea of implementing Google-specific âoestandardsâ because they donâ(TM)t think a website should have unfettered hardware access. This in turn causes entitled Google engineers to publicly whine that Apple doesnâ(TM)t do what Google wants, framing it as holding back the web.
Make no mistake, with Googl
Re: (Score:2)
Apple balks at the idea of implementing Google-specific Ãoestandardsà because they donÃ(TM)t think a website should have unfettered hardware access.
Reasonable mobile operating systems handle this by asking for permission and enforcing sandboxing. Are these things problems for iOS or Safari?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is right too.
Do I want my primary interface with the Internet and the place where I shop/bank etc. to be pushed to me on a move-fast-and-break-things basis? No, not really.
Yes, Apple may not have the cadence that Google has in introducing the next great idea, but they do tend to support them for much longer once they have been incorporated. On the security side, Apple have a reasonable record of patching things when serious issues are found and not waiting for the next general release, so I am
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Interesting)
many of Safari's failures are in areas such as 'file system access' 'accelerometer' 'gyroscope' etc.; other articles I've read indicated that Safari was lagging on browser access to bluetooth, WebGL (i.e. GPU access from the browser, a potentially major security hole).
To a first approximation, I don't believe any of those areas belong in a web browser.
Apple probably has some vested interests here, but I'm in favor of them not supporting anything outside the core browser definition--gaming is the usual initial justification, but subsequently these 'optional' standards have a way of becoming non-optional and un-toggleable security flaw/annoyance sources.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the browser asked for permission to access something but the tester/test driver did not grant that permission.
Bottom line: no idea what "web app" needs access to my accelerometer or gyroscope. Perhaps a planetarium "app". But then i would download the app, and not use a web site.
To a first approximation, I don't believe any of those areas belong in a web browser.
Same for me.
Re: (Score:2)
File system access is absolutely necessary for web apps which act like first class citizens. If you are opposed to that as an Apple user, you might wish to remember that this was originally the only way to even develop "apps" for the iPhone.
This feature in particular has been implemented in at least two major examples, Google Gears (long defunct, but most functionality is now part of HTML) and Firefox (prior to the new extensions model). I used to use a web archival tool called Scrapbook+, which you can sti
Re: (Score:3)
You make very good points here. I was thinking similar since I know Google tosses into Chrome all sorts of things that are most beneficial to their websites and services. I mean that's why they made Chrome. Chrome was a Trojan horse to give Google control over the evolution of web standards so they could;d bend that in a direction most beneficial to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The buyers of Apple products know, or reasonably should know, that they are giving up the enormous choice of software available for every other ecosystem, in exchange for something that I've yet to be able to discern.
They don't know, nor do they care to know.
IMO: code to Internet standards, and if users complain "Waaah, this doesn't work inside my walled garden that purposely limits my choice of browser to just one that doesn't work properly," then tell them that they should be complaining to Apple, and not to them.
They won't do that either, they'll just go somewhere else, and "somewhere else" is usually a proprietary iOS app.
Re: (Score:2)
The buyers of Apple products know, or reasonably should know
Let me stop you there. Go out into the street and approach a random Apple user and ask them what they think about Safari being the only available browser.
You'll likely be met with a confused look, the user pointing to Chrome in the app store, and then them calling you a name and asking you to leave them the hell alone.
The average user does *not* know about the technical block on browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Go out into the street and approach a random Apple user and ask them what they think about Safari being the only available browser.
You'll actually more likely be met with confusion about the question in general. Most wouldn't even know there are choices, such as they are, or care there are choices. Safari is there, and they have no need to care. That said, your general point is correct. However, I would go further and point out that even people that are knowledgeable about these types of things aren't always aware that this is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that they are giving up the enormous choice of software available for every other ecosystem, in exchange for something that I've yet to be able to discern.
Dumbest Apple hater comment ever.
All Linux, Solaris, AiX, HP UX software runs on Macs easily.
