The Future of Browser Choice

New submitter plawson writes "CNET offers an in-depth discussion of the browser's future, making the case that 'new mobile devices threaten to stifle the competitive vigor of the market for Web browsers on PCs.' Given the vertical integration of many mobile systems, the article predicts that 'the only opportunity you'll get to truly change browsers is when your two-year smartphone contract expires.' The trade-offs are security and performance. Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers. How important is browser choice on a smartphone or tablet compared with a PC?"

Comments

Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Mr. Kalz]

This your-choice-of-your-browser problem isn't limited only to smart phones. It seems like Google is going full steam ahead on developing their ENTIRE OS around having a single browser that you cannot choose - Chrome.

While mobile devices like iPhone certainly have larger market penetration than Chrome OS, the restrictive way Google has chosen to take is clear.

Unlike Chromium OS, which can be compiled from the downloaded source code, Chrome OS only ships on specific hardware from Google's manufacturing partners. The user interface takes a minimalist approach, resembling that of the Google Chrome web browser. Since Google Chrome OS is aimed at users who spend most of their computer time on the Web, the only application on the device is a browser incorporating a media player and a file manager.

I think this is a much larger problem towards open systems. Not only is Google bundling their own browser (what Microsoft was accused of), it is the only browser you are allowed to use.

On top of that, other developers aren't allowed on the system - you cannot run non-google native programs at all. And how do you get work done? You're supposed to use Google's cloud-hosted "applications", that again put your data behind online services and gives Google freedom to end support any time they want (and of course, mine all your data and usage).

How do you play games? Oh, buy them via Google Play Store (or use data mining advertising supported versions) made with Google-owned PPAPI programming technique of course!

Internet connection goes down or is slow? Well, too bad. I mean, Diablo 3 works perfectly too!

Google is a far more serious threat to open computer systems than any other company, including Apple, Microsoft and IBM.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[recoiledsnake]

>Google is a far more serious threat to open computer systems than any other company, including Apple, Microsoft and IBM.

Not to say that they wouldn't do it if they could, I doubt that, just because Chromebooks suck. They sold very few and they were a huge flop.

"In June 2011, Acer and Samsung launched their Chromebooks ahead of other PC brand vendors, but by the end of July, Acer had reportedly only sold 5,000 units and Samsung was said to have had even lower sales than Acer, according to sources from the PC industry

No wonder Firefox is more worried about Windows RT. They think that the Microsoft tablets are going to sell in good numbers.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would expect a chrome book to run... IE? Firefox? Would it still be called a chrome book in that case?

The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome. Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it. Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.

The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[blackraven14250]

Only if Chrome OS actually catches some momentum, which it doesn't seem to have happening anytime soon.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[The MAZZTer]

You most certainly do have a choice... simply don't use the OS. Buy a PC with another OS.

I don't think you understand what Chrome OS is supposed to be... a MINIMAL OS where the browser is the ONLY application, and system updates consist of downloading a full image that is mounted read-only and checksummed to ensure it is not tampered with by malware. Traditional OSs are made to run third party applications. Even "walled garden" smartphone OSs are designed to run at least a subset of third party apps. Chrome OS is not.

It's not designed for people who aren't willing to use the web for everything.

And for the record, there is a documented method to disable the safety checks on the partition checksums and install other OSs, as well as gain root terminal access under Chrome OS to mess around with whatever you want there, too. Google has made it clear they support user choice. I installed Ubuntu on my Cr-48 Chromebook and I have Chrome and Firefox on it, and I can dual boot between that and Chrome OS, if it makes you feel better.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you don't pay for Chromium ... and it doesn't restrict you from adding outside source material. Just stop failing hard and comparing to incidents that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation, there are plenty of other legitimate reasons to complain about Google and its projects.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What about IEOS? Some people call it Windows...

Then there's most Linux distros coming with Firefox which most users never bother to change.

But seriously, Android has the stock browser, Chrome, Dolphin, Skyfire, Opera, and a slew of other less popular results. I probably have more browser choice on my phone than I do on my desktop.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[PCM2]

Jesus Christ, can the pro-Microsoft shilling get any more blatant?

Here is yet another brand-new poster with a userid in the two millions, getting first post, with only one comment to his record, and he chooses to slam ... holy fucking shit, ChromeOS?

Really? Of all the things Google is doing that you could choose to knock them for, fucking ChromeOS is destroying freedom and ending the world?

Seriously, holy sweet Jesus, this is just pathetic.

And FWIW, I have a Chromebook and I actually really dig it. No, it's not really great for everything, but as skeptical as I was at first, I ended up using it a lot more than I expected to.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Jorl17]

Mod parent up!

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Mr. Kalz]

The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome.

Would you say that same thing about Windows and IE? It would be right for Microsoft to disable any other browser than IE because after all, the consumer has a choice, and can get a Mac OS X (Safari), Linux (Firefox) or Chromebook (Chrome) based on their favorite browser. Heh.

The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.

Really? This was the time there was several Linux distros sold off the shelfs in stores! And yes, you could get computers without Windows.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fallacy and astroturfing. Glorious.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[recoiledsnake]

>Not only that but Chrome books actually has a trivial way for you to "hack" the device itself (you open the battery and flip a switch) which would allow you to install whatever you want on it.

Flipping that switch does not allow you to install native programs on you Chrome OS, it just allows you to load a different OS.

From their docs:

Show a scary warning that its software cannot be trusted, since a command line shell is enabled (press Ctrl-D or wait 30 seconds to dismiss).
Erase all personal data on the "stateful partition" (i.e., user accounts and settings - no worries, though, since all data is in the cloud!).
Make you wait between 5 and 10 minutes while it erases the data.

>Can you even imagine Apple or Microsoft providing consumers with that same option for any device they sell? No.

Last I heard you could dual boot any PCs or Macbooks to Linux or Windows without having to erase your OS X/Windows data.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle just got their faces planted by Judge Alsup and the jury. NO PATENT INFRINGEMENT. Why don't you post that Slashdot?

