News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Safari 10.1 by xenadu02 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @12:35AM (#13478881)
I don't think it is fair to discount battery life, memory usage, and performance so heavily. Looking at the http://caniuse.com list there are plenty of features supported by Safari and not supported by Chrome including Audio Tracks, Video Tracks, ES6 modules, SVG Fonts, Animated PNG, CSS regions. Safari is actually the first to 100% ES6 compliance; Chrome sits at 89%.

I would also remind everyone that Google chose to fork Webkit to create Blink. They could have contributed their IndexDB engine to webkit at any time but chose not to. They could have contributed to the process isolation refactor but chose to do their own thing instead. They could have collaborated on JSCore instead of creating V8. That isn't wrong or right but it is the truth and it does mean duplicated effort.

Some of the features supported by Chrome are interesting to web-only developers I'm sure, but I don't want the browser on my mobile phone running service workers eating my battery in the background. With great power comes great responsibility and the JS-advertising-infested web has a really poor record on handling responsibility.

If you give a web developer media playback, they force auto-playing media on you.

If you give a web developer responsive layouts, they steal your ability to zoom.

If you give a web developer cookies, they inject tracking bugs to invade your privacy.

If you give a web developer service workers they will absolutely drain your battery.

(Yes not everyone but it will be widespread enough that browsers will be forced to invent countermeasures.)

Re:Safari 10.1 by eriknstr on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @01:34AM (#13479218)
>Google chose to fork Webkit to create Blink

Wasn't this because the amount of work required to co-operate with the WebKit project made it not worth it for Google?

Re:Safari 10.1 by r00fus on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @01:58AM (#13479331)
I find it more likely that Apple and Google's views on key topics (e.g. privacy/advertising) were diametrically opposed (not to mention Android vs iOS).

Note: Chrome exists for many OSs - Safari is only found on Apple ones.

Re:Safari 10.1 by iampims on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @02:45AM (#13479544)
They had Safari for windows at some point…
Re:Safari 10.1 by soperj on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @12:57AM (#13479009)
That's only the newest version of Safari, before that it was pretty shit (on par with IE). Can't expect the mind share to change overnight, especially when it has lagged for years.
Re:Safari 10.1 by threeseed on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @04:34AM (#13480021)
It's really weird to see this myth about Safari being the new IE6. At no point did Apple abandoned WebKit or add proprietary features to the extent that Microsoft did. They've continued to plug away adding new functionality and as has been mentioned they are ahead of Chrome/Edge in some areas and behind in others.

Some features in particular service workers Apple has deliberately chosen to take a firm position on because they value battery life and security.

Re:Safari 10.1 by om2 on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @02:25AM (#13479462)
All the things xenadu02 mentioned have shipped in previous Safari releases. In some cases last year, in other cases weveral years ago.
Re:Safari 10.1 by mozumder on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @04:19AM (#13479958)
Still no CSS scroll snap points & CSS regions under Chrome.

Safari has always been ahead of Chrome for design & user experience. I'm not sure what the benefits of Chrome are?

Re:Safari 10.1 by r00fus on Wednesday January 25, 2017 @01:59AM (#13479334)
[cite needed]