And for Windows software, if really need it, e.g. a CAD or CASE system (what other windows software would anyone use?), you have a VM.
Hint: the windows software "everyone uses", is ported to Macs anyway, aka Office and Outlook.
And if you really need/want to port a
Re: (Score:2)
Problem: all the customers worth having have iPhones.
You can't run a business that makes money off mobile devices without iOS support.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why developers need to understand and do the right thing.
If just a handful do, and all the rest just bend over and take the forced 2x design cost, then Apple users, and Apple itself, never learn.
If the industry instead takes a principled stand, that we will not bend over for bullies nor for anyone else, and we will write code that complies to standards, then eventually the bullies learn, and also their victims, presuming that Apple users can be considered victims and not accessories to the bullying t
Re:Why does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the industry instead takes a principled stand
The lame filter will literally not let me accurately express just how ridiculous I find this idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It did happen to IE6, albeit only after the stench of IE6 rotting became so bad no living thing could survive after smelling it (or even wanted to). Perhaps 'principled' is debatable, but a stand nevertheless.
Safari is already smelling a bit like time to take the garbage out...
Re: (Score:2)
Also if something gracefully degrades, which I agree it should, then the iOS users don't know what they are missing so have no reason to complain to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how corporate works. The upper management has no clue about anything and just sees that the website doesn't work right on Safari, so either you as a website developer fix it/hack it or you get fired/replaced. This is the only way this works.
Re: (Score:2)
As a web site developer you simply should not use bullshit that only works in a certain browser. Then you do not need to rewrite the code for other browsers.
Actually I have no idea what the complaints are about. A web site is supposed to show texts, with different attributes, and graphics. As soon as you click somewhere, you go to another webs site. Aka: you have links. This "oh but this is not a web site but an app" is so annoying. It gets even more annoying when your app insists: oh, look I just work like
Apple keeps Google in check. (Score:5, Interesting)
If not for Safari on Apple devices, we'd all be using Chrome. Chrome would be the dominant browser by far, to the point that it would be the "new Internet Explorer".
Yes, Safari has massive market share due to iOS requiring it, but what would all those iOS users switch to if they could? Probably Chrome.
Web developers have to make sure their sites work on both Safari and Chrome. If it were only one or the other, we'd be in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Web developers have to make sure their sites work on both Safari and Chrome.
I've got news for you: web developers already exclusively target Chrome. Firefox may as well not exist, but both it and Safari are already compatible enough with Chrome that arguably any time they behave differently is a bug in them, not Chrome.
The simple fact is that Chrome has the better developer tools. No one tests in Safari, since only Mobile Safari matters, and since Mobile Safari has absolutely no developer tools, no one tests in it. (This isn't entirely true, it is possible to get to a developer con
Re: (Score:2)
That simply is not true. As much as I hate doing it, I have connected an iPhone to a mac, and then loaded up Safari on the mac, opened the developer tools, and connected to the mobile device's Safari and debugged it using the desktop Safari's dev tools. It works as well as Apple can make it work, which still sucks, but you certainly can use developer tools on IOS Safari. Just not on IOS Chrome even though that also technically
Re: Apple keeps Google in check. (Score:3)
Developers targeting a single browser was the problem when IE was the browser causing all the issues.
Good developers will look at the metrics and target the top 3 or 4, with a balance of mobile, tablet and desktop. Sometimes theyâ(TM)ll initially prioritise mobile or desktop, depending on their target demographic, but targeting a single browser is just asking for problems. Iâ(TM)d argue lazy developers and managers is what allowed IE to fester in the way it did.
Iâ(TM)ll admit some browsers wo
Re: (Score:2)
I've got news for you: web developers already exclusively target Chrome.
You might be able to get away with a comment like that on Yahoo, but Slashdot has enough web developers to call you out, which they clearly have.