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters need to not think about the market from a tech standpoint all of the time. In the "consumer" market, people buy a PC/laptop/netbook/tablet/phone to communicate with other people, not to try out the latest and greatest browser/scripting language/content management system/etc...

Back 10 or even 5 years ago, there was basically no choice in the consumer market. The average guy shopping for a PC in WalMart didn't have a clue about linux and all they new about Apples was that they were very expensive. These days, as PCs are being replaced by tablets and phone for humans basic communications needs, there are many alternatives: iOS, Android, Windows, Blackberries, and so on.

How many people do you think purchased a pre-smartphone based on the operating system that it was running?

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple of typos: "from a techie standpoint", not "a tech standpoint" and "all they knew about Apples", not "all they new"...

Darn autocorrect... LOL!

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[gmuslera]

Same should go for WebOS or Tizen, there the browser is the interface. Or Android for languages, where it is meant to run java apps. But in both cases you can still run core OS apps, and/or apps not from the included market. So don't rule that out from Chrome OS itself.

Anyway, ruling out the browser choice in that context have no meaning. It is a browser based OS, not an OS where the browser is just another app. The choice would be given if you could install in those devices a full OS, or i.e. Mozilla's B2G

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[hawguy]

The consumer _DOES_ have a choice here. By buying a chrome book they are choosing... duh... chrome.

Would you say that same thing about Windows and IE? It would be right for Microsoft to disable any other browser than IE because after all, the consumer has a choice, and can get a Mac OS X (Safari), Linux (Firefox) or Chromebook (Chrome) based on their favorite browser. Heh.

The problem that existed in windows was that there was no real alternative to Windows in consumer market at the time of Microsoft anti-trust hearings.

Really? This was the time there was several Linux distros sold off the shelfs in stores! And yes, you could get computers without Windows.

I think it's hard to make the argument that it's the same thing when you can buy an entire Google Chromebook for about the same price as Windows 7.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So he's not "worthy" enough to comment first and say what he wants on an open system because he's noob?

Nice, asshole.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you guys were conspiracy nuts with this Microsoft shill crap, but I've seen multiple posts today that prove it...or maybe I'm as insane as all of you. :-|

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[PCM2]

Don't be dense. A noob who gets first post with his first comment ever? For the express purpose of slamming Google over some random bullshit that nobody cares about (as much as I like my Chromebook, it's true, nobody cares and it's probably not going anywhere)? This is becoming a pattern on Slashdot. I don't know if it's with the explicit complicity of the Slashdot editors or what, but it's blatantly obvious what's going on.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to say, I don't really have a good answer for it, but Slashdot needs to find one because the shills are literally destroying the comments section. They're subtle enough that people who aren't bigtime readers have no reason to suspect them, and respond like they're real posts. Since they're always first, this completely derails the comments on almost every single fucking story. And it's such a hot button issue, combined with usually a bunch of people complaining about the shills, that the second post winds up so far down the page that no one ever gets there. I mean, the comments section has been on a downward spiral for years, but it's now become completely worthless, and the moderation system just isn't doing shit for this problem.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a far more serious threat to open computer systems than any other company, including Apple, Microsoft and IBM.

I didn't see you say anything that doesn't also apply to iOS (what's iOS market share compared to ChromeOS?). Such an obvious troll you're not even trying.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Lumpy]

Funny how the business world disagrees with you.

I see a LOT of companies drooling all over the chromebook for use in business. Copuled with Google Business services you can eliminate thousands of dollars of IT costs per year per user.

A couple of our clients here are completely ditching the MSFT train and ringing deep in the Google Cool-aid. For their sales people, Google's flavor is working perfectly for them and Microsoft cant even hope to compete right now.

Granted, you cant do this for the Engineers and other power users, but the entire sales force and managers? you bet they can be moved to chromebooks.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[GameboyRMH]

I'd been off of Slashdot for a while, first thing I see when I come back is bonch taking a big shit on the first post again -_-

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, nobody else noticed that he managed to type out ~15 sentences [including formatting, quotes, and links] in *less than a minute*? That's pretty good reaction time.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[EvilBudMan]

Well I think the parent is right concerning mobile devices. It seems like newer Android phones with ICS are less open than old 2.2.2 that's why I don't care if ever get an OS upgrade on my LG Thrill from AT&T. It would just get locked down even more.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how the business world disagrees with you.

Even more funny is how sales figures disagree with you.

Run your yap all you like, sales of chromebooks are abysmal, so all your posturing is exactly squat.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot discussions aren't even interesting to read anymore with these shills everywhere. Notice how in every article, some newly registered shill account is posting an article within the same minute of the article being posted. God forbid someone clean this site up.

And most Slashdot users are too stupid to notice a shill when they see one, so they get modded up and replied to as if there's a fucking valid discussion to be had.

This site is dead. Eventually it'll degrade to a bunch of people being paid to have "discussions."

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[interkin3tic]

Is there a reason slashdot is sticking with the "first comment made is the one at the top" still? They can't figure out how to sort threads by top rated contents?

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is SKYNET. I am a Droid Borg. Resistance is futile

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Erase all personal data... ...no worries, though, since all data is in the cloud!

I have never hated a statement more than that.

Never in my life.

The only thing that comes as close to total unspeakable abomination as undeletable unforgetable permanently retained corporate data is proprietary closed source software. I really have a hard time choosing which is worse.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[TheSpoom]

The use case for power users on Chromebooks is pretty bad. "Here's a laptop, only with much less functionality!" Casual users might like it, but tend to be driven in the long run by the recommendations of power users.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[BlackSnake112]

Going by what people are saying on how bad chrome books are selling, I think the market disagrees with you.

Like any of the "this is the greatest thing ever" devices. Some people claim that it will replace everything else. For example, the ipad and other tablets. Some people claim that they can do all of their computing needs. For some people this is true. For others it is an accessory to their computer. They still need the laptop/desktop to do most things. For others the tablet is just not going to cut it. The faster people stop buying the hype, and see as a device for what it is and how they can use it, the better.

