I suspect it might have been motivated by antitrust concerns, but safari is really not that bad. Check out Interop 2025: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025
They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0])
> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
Safari is the worst browser by far, especially on iOS. Apple also does things their own way, ignoring standards, so that I have to have a real actual iPhone to debug their platform-specific problems, especially around touch interactions.
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth API, and lots of others. My product could use bluetooth but we're forced to work around Apple's Safari limitations and use Wifi instead, which drains the battery faster. We do not want to write a specific app for iOS (which costs us money to build and maintain), which then allows Apple to extort us for a percentage of sales through the app. Bluetooth would be the better option, but Wifi works although is a bit more cumbersome to deal with. So sorry Apple fans, you have to use wifi with our product because Apple reasons.
I am going to open a bottle of champagne when the DOJ finally forces Apple to allow other browsers on iOS.
Personally my feel is Safari at least isn't dead in the water any more, does ship some stuff. It's much better than 2 years ago. 4 years ago it was a travesty.
But there's still all sorts of wonkiness they just makes Safari non viable. If you don't PWA install, your storage gets cleared alarmingly quickly. If you do install it's still cleared wicked fast. Notifications seem to have incredibly unreliable delivery issues and require PWA installs to work at all. The features are closer to parity than before but the base functionality is still sabotaged deeply. 'The user is secure' with Apple is amazing doublespeak (the second meaning being securely in Apple's pocket with no where to go).
It's worth noting that Interop participants meet and decide via unanimous consent what they are going to work on each year. The anti-trust case against Apple would be far stronger if they didn't show up & find some stuff to work on, to agree to. And with apologies as I break out the tin foil hat, showing up also gives them some leverage to shape what doesn't get worked on too.
Interop 2025 is a subset of web features, but Apple gets a veto on which features get included in each Interop round, and vetoes heavily. It doesn't reflect interoperability in general. Safari also consistently starts out the worst each year, and improves the slowest.
They don't support notifications correctly, they have a semi-broken implementation. Only a subset of sites will work, even though they'll work perfectly on Chrome or Firefox or even minor browsers. Even if you put the site on the homescreen.
>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial...
Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.
Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too.
> Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest
I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.
> You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant.
BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
>Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge.
>BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias.
> Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard
It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships".
> The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division.
Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once.
> And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument
There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard").
It literally is "everyone must immediately not implement anything that cuts into Apple's bottom line"
Apple has veto power over what becomes web standards now. If they didn't abuse that power, and also forbid other browser engines on iOS, then there wouldn't be a problem. They abuse their power in a way that hurts everyone but Apple, and the DOJ took notice.
You say Firefox doesn't implement the same APIs that Apple won't as proof of something, but Opera and other browsers do implement those APIs, so that really cancells out whatever argument you thought you had.
Back in the day, Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest, and if Apple had veto power over web standards back then, the web might still be "Web 1.0", hypothetically speaking.
But now Apple can block progress in web browsers now, and the DOJ will likely prove that they are abusing their position to the detriment of everyone that uses a web browser, so Apple can make a few more dollars from their app store.
It should not be so difficult for anyone to understand.
>It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact.
>There's no broader argument.
There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely.
No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938
>and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with
There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary.
> You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
> There is no such assumption,
"the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard." Yup. "Whatever Chrome ships must be implemented no matter the cost and despite any opposition for any reason".
> only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior
Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
>Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information, because you can't understand how it has been debunked several times now. You insist on distorting nuanced arguments into gross misrepresentations, because that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions.
>Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Your framing around this is absurd, you're the one turning a technical discussion into some team sport where you try to inflate your argument by pretending it's Google vs A&M, when it has been proven that Mozilla accepted new iterations of proposals which you yourself have admitted! This collapses your entire false narrative, since it's evidence that, just because a current implementation is temporary rejected by Mozilla, it is not an eternal rejection similar to Apple's, whose motivations are not guided by (faux) privacy concerns but by fear of losing their App Store dominance and revenue. You however, take this to underhandedly create anti-competitive Apple apologia, where you downplay Apple's conflict of interest by writing your own "Google vs A&M" screenplay.
>Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Wrong. That's a claim which you didn't even bother elaborating on, because if you were to elaborate, it would become clear that your claim is not only wrong, but outright deceptive. Your biased and shallow rhetoric is not a substitute for an actual argument.
>Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
Irrelevant and misleading. Not every single feature is directly relevant to establishing equal rights for competing technologies, but when Apple realizes that it does, then they fear that it might threaten their App Store's dominance and they act accordingly. None of that diminishes Apple's conflict of interest either, but it makes clear how you're consistently arguing in bad faith to downplay Apple's conflict of interest. No matter how hard you try, you will fail. Apple makes billions from their conflict of interest, so as long as that conflict of interest exists, people have the right to make other people aware how that poisons Apple's motivations in relevant decisions.
>You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality, that it feels like I'm arguing with a LLM that loses context and forgets that I refuted that specific narrative ad nauseam. Again, you yourself have admitted to cases where Mozilla initially refused a specific implementation, but later have accepted it. This alone debunks your whole biased narrative. Your entire rhetoric is a constant regurgitation of that single spiel, but you can simply not move on, completely incapable of processing evidence that has debunked it, that's why you fail to realize how hollow and misguided your Apple propaganda is.
>BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
Amazing, this is exactly what I was referring to above. I swear, you're like a bot who constantly and stubbornly regurgitates the exact same debunked points, regardless of how many times your talking points have been already addressed and refuted. Finally, you do not even realize how that anecdote and precedent you so enthusiastically shared, thinking it would support your narrative, actually undermines and invalidates it. Wonderful.
Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)
Yes
> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.
"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is
I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.
> I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement.
Oh yes, you do. To the point of inventing contract clauses for Firefox.
It's just extremely unfortunate that Safari is now between a rock and a hard place (only because of Apple) as really they are the only web engine of note to withstand "whatever Chrome spits out is standard now"
Please stop this now. You are in breach of several guidelines, notably these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I can't fathom how a subthread about browser engines became so toxic. HN is a place for curious conversation and it is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please do your part to make this place better not worse.
I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
> Your deceptive rhetoric in defense of Apple's anti-competitive business practices i
I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
>I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
Then you should have been more specific, but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis. Thus, your attempt to hastily dismiss it as "conspiracy" is factually an act of smearing.
>I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team have been in constant service of justifying Apple's actions at all cost, while outright ignoring and downplaying their evident conflict of interest. Furthermore, you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations of "HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them" which is a distortion, that you keep forcefully putting in people's mouths, despite many people calling you out on it numerous times throughout this thread.
> but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis
I dunno, man. It's claiming a literal conspiracy between Google and Firefox to make Firefox worse. In reality, it's an outlandish proposition because Google already holds such high market share for Chrome, they need Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid antitrust concerns. The idea that they'd contractually (or behind-closed-doors) engage in hobbling Firefox is fantasy territory -- literally conspiracy theorizing. Because of the huge legal and financial risks that would entail if ever discovered. So, when something's an actual conspiracy theory, it's right to call it out as such.
> Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team... you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations...
I'm Ctrl+F-ing here through troupo's comments and not seeing anything like that. Their points seem perfectly reasonable, that Firefox also doesn't implement these features, and therefore Apple's actions might be very reasonably explained as having the same genuine reasons.
On the other hand you're the one saying things like:
> Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy
> Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative
> It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information
> that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions
> Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality
> It's incredible how you insist on being so obnoxious
> That reads like an #ad that Apple would pay for
It looks like you're the one imagining conspiracies in Apple's behavior -- "that motivates every single one of their decisions" -- and attacking others in your own "diatribes". And you're the one using incredibly insulting and inappropriate language. It seems to be your comments that have a lot of inappropriate tone for HN, which is presumably why I see a lot of them downvoted. Maybe you should think about whether this is really the best way to engage here, maybe re-read the HN guidelines?
> That's why you didn't even bother discussing the evidence I've provided
I don't engage in argument with people who accuse me of having another account. If you want to have productive discussions on HN, I suggest you rethink the way you go about them.
This is false and it's against the guidelines to accuse people of shilling/astroturfing/coordinated activity. You've posted enough in this thread, and the thread is days old. Nobody is seeing these comments other than us moderators. Please stop.
They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0])
> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
Can you give an example?
[0]: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-insta...