To beat the dead horse further, of course we test on mobile Safari. It's one of the leading browsers in the world and used by some of the most profitable users. Of course we test on Firefox. It's still a major browser, especially if you're intending to operate in Europe. Besides which, fixing discrepancies in Safari and Firefox is WAY easier than it was in the bad
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome is already the "dominant browser by far". It has ~65% of the browser market and Safari only has ~18%. The rest of the browsers are all in the low single digit percentages. If you add all the browsers that Blink the percentage "Chrome" would account for ~80% of the browser engines used.
Re: (Score:2)
It has ~65% of the browser market and Safari only has ~18%.
That is not really plausible, unless you talk about: mobile!!!
Re:Apple keeps Google in check. (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Web developers have to make sure their sites work on both Safari and Chrome. If it were only one or the other, we'd be in trouble."
And by notably leaving out the only other non-Chrom* multi-platform browser in your statement, which is Firefox, your point is even more apparent.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of them have switched to Chrome, but guess what - they're still using Safari and they don't even know it.
Re:Apple keeps Google in check. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, not everyone is using Chrome. I'm still using Firefox! Who's with me? ...
Hello? ...
Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
I use Firefox, complete with a few extensions designed to break a lot of the garbage that's on the web now. Ads? What ads? Javascript? Only if I allow it. Web wants to talk to my hardware? Web wants to go fuck itself.
Chrome already is the new IE. (Score:2)
It's already holding us back. I can't tell you how many times I've reported broken websites to their owners, including at work, just to have them come back "But did you try it in Chrome?", because I use Firefox and no one even pretends to give a fuck about anything but Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's all fun and games until money is on the table. Then a client complains their site doesn't work in IOS, and most of their customers are using IOS.
Wow. What 2001 era support MS / IE style thinking. Your UID is low enough that you should know better. We beat IE, why do you support its successor?
Not for everyone, it doesn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "victims" here are idiot webdevs and parties with a vested interest in making everyone goose-step into their bright future like the "big tech" gang of on-line advertising companies.
The problem with IE6 was that it had all sorts of proprietary crap on board that somehow large corporations could not do without, that wasn't in newer releases so they couldn't upgrade, and turned out to be full of security holes that weren't being patched because a newer version was out. This was a fine example of the vendor hoisting themselves, and their customers, on their own petard.
The problem now is that safari isn't updating with new features nobody needs except those looking to march everyone into a bright future of their own design. The proper fix is to stop trying to do that.
This is a wider problem. I don't want to have to update the browser five times a day just so I can keep looking at my favourite websites. They're typically text with some unmoving pictures, and that has worked since the beginning. Up and until idiot webmonkeys break that basic functionality for no other reason than to force me into updating the browser for no real reason. This has all sorts of knock-on effects.
The problem is in thinking every browser on the planet must always be a latest nightly build. The solution is to stop being that selfish and stupid.
So this story describes a non-problem. The real problem is the people saying this is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is in thinking every browser on the planet must always be a latest nightly build.
OMG. This applies to so many things. I am so sick of having to spend hours every month updating stupid software so that my computer will do something that should take 2 minutes.
Unlock my PC/Mac in the morning... Oh look... windows/MacOS rebooted and installed updates overnight
Open Photoshop... oh... photoshop must be updated to read this file.
Open Final Cut... oh... all of your libraries need to be updated for this version of final cut
Open Chrome... oh... chrome needs to restart
Re: (Score:2)
OS X - macOS does not install updates overnight and reboots.
dumbass
It asks for permission to update. And it asks for permission to reboot. No idea why the mac haters are so full of shit.
Re:Not for everyone, it doesn't. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem now is that safari isn't updating with new features nobody needs except those looking to march everyone into a bright future of their own design. The proper fix is to stop trying to do that.
If you bother to read the article (I know, I know) the features they're looking at are basic layout features that Safari doesn't implement. Granted they're new basic layout features, designed to essentially fix the mistakes of the original CSS layout system, but they're still basic layout features. (Specifically aspect-ratio, css-flexbox, css-grid, css-transformations, and position-sticky.)