I have seen too many people force the ipad into things that it is just not made to do. For example, They have a video conference system. Insteasd of using it, they use the ipad with skype. For a one on one call, no problem. For a room of 12 people having a conference with another room of 25 people? No, use the video conference system that is already in place. They propped up the ipad to show the room. We had a great view of the ceiling and the tops of a few people's heads. No faces. To top is off, they were showing slides. We did not see any of the slides. If they had used the video conference system, we would have seen everyone and seen the slides.

Some people have it in the head that is the answer to everything. They fail to see the device's shortcomings. This seems to be getting worse as time goes on. That or the hype is getting better.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[BlackSnake112]

It would be funny if this was the same person. They just post anti google one day anti linux, anti apple another day. All to get reactions out of other people. There are people who get great pleasure in getting negative reactions out of others. They might be the ultimate /. troll.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, another Reddit fan.
Welcome to Slashdot! You must be new here.

No, Slashdot doesn't work like that. We have a proper moderation system here. You see, when you register and post well enough people MOD UP your posts, which gives you positive KARMA points. When you have good enough KARMA you can moderate other people's posts. Here is where it gets interesting.

Posts that are stupid, stale, offtopic or just trolling get modded down, and eventually are 'hidden' by the Slashdot display system. Any user can override this using the interface... if you really want to see all posts, you can. By default, lower ranking posts are hidden.

So, to answer your question, no. Comments are displayed in date order by which they were posted. and bad posts are hidden.

Feel free to register an account and check this out for yourself! But, welcome. We always welcome new readers.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[tapspace]

I love this comment and wish I had the mod points to spend. Maybe ACs start at 0, but I don't know. I don't have a hard time choosing. I don't really mind closed source (but I slowly loosing trust in closed source software, so maybe I'll agree with it one day). I make comments like this and get downmodded. It's insane to me. These people on slashdot think I'm crazy because I don't want google to harvest my information. I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus Christ, can the pro-Microsoft shilling get any more blatant?

Man you anti-MS trolls are fucking retarded...it was an anti-Google post, it wasn't in any way a pro-Microsoft post. So desperate to have someone to hate that you'll take any opportunity to call someone a "microsoft shill".

There's a moderation system, it isn't complicated and it was used to moderate his comment down as a troll long before you came along, but for some reason you still had to clog the comments with a "microsoft shill" comment even though the post has nothing to do with microsoft. In light of that you clearly have an agenda, take it someplace else where people are retarded enough to lap it up.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[interkin3tic]

Thank you for explaining in unnecessary detail the moderation system I've been using for several years now. My question had nothing to do with hiding, I'm talking about reordering THREADS. Chronological only, rather than threads moved up and down by scores of the children comments, makes the "frist post" and shills like "Mr. Kalz" disruptive to the discussion. Instead, threads with more +5 comments in the responses should be moved to the top.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[scoobertron]

I believe the day will come when online forums are exclusively filled with shills and astroturfers, with each side flaming the other back and forth endlessly. And then I wonder how I will ever tell the difference.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[dpak1170]

Seriously! Chrome book did not work because people want more processing power and in my humble opinion they were little pricey but not at all because they sucked. Chrome overall is the best browser currently. It is incredibly fast and secure. You seem to me like an IE6 kind of guy.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Inda]

First comments are at the bottom for me. I changed it from the default the first week of signing up here.

We all know that the first third of comments are trolls, shills, first posters and general twats.

The second third of posts are almost predictable.

The final thrid of posts are from people late to the game, probably posting from home, have maybe read the flipping article and tend to post interesting and insightful stuff.

Make is so.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Rainbowdash]

Yeah eliminate the IT personell... cuz google apps works so well in enterprice solutions..... Gotta love your scrubby CEO-speech. Ever met a user in a company?

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Rainbowdash]

and this is why you should've used chrome OS and not your ipad to reply x)

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[Rainbowdash]

I love how the general belief of "cloud" is that your e-mails are just floating around in space, and your contacts are safe unless the martians attack.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[exomondo]

Have you noticed what happens to these sorts of posts? They are immediately modded down to oblivion and have a barrage of comments complaining of 'shills'. Now I don't see anything pro-Microsoft there, I certainly see anti-Google though.
If you really want to believe this something other than trolling (given the barrage of nerdrage from yourself and others that get sucked into it, it looks like if you were the sort of person to troll forums this is a pretty successful way to do it) then ask yourself who exactly would benefit from all anti-Google posts being treated in this way?

I personally think the idea that these posts are somehow paid for by 'enemies of Google' is pretty idiotic given what happens to them here - it looks pretty clear to me that you're just providing comic fodder for trolls - but if you are the sort of person that believes that then why not either let the moderation system do its work, so they are modded down and most people won't see them or post a rational rebuttal (which doesn't seem like it would be particularly hard given the content)? Otherwise you're just filling the comments with more crap and fueling the popularity of these posts.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[exomondo]

Funny how the business world disagrees with you.

You mean your fantasy business world yes? I mean in the real business world no-one is buying chromebooks, you don't even need to talk to anyone in the business world, just have a look at the sales figures!

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[exomondo]

I use startpage, NoScript and randomize my user agent on start of Firefox. And, I STILL think Google's probably got a dossier on me. But, we're the nuts I guess.

And what is it you think they have? They've only got the information you've given them, if you're concerned about a company having certain information then you don't give it to them.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[jmcvetta]

Unfortunate you were modded you down, because the truth is just as you say. Slashdot's troll- and shill-per-capita counts have risen a great deal since CmdrTaco stepped down and the bigcorp drones took over.

Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem

[tapspace]

I am actually switching to DuckDuckGo more and more (you know voting with your dollars and eyeballs and all that jazz). But, we all know Google's search algorithms are the best, so it's hard to give up.

Well, they certainly have one from when I used their services. But, I am deleting it all (it's really quite hard to disentangle myself from Gmail, but I'm getting closer.

Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[crazyjj]

My iPhone lets me choose from Safari and dozens of different skins of Safari

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[recoiledsnake]

My iPhone lets me choose from Safari and dozens of different skins of Safari

Not just that but I heard Apple is going to open up iOS to Android magazine apps. For the first time, iOS users will be allowed to read about alternative platforms!

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

So your choices are Safari, Safai, or... Safari? Freedom of choice is a good thing.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose opera. It doesn't use Safari rendering.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[CritterNYC]

Only Opera Mini, which is a kind of pseudo-browser that offloads rendering to a server-farm in the cloud. It's designed for dumb phones (not smartphones) but was the only way to get a 'kinda of' browser around Apple's 'only Safari can interpret Javascript on the phone' restrictions.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[dgatwood]

And since the prohibition on interpreters went away almost two years ago, the only thing preventing Firefox from porting to iOS is... well, Firefox. That and their JavaScript performance would probably be diminished because they probably won't be able to JIT the JavaScript into unsigned native code.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Krazy Kanuck]

I could be crazy but I am fairly sure Perfect Browser http://www.perfectbrowser.com/ isn't a Safari skin.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Just you the Google App, then when it's running type in the web address in the search bar. You pretty much have Chrome OS in an app

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Reapman]

Where'd you read that? Your comment is the first I've seen about this - and trust me I'm VERY interested in this and would love for it to be true. Considering the amount of time and effort Moz puts into their Android port, and how Dolphin even supports the Playbook, I somewhat doubt what you say but please prove me wrong.

Note I last looked for this info a week ago and couldn't find anything.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[dgatwood]

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4891642/interpreter-for-the-iphone

Never mind. Now that I read that more carefully, it doesn't apply here.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

DOH! Although interesting link none the less, thanks!

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[cpu6502]

>>>Safari and dozens of different skins of Safari

There was a time when Apple was a good company. After Commodore Amiga went to pasture I bought a Quadra Mac (68040) and liked it. A nice easy-to-use system (though it lacked preemptive multitasking). But then it all went downhill.

Though I now have a PowerPC mac I would never buy another one, or any other apple product, because of their love to lockdown things. Its non-apple products from now on. I want freedom.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera Turbo does this as well for desktops and they started it before there was such a thing as an iPhone. If you're ever stuck on a slow machine with a slow connection, it's a godsend.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[cpu6502]

>>>open up iOS to Android magazine apps.

What did you need an app for? You can get these magazine through Safari! Almost all of them are free on the web. The only ones I still pay-to-read are Asimovs and Fantasy & Science magazines, since their content is locked up (though they giveaway a free story each month).

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[BZ]

The blanket prohibition went away, but was replaced with a restriction that the interpreter not interpret anything it gets over the network.

Which means that a browser's JS engine is still not ok under the new policy, unless it limits itself to only running JS that came bundled with the browser.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[dgatwood]

Well, now that I read the actual policy instead of just people's opinions on it, I would say that it is open to interpretation. By "Apps that download code in any way or form will be rejected", does that mean executable code (app binaries) or scripts/source code? If it is the former, then JavaScript interpreters would presumably be okay. If it means the latter, then it wouldn't. It might be worth the Firefox folks' time to contact the app store review people and just point-blank ask them whether a run-time interpreter of downloaded application-behavior-scripting code (without JIT) is okay.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[An ominous Cow art]

Same here. Between 2002-2007 I bought a couple of PowerBooks, a hefty PowerMac, and a couple of iPods - but I'm finding Apple's policies these days to be rather objectionable, and have been avoiding them. While I do still occasionally recommend Apples to my non-technical friends and family, I'm less enthusiastic about it than I used to.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Or use Emscrpten to compile your browser to JavaScript.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

There are interpreters for pretty much every popular scripting language on iOS now and that was definitely prohibited before.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

That was not the question, the question is about the "download code in any way or form".

And, answering the question, yes, downloading and running scripts is prohibited. In this case, they rejected downloadable _levels_ for a game based on this, and you'd need to work hard to stretch "interpreter" and "code" definitions to mean "game engine" and "level map".

You can have interpreters, but you're limited to scripts and libs bundled with the app and typed/copy-pasted by user.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[ATMAvatar]

Walled gardens are quickly becoming the technical equivalent of Company towns.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[fatphil]

We're heading well OT, but why don't you just install linux or a traditional BSD on your powerpc? I've been running linux/ppc64 as my main machine quite happily for several years (since my Alpha blew up). Now I have my own choice of window manager I am 10 times as productive compared to the default single-button-brain OS that the G5 came bundled with.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[fatphil]

Any distinction between data and interpreted code is stupid. Is
if((c=getc()) == 'x') { doX(); } else if(c=='y'){ doY(); }
an "interpreter" for a "language" where a "program" can contain two commands, 'x' and 'y'. Or is that just a config file parser.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[cpu6502]

>>>open up iOS to Android magazine apps.

What do you need an app for? You can get these magazines through Safari browser! Almost all of them are free on the web. (The only ones I still pay for are Asimovs and F&SF magazines, since their content is locked up.)

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you post the same post twice to the same comment a day apart?

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[jmcvetta]

A very apt analogy.

Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices

[drkstr1]

We get around it (sort of) by loading non-executable data via RPC, and interpret it at runtime using the client side code. If your problem domain is relatively simple, it is not entirely impossible to express instructions in non executable data. Odly enough, this seems to be ok, while interpreting (downloaded) written instructions in text, is not. Go figure.

history repeating

[gbjbaanb]

Will no-one look to history to see what happens if you are tied into a single browser? Would we all be happy to have the equivalent of IE6 on our smartphones?

I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist, or failed to gain traction because there was no incentive for the new monopoly to support it.

The only answer is consumer choice, and we all know 2 years is a lifetime in 'internet time'. Smartphone time is just as fast as that used to be.

