That being said - Apple might be closed and all the rest, but make no mistake: they know their customer and they are willing to defend them. Even if it means pissing people off. Which is kinda nice.
That's an absurd statement. Maybe your argument has merit, maybe it doesn't, but let's not suggest that our smartphones browsers are anything akin to slavery.
That's the problem. Google can regularly update Chrome without updating the OS. Apple can't because it's a system app.
> Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS
Not really. They actually started backtracking on most of those. They even allow third party keyboards now, most of which are slower and harder to use than the stock iOS keyboard. Considering keyboard is a more integral part of the OS, it seems weird they still do not allow third party browsers.
Which is inefficient and inconvenient. Google updates Chrome every 6 weeks while you are sleeping, as with all other Play Store apps. With an iOS system update, you have to click 5 different dialog boxes and go through several steps such as rebooting.
> and users will actually get to download it quickly and there's no specially carrier approval bullshit
Chrome updates don't go through carrier approval. Since Google does not need to update Android to be able to update Chrome, it's hard to understand your point here.
> that forced Google to go with a downloadable browser app pushed through the Play Store.
Chrome did not replace AOSP browser. Android still has its own browser.
> Being forced to use the Play Store for system functionalities has not only destroyed the "open source" nature Android once had
Chrome is not a "system functionality". It's an optional app you can download from the store. Android still has its own open source browser.
If you're referring to Chrome on iOS, it uses Apple's Webkit/Webview as the rendering engine. The only thing Google is updating with app updates is the logic behind interaction with that webview, not the rendering engine itself.
I can imagine that it is liberating just as it would be liberating to develop exclusively for any other browser. But what is the use case for that? I wasn't even aware that "iOS Web Developers" exist.
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/chrome_conti...
and here:
http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2015/02/counting_chr...
(More seriously, people really want to target "the web" as a platform without having to handle the various mobile devices seperately)
One of the liberating things when first developing a Web App for iOS was only having to support a single modern browser, allowing usage of advanced features which weren't crippled by having to gracefully support old IE versions. Only having to target a single platform with limited resolutions is also one of the few benefits I see with native iOS development.
Apple have always put the end Users Experience before Developers, so it's primarily focused on maintaining a fast, fluid browsing experience on iOS which is the most used browser for tablets and smart phones and IMO still continues to provide the best browsing experience on any mobile device.
So it doesn't follow the feature-mill factory pushed by other browser vendors, I still prefer iOS's performance focus, yearly upgrade cycle which thanks to iOS's fast upgrade adoption, iOS Web Developers get to enjoy adopting new features long before Android Web Developers who have to support the old browsers shipped on JellyBean.