But they're not talking about the various random API Google loves to experiment with in Chrome, they're talking about what are essentially quality of life improvements to CSS to make various simple layouts easier to do.
Re: (Score:2)
"So this story describes a non-problem. The real problem is the people saying this is a problem."
Yep
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, on all counts! (And as others have pointed out, each new package comes with its own set of potential security holes...)
Most of what passes for 'modern web design' is a combination of annoying and offensive. Is there anyone out there who thinks 'pop-ups that ask you to subscribe to their mailing list' while you're trying to read something is a good idea? Those funky sites that decide to feed you information in the chunks they define, rather than smooth scrolling so you can read and understand a
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with IE6 was that it wasn't standards compliant. Your website could pass all the compliance tests and not work in IE6.
In that respect Safari isn't quite like IE6, because Safari is at least reasonably standards compliant. In areas where it ignores standards it's generally for the benefit of the user, e.g. cookie handling, not because the developers just don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think any thinking person can agree the web is approaching unusable for actually learning anything. Between the insane commercialization and the complete failure of modern search engines, it's a slog to get to any actual textual content that explains/reviews something (concept).
Youtube, while terrible in many ways, is at least still full of useful content, but 90% of the time, I'd rather read a short two paragraph text than slog through a 5 minute video.
The new web browsers seem to have little f
Re: (Score:2)
If only that were the only problem with Safari. Safari often has its own way of working with mouse/touch gestures, it often does nanny-ish things like replacing code that displays telephone numbers, and doing all sorts of stupid shit Apple thinks will make their users lives better, but often just screws up the website you wrote instead.
I *WISH*
Re: (Score:2)
Safari often has its own way of working with mouse/touch gestures
It uses the same gestures/touch as any other app on the OS.
it often does nanny-ish things like replacing code that displays telephone numbers,
No idea what that is supposed to mean.
What would be nice... (Score:4, Interesting)
... would be if there were an actual standard, not changed every three weeks or even every year, for what browsers were supposed to support. Then they could maybe catch up on some of those bug fixes.
And, while I'm dreaming, let's have that standard actively forbid stupid shit like, say, giving Web pages direct access to USB devices...
Re: (Score:3)
... would be if there were an actual standard, not changed every three weeks or even every year, for what browsers were supposed to support. Then they could maybe catch up on some of those bug fixes.
And, while I'm dreaming, let's have that standard actively forbid stupid shit like, say, giving Web pages direct access to USB devices...
But won't you think of the advertisers? It seems the modern "free" web is powered by the ability to track and profile, and how dare you propose any limits on the ability to do that?
I've thought for a while that it would be a fairly easy thing to do, to have a browser offer a toggle switch: Do not play any videos, ever, under any circumstances. In fact don't even load the codecs unless I tell you to. But no, we have these half-assed "block audio" / "block audio and video" things that work half the time an
Re: (Score:2)
There is. Web standards are massively backwards compatible. If you need to change your site every year to keep up then you are the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Web standards are massively backwards compatible.
That is a huge win for everyone.
Re: What would be nice... (Score:2)
Just because you're making a web page doesn't mean you need to use every single feature of the browser. You are free to completely ignore new standards. Just refresh your knowledge every couple years or so or on whatever schedule you find useful.
Re: USB devices (Score:2)
When I read your comment, I just had to go look it up:
https://developer.mozilla.org/... [mozilla.org]
There is absolutely no rational reason to EVER do that and directly violates the browser/hardware security wall. Limited access to hardware like webcams is tricky enough but browser makers still can't seem to get that right.
Safari or Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure about which one is the worse.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between doing your own thing and following a standard. Standards don't suit everyone, but tough, they exist for a reason. You can either follow them or get left behind.
Providing web developers follow standards and they work in Chrome, then it is absolutely NOHTING AT ALL like IE.
