The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter.
(I wonder how it is implemented. I'm guessing that WebKit runs out-of-process, and that process has the JIT entitlement, whereas the host app process doesn't.)
IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's.
Having developed an app-building engine for Android in the days when some vendors shipped different engines to supply webview functionality (is that a thing? I actually don't know if they ever stopped) I can say I'm extremely in favor of this part of their policy. God that was a pain in the ass.
App Store guidelines say you have to use WebKit JavaScript for web browsing. I believe you are allowed to use third-party JavaScript for non-web-related purposes. That’s a rather small use case though.
Also, we have to distinguish between App Store policy and technical constraints. If you are just running your own software (e.g. developer, adhoc distribution, enterprise distribution), you don’t need to care about the former only the later-lack of entitlements to JIT is still an issue for the later.
Despite the branding, "Chrome for iOS" and "Firefox for iOS" are fundamentally different products than their Android or desktop counterparts. They're both just wrappers around the same bundled version of Webkit that Safari uses.
It isn't just a privacy argument. Browsers need security exceptions for full performance, such as compilation of Javascript/WebAssembly. The browsers may also not have enough process infrastructure to support their native sandboxing strategy on iOS.
Someone can make arguments on whether Blink's rendering engine would have business motivation for an iOS port. However, the sandboxing and javascript differences were large motivating technical factors in Blink forking from WebKit in the first place.
A few reasons for me, personally:
1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser.
2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it.
3) From a big-picture perspective, Apple forcing Safari on iOS is the only reason the entire Web client space isn't completely dominated by Google and subject to that—omitting some words I might choose to describe them, for civility's sake—company's every whim (instead it's only mostly dominated by Google)
4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. I have zero clue why I'd want another browser engine on my i-devices, and I've been doing this whole Web thing a while, long enough that I happily adopted and evangelized Firefox back when it was still called Phoenix—normal users have even less reason than I might. As in, I can't think of a single reason being able to install other browser engines would make my time using the devices better. Better battery life? LOL no, it'd be worse. Features I want? Nope, but several I actively do not want developers to even have as an option. I'd rather keep those capabilities away so developers can't start depending on them, so start forcing me to choose between using sites I want to use and avoiding things I don't think browsers should be able to do in the first place (I'm sad Safari's given up as much ground on this as they have, frankly, but again, it's only because of their i-device browser engine monopoly that they have any leverage at all here).
5) Meanwhile, this doesn't get in the way of my using the actually-important features of other browsers, they'll just have Safari's engine under the hood. Not a big deal, or even a small one (to me).
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
> 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it.
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
> 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway.
Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Already answered in my post. A cookie for you if you can quote the relevant sentences.
> Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Ditto.
> Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
Ditto.
Ultimately, I really wish they had significant, competent competitors for the specific sort of thing they do. I like Apple because government has entirely failed to regulate absolutely horrible behavior by software vendors, so at least I can pay Apple to enforce some basic and largely no-brainer regulations instead, but I hate that the OS/platform market is so screwed-up that there's effectively no alternative that offers anything like what Apple does, and not just when it comes to defending against all-too-common bad actors.
From a bit ago: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s...
> The new App Store Small Business Program will benefit the vast majority of developers who sell digital goods and services on the store, providing them with a reduced commission on paid apps and in-app purchases. Developers can qualify for the program and a reduced, 15 percent commission if they earned up to $1 million in proceeds during the previous calendar year.
---
If you are making more than $1M, then its 30%. If you are making less than $1M, its 15%.
For subscriptions...
https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-i...
> Although the company's current 30 percent revenue cut will remain in most cases, once a customer maintains a subscription for over a year, that cut fall to 15 percent, giving developers a larger share of revenue for long-term subscribers, Schiller told The Verge. Subscriptions are also opening up to all kinds of apps, including games, instead of just categories like music services and magazines.
It is also my understanding the cut they insist on taking on e-books and audio and movies etc. makes it impossible to sell those at all in the app. I guess that strictly makes the in-app experiences on the iPhone more secure, though still pushes it out.
With Audible, I have a subscription and get credits and can use those credits in the app... but I can't use real money to buy a book in the Audible app. Similar with Kindle.
The tangent to that is that Apple is managing it. When my nephew, as a very young child, bought in app purchases that was able to be refunded through a single point of contact - Apple and they did it (I normally am the only user of my iPhone and thus have rather permissive permissions on device).
I am not sure that Outfit7 (makers of Talking Tom) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfit7 note the "Acquisition and leadership change" section and consider the difficulties involved with international charge backs) would have been amenable to refunding the purchases if they were the payment processor instead.
As it was, it was a notification of credit card activity on another iPhone, looking over at it, and then going through https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204084
So for me, the question is "is being able to manage my subscriptions through Apple worth it?" And for me, the answer is "yes." My subscriptions to various news sites are managed through Apple so that I can cancel them easily (compare the infernal nightmare of canceling WSJ subscription otherwise - https://darkpatternstipline.org/sightings/difficulty-in-wsj-... ).
For the sites with a subscription, they likely wouldn't have gotten it if I had to purchase it through them instead at all. 70% (now 85%) is much better than 0%. Similarly, the ease and security knowing the Apple is the only one touching my credit card when doing an in app purchase.
For i-devices, yeah, true.
> You can only pay for software on their own store.
As nice as exposing the App store to more market effects might be, the app store monopoly enables them to force other companies to be less shitty on the platform (or else abandon it—but it's lucrative, so most don't), so it's a feature to me. I'd rather some of the behaviors they ban were simply illegal everywhere, but until then I like having the option to live the libertarian dream of paying for a private regulatory agency (Apple, that is). Beats having no option of that sort.