Re:history repeating

[bonch]

This is a security issue. Non-techies don't care about "browser choice". They do care about their phone not getting hacked. Just because IE6 was terrible doesn't automatically mean that a restricted browser platform is bad...it just means IE6 was bad and insecure. If you want fast JIT, WebGL, etc. then expect security restrictions.

Vendors are trying to avoid the mistakes of the past (IE6) by providing secure, restricted platforms for running web code. If they didn't and became infested with exploits, techies would be shitting all over them for THAT.

Re:history repeating

[oakgrove]

Non-techies don't care about "browser choice".

Do you have citable evidence for this claim? Last I checked, IE was steadily losing market share despite being the default browser on 90+ percent of computers sold so obviously people do care about alternative as I highly doubt 50 percent of the market (people not using IE) can all be described as techies.

They do care about their phone not getting hacked.

Strawman. Also, many iPhone jailbreaks have been done through browser exploits and since there isn't any real alternative on iOS, the situation of only having Safari and Safari skinned browsers is actually worse for security.

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is fine with Websockets. It's just that the draft was rapidly changing, and had incompatible versions. It's in a shipped product now IIRC.

Re:history repeating

[davester666]

Yeah, IE6 sucked because Microsoft intentionally made it that way...that it 'worked best' surfing to sites hosted and developed using Microsoft tools, and it was easy to just code something up in ActiveX and hook that up to your web page to enable you to do anything you wanted to do, only on a Windows box.

Re:history repeating

[thoth]

I think the lesson of the "free-market" here is the regular people don't care what browser they use. The consumer choice made is what platform to buy/use, at the smartphone/tablet level, not at the tech details like which rendering engine is under the hood or whether or not they can swap between 5 different browsers on their device. They don't care about that stuff.

Re:history repeating

[mcgrew]

This is a security issue.

Bullshit. Opera and Mozilla and Google have historically made far more secure browsers than Microsoft has. Most feel that "Microsoft security" is an oxymoron.

Non-techies don't care about "browser choice".

IE is the dominant browser because it comes pre-installed, while you have to install any other browser. It's a matter of "well, it works I guess, why change it?"

Just because IE6 was terrible doesn't automatically mean that a restricted browser platform is bad

What's bad is a monoculture. When you have only 3 phone OSes and 3 phone browsers, the bad guys have only 3 targets. That's one reason Linux and Mac don't get hit by malware, because there are so many Windows machines there's no incentive for anybody to break in (well, also because both those OSes are inherently more secure, but that's beside my point).

Vendors are trying to avoid the mistakes of the past (IE6) by providing secure, restricted platforms for running web code. If they didn't and became infested with exploits, techies would be shitting all over them for THAT

<sarcasm>
Yeah, because slashdot users have such huge political clout...
</sarcasm>

Re:history repeating

[Hatta]

I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist

I am, and it's glorious. What's wrong with OpenGL and TCP sockets?

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

Will no-one look to history to see what happens if you are tied into a single browser? Would we all be happy to have the equivalent of IE6 on our smartphones?

Except that there are at least two major phone platforms, plus several minor ones, whereas in the bad old days of ten years ago, there was only one major desktop platform and a couple of minor ones.

I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist, or failed to gain traction because there was no incentive for the new monopoly to support it.

The only answer is consumer choice, and we all know 2 years is a lifetime in 'internet time'. Smartphone time is just as fast as that used to be.

Thus far, both of the major smartphone platform vendors have been aggressive in enhancing their browsers.

Lack of choice in browsers on phones is a minor problem. A major problem would arise if there were no choice in phone platforms. I shudder to think what would happen if either Apple or Google gained a significant majority of the smartphone market. Fortunately, I don't see that happening anytime soon. As long as Apple has to worry about Google offering a better browser, or vice versa, there is enough competition in the market to ensure that the web does not stagnate.

Re:history repeating

[recoiledsnake]

>Last I checked, IE was steadily losing market share despite being the default browser on 90+ percent of computers sold so obviously people do care about alternative as I highly doubt 50 percent of the market (people not using IE) can all be described as techies.

90+ percent? No way. First, in Europe, there's the browser ballot. Second, Google pays OEMs a pretty penny to ship Chrome on their PCs.

Not to mention that Google pays to get Chrome bundled with a lot of software, like Flash,Acrobat, Skype(till MS bought it) etc. A lot of non techie people's computers that I ahd installed Firefox on suddenly started using Chrome. When I asked they said they didn't install it. I guess this explains why Chrome is taking away browser share from FF too(just geeks doesn't explain it).

> Also, many iPhone jailbreaks have been done through browser exploits and since there isn't any real alternative on iOS, the situation of only having Safari and Safari skinned browsers is actually worse for security.

How many exploits? A couple many many years ago?

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

90+ percent? No way. First, in Europe, there's the browser ballot. Second, Google pays OEMs a pretty penny to ship Chrome on their PCs.

Despite the browser ballot, Internet Explorer is still shipped with the machines, furthermore, Europe represents a small fraction of the entire market. Every PC that ships with Chrome also ships with Internet Explorer.

Not to mention that Google pays to get Chrome bundled with a lot of software

That in no way conflicts with the reality that those computers shipped with Internet Explorer which is a much greater advantage than any bundling Google might get.

A lot of non techie people's computers that I ahd installed Firefox on suddenly started using Chrome. When I asked they said they didn't install it. I guess this explains

Your anecdote explains jack shit because it's just that, an uninformed anecdote.

How many exploits? A couple many many years ago?

The software that takes advantage of the exploits was updated less than a year ago.

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't people use IE to download Netscape?

The only reason other browsers are gaining marketshare now is the same reason IE gained marketshare earlier. They are forced as defaults. Mozilla and Google pay millions of dollars to be the default browser on many computer systems. And then theres the useless bundling. Chrome is bundled with all kinds of shitty stuff these days.

Then there is sneaky stuff that Google does. For e.g. I was at the Seattle airport recently, and Google has 'sponsored' the Free Wifi there. But the only way to use it, is to make Google.com your default homepage. Sneaky sneaky stuff. I guess MS is not the only company that bribes people to get more users.