This isn't elementary school. We don't have a no baby browser left behind policy. Implement standards or expect stuff to break. Don't like the standard, get on the damn standards committee and make your voice he
Punish the users! (Score:2)
IE was a nightmare. I work on my own website, so that was a bit of a pain, but where I saw it most was in security. IE caused so many lingering security issues because corporate applications would be coded exclusively for it's proprietary nonsense, and you'd wind up with all these systems that couldn't be upgraded since they were accessing a business critical app.
It's too bad that there isn't better coordination on the development side, though. If enough major web sites and applications got together and
A tired and disproven argument (Score:5, Insightful)
This is such a poorly structured argument that keeps cropping up since it generates clicks and engagement. Say something negative about Apple or Google or whomever, and the clicks and page views are coming in!
Safari is actively developed and matching new standards that Apple sees as aligning with the platform goals of maximizing the user privacy and security, while still implementing and optimizing the browser platform. IE6 was atrocious, slow, and buggy.. Safari is demonstrably not that.
Safari is implementing new features constantly, and the browser is adding new features over time. They certainly have bugs and issues in those implementations, but you are able to track it in a very visible manner at the WebKit blog: https://webkit.org
Somebody may disagree one what features are being developed, and what standards are selected.. but the criteria of SAFARI IS NOT CHROME is not a valid argument that something is failing or otherwise a problem for the internet community.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is purposely leaving out features for Safari that make web applications more powerful in order to force developers to create apps and pay the 30% App Store fees on purchases. That is the platform goal they are aligning with.
chrome (Score:3)
No, chrome is the new IE. Safari is more like Netscape, gonna hang for a while and then become irrelevant.
More Features = More Bugs, More Security Issues (Score:5, Informative)
As a Safari user, what are some of these "killer features" that I am missing out on?
I'm perfectly happy with Apple not rushing to adopt these useless features if it results in a more stable and more secure browsing experience. I get weekly security notices for Google Chrome from US-CERT and I think Safari has only has a one or two per year? Seems like a good trade off to me.
Re: (Score:3)
> I think Safari has only has a one or two per year?
https://www.cvedetails.com/pro... [cvedetails.com]
166 in 2019, 76 last year, only 17 this year. Definitely better than Chrome, but it isn't "one or two per year".
Re: (Score:2)
Apple does it on purpose (Score:2)
I guess Slashdot hates Google more than Apple (Score:2)
M$ BAD!!!1
Apple doesn't follow standards with WebKit (Safari) and forces everyone to use it:
This is good actually.
in contrary (Score:2)
IE-Only indeed (Score:2)
>"Apple's Safari lags considerably behind its peers in supporting web features"
What peers? There are essentially only three browsers left on the Apple desktop- Firefox, Chrom*, and Safari, and only 2 left on MS-Windows, Linux, and Android- Firefox and Chrom*.
The danger of the return of "IE-Only" comes from Google through Chrom* (which includes all the browsers based on it). They have the power to push any changes or agenda they want and if you don't do it too, it is somehow your own fault.
Standards or 'trendy proprietary stuff;? (Score:2)
How much of this test script is standards-based, versus 'some stuff that is now popular for which no defining document exists?' The problem with IE was its refusal to follow standards.
In my experience, one benefit of the standards process is working out ambiguities in the specification, where different implementations can take alternative (inconsistent) interpretations.
Re: (Score:2)
What is missing though? (Score:2)
Funny attempt to twist things (Score:2)
Tell me which one you've actually seen on websites - "this site is best viewed with Safari", or "this site is best viewed with Chrome"?
If there's a "new IE6", it's actually Google Chrome - and the "problem" really being complained about is that Safari doesn't support some non-standard HTML extensions/APIs being pushed by Google through Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
CSS contain, CSS
Biggest advantage of Safari (Score:2)
One of the biggest advantage of safari is its ability to isolate session between each tab in private window. You can log into 5 gmail account and 5 outlook account simultaneously. Something you can't do with other browser. I never use a tab for logging into a site and general browsing. This makes tracking my activity very hard. I never see any targeted ad at all. I do google search in browser tab that I have not logged into any site and same for everything else.
