I do believe what I am saying about security is true, and it would be a non-trivial cost for Apple to have to start worrying about what happens if Chromium ships with a security bug, but at Apple scale it’s less about that cost and more about the complexity it introduces for no benefit to Apple.
To clarify I am not saying Apple’s decision is good. I think it’s very bad. I am just trying to see it from their perspective, and have to admit, it makes complete sense
Besides, you can say a lot of things about Firefox and Chrome - but high performance and memory and power efficient aren’t traits you assign to Chrome.
And from a technical standpoint, high performance browsers enabled the world to misuse HTML + JS to create applications, instead of being limited to documents like it was designed to do. As a developer, building native applications is a lot more fun trying to coerce the browser into doing what I want, because the underlying design actually does what you need it to. Unless "native" means "Windows", though, that has always been painful unless you use something like Qt.
Back in the 1990s,, when I used them, Macs had an "unending stream of viruses" too. DO they not these days? Does windoews still?
This is a false choice. How many of those viruses existed because you could, as a concept (not as a default), mark a page as executable at runtime? I'm going to say precisely none of them.
High performance browsers never could have been written in the first place if PCs had these restrictions in the '90s through mid 2000s.
Who knows what "application of the future" will not be viable on iOS etc. because they're afraid of writable executable pages or any other undue restrictions.