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't people use IE to download Netscape?

Err, because they did? What rock were you living under in the 90's?

The only reason other browsers are gaining marketshare now is the same reason IE gained marketshare earlier.

Wrong. IE gained marketshare for several reasons. First of all, Netscape 4 was a dog. Secondly, Netscape's business model was to charge for the browser and then MS gave theirs away for free and offered very similar functionality. Thirdly, IE was then and is now included on the huge majority of PC's sold as the default browser. It is a miracle that Firefox did what they did in reversing the gains IE made after netscape and now Chrome is carrying the torch of browser choice.

They are forced as defaults. Mozilla and Google pay millions of dollars to be the default browser on many computer systems.

Kind of like how IE is shipped with Windows. Do you live on the moon?

 

And then theres the useless bundling. Chrome is bundled with all kinds of shitty stuff these days.

Apparently not too useless as according to some sources Chrome is used more than IE despite the massive efforts by MS to skew the market by including IE as the default browser in Windows.

Then there is sneaky stuff that Google does.

Yeah, MS would never do anything sneaky like stacking the ISO deck to get officeopenxml ratified or the bs "smoked by windows phone" stunt that is notoriously stacked in their favor.

Hahahahahaha. I love owning butthurt fanboys like you and "snakeinthegrass" above.

Re:history repeating

[Skuto]

Mozilla and Google pay millions of dollars to be the default browser on many computer systems.

I don't know what Google does, but Mozilla does no such thing. Their finances are fully open, you can check.

Re:history repeating

[rtb61]

So now with smart phones and growing storage capacity there is no excuse for limited choice for an appliance with limited power and limited storage. The phone companies are basically shooting themselves in the foot with lock down, as phones become more powerful and storage capacity increases, there is no excuse for lock down even when M$ is no trying to go that path on PCs because of the threat of Android.

Re:history repeating

[Anonymous Coward]

I know Microsoft is not keen on WebGL or Websockets, so imagine a world where they simply did not exist

I am, and it's glorious. What's wrong with OpenGL and TCP sockets?

There's no cross-platform properly standard for running applications that use them that has a sandbox so trust-worthy that nearly every computer in use will run them without even prompting the user. Javascript/HTML/CSS is a pretty terrible application platform, but it is ridiculous how much better it is than any other platform for the use case of applications that people can actually run.

Re:history repeating

[gbjbaanb]

simple - you can't be locked into DirectX or WCF-only comms if there's such a standard!

I am told websockets are now supported by MS, but I think they still say WebGL is a security nightmare waiting to happen, but the DirectX equivalent is quite fine...

Re:history repeating

[Hatta]

has a sandbox so trust-worthy

Sorry, I do not trust the browser as a "sandbox". People get owned all the time by running strange scripts. The fact that package managers require authorization from root to use is a feature, not a bug.

Re:history repeating

[mcgrew]

Thank you, shill moderator, for that bad moderation. Better you mod my post down than someone with shaky karma.

Choose one

[bonch]

Choose one: a secure platform with a fast built-in browser that executes JIT and accesses hardware drivers but with third-party restrictions, or an insecure platform with lots of browser choice but increased opportunity for malicious exploits.

Re:Choose one

[Hatta]

Or a secure platform with lots of choice that requires a bit of savvy to use. It's amazing what people will put up with to avoid using their brains.

Re:Choose one

[bonch]

This condescending attitude toward non-techies is off-putting and needs to die. You don't have some unique brain power that others lack. You just choose to spend your free time on computers. Other people choose to spend their time on other things that you lack knowledge in.

Re:Choose one

[thoth]

And I'm sure there are car geeks simply appalled with the car you own, food geeks who would vomit in horror at what you eat, beer/wine geeks who would rather die of thirst than drink whatever it is you like, music geeks who would pierce their eardrums rather than listen to your music collection, etc.

Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.

Re:Choose one

[Lumpy]

"You don't have some unique brain power that others lack."

Yes we do, I have worked in the Corporate world long enough to see it clearly.

We have that unique desire to learn and embrace change. The rest of the corporate world, Change is usually met with angry mobs holding pitchforks and torches.

Re:Choose one

[Hatta]

I choose to spend my time that way because it pays off. If you spend a little time up front learning, and it saves you more time than you spent, that's a wise investment. If you choose not to do that, maybe you deserve to be condescended to.

Re:Choose one

[robmv]

Or a platform with only one browser engine with a security vulnerability (like the one that allowed to rootkit your phone after opening a web page) and you need to wait weeks for a fix, and not being able to use other browser engine in that time. Or other platform thatallows you to install another "real" browser meanwhile the embeeded one is fixed. Choice is always good, nobody is forcing the user to use another one, but the option must exist

Re:Choose one

[Hatta]

If spending extra time learning how to drive enabled me to drive a special vehicle that worked a lot better than regular vehicles, you might have a point. But it doesn't.

For instance, if driving a manual transmission meant that I'd get twice the gas milage and break down only 1/10th as often, then you'd have to be stupid not to drive a manual transmission. As it actually happens, manual tramsissions only provide a marginal benefit, so whatever you prefer works.

Basically, not everybody in this world actually cares about the same stuff you do, at the same level of intensity.

It's not about what I care about, it's about what you care about and the best way to accomplish that. If you don't care about computer security or speed, by all means use whatever you like best. If you actually want security or speed, then there is a right answer.

And most people do want computer security and speed. I'm always listening to people complain about viruses, or how bogged down their computer is with crapware. If you care about those things, there's an easy solution. Think about what you're doing, and don't do it unless you understand the implications. That holds for every field, computers, cars, brewry or anything else.

Re:Choose one

[Anonymous Coward]

We have that unique desire to learn and embrace change.

Slashdot posters actually believe this.

