> I am beyond thankful every day for apple keeping both desktop safari and ios running to prevent the internet being even more monoculture than in the IE6 days
Don't worry, EU regulators (and other countries soon I suppose) are doing their best to fix that "bug".
Users sticking with Safari because it is the browser by default on iOS and macOS and they don’t know any better isn’t some sort of moral victory for privacy. (I notice that Apple has only recently been putting out TV ads praising their browser.) It’s almost like privacy through obscurity. And it’s like thanking Samsung for accidentally pushing against Chrome dominance on Android by forcing users to use Samsung Internet by default. Or thanking Microsoft for bundling Edge with Windows.
Users generally don’t know about Chrome’s privacy issues or what browser engines are. Apple simply hasn’t done enough to promote Safari and keep it a strong competitor against Chrome. Relying on their monopoly over their platform is them accidentally doing something good in the wrong way. You know why Chrome attracted so many customers when it first launched in 2008 or so? Because IE, and yes Firefox, were incredibly bloated and slow. Apple hasn’t presented a similar performance jump or another compelling reason for Safari over Chrome. And in open-source land, so many hotshot alt-browsers from Arc to Brave all use Blink. Orion uses WebKit, and it’s the only one. Apple clearly doesn’t care to promote it as a Blink alternative other than for their monopolistic mandate of WebKit on iOS.
Not to mention, they killed Safari for Windows. Apple apparently doesn’t care about privacy as much as HN thinks they do, see mini-thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39975620
Finally, the EU change should in theory be liberating for Mozilla, who can now provide a proper mobile Firefox for iOS that uses Gecko. Instead, from what I hear that isn’t even on the roadmap, because this is the state of modern Mozilla. Here’s hoping that Zen will instead bring Gecko to iOS.
I’m arguing that Apple should strengthen Safari (and not just on iOS and macOS but to other operating systems owned by them) to make it more compelling to use for customers, and not rely on App Store guideline lock-in on iOS. But they clearly don’t care to, even when they could afford to. And they don’t care about promoting WebKit at all, because any alt-browsers running it would just provide competition for Safari anyway. As it stands it all seems very half-hearted and kind of lazy.
“The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
Alright, that's fair. I was going to say "Well, that's just because there's no such thing as Safari for Linux" but at this point I'm somewhat losing the plot. I suppose ultimately it seems like Apple just cares about Safari for its own platforms and if others happen to use WebKit, that's nice but they don't care, it's not like they're seeking to impact the web like Google does.
For all of Apple's contributions for WebKit, you don't exactly see them doing something like this:
Having a good web browser doesn't sell apps. That's why they don't care about it. They would rather you not have one at all and only have access to things via apps.
Precisely, and it's quite ironic given Steve Jobs' original envisioning iOS as chiefly relying on web apps. The App Store mandate of banning non-WebKit browsers is entirely technical in nature and self-serving; to prevent apps from including third-party JIT compilers[0], and maybe (like Flash was) other browser engines are viewed as unoptimized and insecure for the platform. It's doubtful that Apple actually cares about preventing Chrome's takeover of the web. This is not the guardian you are looking for.
[0] iOS Application Security: The Definitive Guide for Hackers and Developers by David Thiel, pg. 8-9
Don't worry, EU regulators (and other countries soon I suppose) are doing their best to fix that "bug".