None of FF, Chrome or Edge support this. SAfar
firefox has that (Score:2)
firefox has that
Re: (Score:2)
Partially wrong. Firefox has containers, where you can have as many containers you like and each one of them is completely isolated (cache, cookies, storage, etc.)
You need to install an extension to expose an UI for this base Firefox feature https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
"Everyone"? (Score:2)
You mean the 3 people still using it?
antitrust issues apple should allow any or beforce (Score:2)
antitrust issues apple should allow any web framework in the app store or they maybe forced to enable side loading.
Google vs. Apple dog fight (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect Google is blog-bombing Apple because Apple is reluctant to support features that help Google spam & snoop. Take complaints about Safari with a grain of salt, as Google has an ax to grind.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the test suite mentioned in the article. A lot of the stuff Safari doesn't seem to support looks exactly as you suggest.
I'm pretty happy with my browser not being able to access Bluetooth and my battery status, thanks. I must make a point of using Safari more.
Living standards (Score:3)
opposite problem? (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the issue with IE was not that it was holding things back, but that it (in addition to autocorrecting html and javascript syntax errors) implemented a number of features that were exclusive to IE that no one else *could* support.
and considering chrome these days, I wouldn't think aspiring to match that would be entirely a positive thing.
Oh, Safari definitely is the new IE6 (Score:2)
Actually it's worse, because Microsoft at least gave you virtual machines for testing your web site with different versions of Internet Explorer. Apple apparently expects people to buy Apple hardware to test web sites with their retarded browser. "Design to standards" is hopeless with that POS.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you test "web sites" and the browsers for it in the cloud.
No idea what your stupid comment about "forcing buying apple hardware" is about.
I test web sites and the relevant browsers with Selenium, or the open source variants.
Or do you think I have 20 iPads and 20 iPhones to test on? And do that manually? And probably multiply that with 5x to have the 5 latest iOS releases?
Sorry: go to a college or an university and learn how to test.
Here's a suggestion (Score:2)
When I visit a web site I'm either going there to read something or going there to buy something. That's it. I don't care about anything else. I don't care about special offers, no newsletters or mailing lists, no "assistance" from shitty software trying to "help" me, no anything.
If you have to resort to
Re: (Score:2)
Also if we were in charge of what went on the site, we wouldn't be "bombard[ing] you with worthess[sic], useless crap"
Re: (Score:2)
Also if we were in charge of what went on the site
But you could tell the customer/boss that providing that unblockable, uncloseable bullshit popup video they want just isn't possible with current technology. If they don't like that, tell them to cry to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst thing is the annoying pop up in the lower right corner: "chat with an 'sales representative' or 'help desk' or 'other assistant' "
Article is missing something (Score:2)
Safari is the only browser to support TCO in JavaScript, which is an ES6 standard. It might be 6 years old, but TCO is a pretty freaking "cutting edge" functional-programming feature that adds a great deal of power to JavaScript.
Google initially added it, then removed it from Chrome claiming TCO makes it "difficult to debug". And that was that.
Now, regardless of the effect of TCO on debugging, Apple continued (and still continues) to support the standard long after Google opted-out. If it needed removing, i
Yeah.... (Score:2)
What exactly is it that's not supported? Looking at the "web-platform-tests dashboard," which is terrible, things that are much more supported in Chrome than Safari that jump out at me are, for example "battery status," "bluetooth," "cookie-store"....
villian (Score:2)
You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Re: (Score:2)
File API, GPS and Bluetooth interaction, NFC interaction, USB interaction, none of that needs to be available from a browser window.
I want all of those things. Why should I need to install an app, which can act almost completely without restriction, when I can just visit a website to get the same functionality? As long as I need to enable them per-site, I'm satisfied. Besides, a site asking for permissions that it doesn't need tells me quite a bit about how much trust I can put in it.
your site should be designed that I can open it with lynx and it still works.
That would make a lot of sites very tedious to use. SPAs have make web applications as nice to use as their desktop counterparts. I have no idea why