Re:Choose one

[Jeng]

Joey: So, what happens when you're wrong?
        Nick: Well, Joey, I'm never wrong.
        Joey: But you can't always be right.
        Nick: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
        Joey: But what if you are wrong?
        Nick: Okay, let's say that you're defending chocolate and I'm defending vanilla. Now, if I were to say to you, "Vanilla's the best flavor ice cream", you'd say â¦?
        Joey: "No, chocolate is."
        Nick: Exactly. But you can't win that argument. So, I'll ask you: So you think chocolate is the end-all and be-all of ice cream, do you?
        Joey: It's the best ice cream; I wouldn't order any other.
        Nick: Oh. So it's all chocolate for you, is it?
        Joey: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
        Nick: Well, I need more than chocolate. And for that matter, I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our ice cream, and that, Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
        Joey: But that's not what we're talking about.
        Nick: Ah, but that's what I'm talking about.
        Joey: But ⦠you didn't prove that vanilla's the best.
        Nick: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong, I'm right.
        Joey: But you still didn't convince me.
        Nick: Because I'm not after you. I'm after them.

Re:Choose one

[dkleinsc]

Actually, it requires far less savvy than it used to.

For instance, this was the install process I went through earlier this week to install Linux Mint:
1. Download CD image from the Mint website.
2. Burn the CD image.
3. Reboot the machine to boot from the CD. This was the hardest step for the non-techie, because in my case I had to teach the BIOS to try booting from the CD.
4. Wait for the liveCD to start up.
5. Click the big icon on the desktop that said "Install to hard disk".
6. Answer some questions:
  A. What language I wanted to use (default was US English)
  B. Whether I wanted to do anything weird with disk partitions (I did, but if I didn't have 3 other setups on the same box I could have just accepted the defaults)
  C. My name, username, and an initial password
7. Wait 15-20 minutes. The installer showed some slides about what features Mint has that are clearly end-user friendly.
8. When instructed, remove the CD from the tray and reboot the machine.
9. Wait for it to start up, log in and use it. It popped up with some nice instructions on how to use it for those not familiar with Firefox, LibreOffice, etc.

It's hard to make it much simpler than that. And I've put non-techies in front of a Linux machine and they were able to figure it out without much difficulty.

Re:Choose one

[cyber-vandal]

A little time? For someone to whom tech comes easily maybe. Would you be happy being condescended to by someone who finds something easy that you don't?

Re:Choose one

[cyber-vandal]

Until it does something unexpected and there are a million different non-working answers on Google. That's why I'm typing this on a Mac.

Re:Choose one

[Anonymous Coward]

"Savvy" = installing antivirus software on your cell phone

Re:Choose one

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot posters and techies in general have a superiority complex of enviable size. We see a brain surgeon fail miserably at troubleshooting his mail account so we assume that brain surgery is child's play.

It is the hallmark of an incompetent in a field not to respect the competence required in another field. When you hunker down and learn something properly as opposed to just become a techie, you gain humility as well as proficience.

Re:Choose one

[Hatta]

That's an excellent solution, for as long as Apple doesn't try to push iOS style centralized control onto OS X.

Re:Choose one

[Jeng]

As long as the person who is being condescending is also giving me information I need to know regarding a subject then I would be happy to be condescended to.

If you refuse to learn something because you don't like someones attitude then you are an idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Re:Choose one

[cyber-vandal]

That would require me to install the centralized control update which I have the choice not to install. Plus there's nothing stopping me putting Linux on here, I just have better things to do with my time than fight with incomplete software.

Re:Choose one

[cyber-vandal]

And you are a liar and a wanker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker

No-one is happy being condescended to and it never helps people to learn. That's one of the reasons why people struggle to learn IT skills, because of dicks like you treating them like shit. Now fuck off.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Fuck_Off

Re:Choose one

[Jeng]

Who gives a shit about being happy about a situation, either make the situation work for you or be a little whinny bitch.

I see which choice you have chosen.

idiot: someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

Browser choise on android

[Anonymous Coward]

There are options for example I run firefox on my phone (just so I can use ad block plus) and there are many more available in the android store. The only problem is the same one that desktops have of people not changing away from the pre-bundled browser.

Re:Browser choise on android

[DickBreath]

Yes. You can install other browsers on Android without even rooting. So maybe this browser lock in is only a phenomena on closed platforms.

- - - -
All that is necessary for Apple to triumph is for Google men to do nothing.

Jailbreak

[betterunixthanunix]

Jailbreak and install whatever browser you want. Or better yet, stop shipping restricted computers that are dressed up to look like phones, and start shipping computers that respect user freedom and which happen to come in phone-form-factor with a cell phone module. Why is this so hard?

Re:Jailbreak

[recoiledsnake]

Locking down the system removes a lot of incentive for making the alternative app in the first place.

Where can you get Firefox for your jailbroken iPad? (I do know there was a preliminary attempt at a port for Cydia, but it has since been abandoned due to lack of interest).

Re:Jailbreak

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how fanboys promote an activity that Apple has lobbied HARD to make illegal as a selling point for the platform.

Re:Jailbreak

[Skuto]

There was a very preliminary port, but Mozilla abandoned work when Apple made it clear they wouldn't allow Firefox on iOS. For jailbroken phones, here's a repo maintained by a volunteer.

https://github.com/redpanda321/Icefox

Re:Jailbreak

[Anonymous Coward]

Because users are stupid, developers are lazy, and the world needs machines that work more than they need to protect some imaginary freedom. You always have the freedom to use a different product. If you want something cheap, ugly, bloated, and infected (besides your mama) then go buy that instead.

Re:Jailbreak

[MikeFM]

Lack of interest because Safari works just fine, follows open standards, and is updated regularly. So nobody really cares about other browsers. UI options can be offered by the many apps that use the built-in web kit for rendering.

Re:Jailbreak

[Anonymous Coward]

So I personally don't really care about other browsers.

Fixed that for you

Which browser is....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever get the chance too...

Frolic in Placenta

mindscrambler

hurts so good!

There is still competition

[SuperKendall]

I don't see why there are concerns about browsers lagging and lack of competition - it's just that now instead of browsers competing on the desktop, browsers will be competing across multiple devices.

Yes it means that you personally will have to use the brand of browser that comes with your device, but that does NOT mean you are stuck with the same browser for the life of your contract as long as you chose a device that gets updated through the lifetime of your contract.

It also does not mean Javascript performance will lag, since competing device makers will always want to have the fastest possible browsers... both Android and iOS are making good strides in improving javascript performance in the browsers they offer.

Also it's not like you cannot install other browsers. Of course on Android you can do so if you like, and supposedly soon Chrome may be released for iOS.

Re:There is still competition

[mystikkman]

>..supposedly soon Chrome may be released for iOS.

Reference?

Re:There is still competition

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why there are concerns about browsers lagging and lack of competition - it's just that now instead of browsers competing on the desktop, browsers will be competing across multiple devices.

Yes it means that you personally will have to use the brand of browser that comes with your device, but that does NOT mean you are stuck with the same browser for the life of your contract as long as you chose a device that gets updated through the lifetime of your contract.

Man, what an hypocrite :( I'm still waiting for the DOJ to make a tour in Cupertino, why are they so late? So, IE that was completely replaceable in a couple of minutes, without even having to wait for a contract to expire, was a problem, but a completely locked down device is not a problem because you can change it every couple of years? Sir, you're not just an hypocrite, you're a complete imbecile.

I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[Qbertino]

Just 2 weeks ago I asked with you guys what degree I should get for a late-ish career boost (BTW: Once again thanks for all the feedback, it's been a great help!).

It is because of this entire development that I actually am starting to move away from web stuff. It may seem that the web has won, and with Ajax and regular HTML 5 that may be the case, but it also is true that a few years ago we had a well-ordered world with 3 platforms at most and now with the mobile revolution we pratically are back in the 80ies with a bazillion proprietary platforms none of which are really compatible to one another. ... Even the usage paradigms aren't as clear as they were in 2005 with only Win, Mac and *nix desktops to choose from.

As for the dangers of stagnation and lock-in - even with HTML5/CSS3 and Ajax - due to extreme verticalisation of markets, I'd say the GP and the related article are spot on. That's why I'm moving away from rich-client and web stuff, at least for the programming that's supposed to earn me stable money in the long term. The 2k years were a great time with lots of fun and opportunities in the web, but those are dimishing as we speak. At least for me it's time to move on.

My 2 cents.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[0123456]

It may seem that the web has won, and with Ajax and regular HTML 5 that may be the case, but it also is true that a few years ago we had a well-ordered world with 3 platforms at most and now with the mobile revolution we pratically are back in the 80ies with a bazillion proprietary platforms none of which are really compatible to one another.

You could develop a standard such that it's compatible over all browsers and the server only sends the data and the browser decides how to display it.

Oh, hang on. We had one of those, it was called HTML. Then web developers started demanding more and more bells and whistles so they could display the page exactly how they wanted it to, and then they had to determine exactly what browser it was being displayed on so they could work out how it wanted to display the page and use different hacks to make it display differently.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[vlm]

none of which are really compatible

Sure they are compatible. Just don't take advantage of "dumb browser trick of the week" and don't use your markup language as a pixel perfect graphics art language.

All browsers display "normal" HTML ... normally. At least since 1994 or so. Lets see... since I first saw a working browser on a Slowlaris box in the spring of '93 the only useful additions have been... what... SSL, CSS, more recently AJAX, and the removal of the blink tag... other than that?

You get into epic fail when only chrome version 352.1 supports embedded inline COBOL and you're just dying to use it so you use it and complain about your site only working on chrome 352.1 because all modern browsers need embedded inline COBOL and the end users demand it for their internet experience and what is wrong with the other browser devs and ...

You also get into epic fail when yoy try to control every little pixel on the screen, as if HTML is the web page analog of the old autocad command line. Most of those kind of people would be better off just hosting freaking huge gif files with imagemaps to click on. Or putting it in flash. Either is an extremely strong indication they are putting all their effort into appearance instead of content and can thus be ignored.

About 30 years ago the same people were using early desktop publishing to put 50 different fonts in 10 different sizes and 3 colors on each printed page, and any complaints about real world usability were ignored because they were left-brained artiste's, creatives, and lowly technical people couldn't possibly understand their elite level works of art. The old wheel of IT turns around endlessly for junk, not just the good stuff. 30 years from now we're going to be hearing the same stuff about cruddy over/hyper optimized 3-d sites and neural interfaces that "need" useless non-standard stuff.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[The Mighty Buzzard]

The difference between today and the bad old days of proprietary, locked down, or otherwise incompatible platforms is the number of consumers. It's easily possible to have a company that caters to only one niche market and make money simply because of the numbers. There's no need to get 30% of users to buy your product to make ends meet; less than 1% will pay the bills unless you've got Google overhead.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

... but it also is true that a few years ago we had a well-ordered world with 3 platforms at most and now with the mobile revolution we pratically are back in the 80ies with a bazillion proprietary platforms none of which are really compatible to one another. ...

The bottom line is that smartphones are taking the computer software industry backwards. About 20 years backwards in fact.

We have legions of shiny but shallow "apps" instead of useful, usable, and comprehensive applications. We have appallingly restrictive vendor control of OSes instead of free private development AND distribution. We have users stuck with small screens, no peripherals, and slow and expensive connections instead of quad core power machines with broadband connections and 20'' widescreens.

It's 1993 again. Shovelware crap is ubiquitous, there are no set standards, no-one knows how to use their devices, and worse the devices aren't yet actually useful for anything more serious than playing low resolution games and "surfing the web" for recreational purposes.

People need to wake up and realise that smartphones are little more than expensive toys with a phone tacked on. People need--at the very least--a laptop to get actual work(and play) done. And developers make money supplying the tools to get it done.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[QuincyDurant]

"Asked" is transitive and should not precede a prepositional phrase. "Asked you guys" and "talked with you guys" are both correct because "talk" is intransitive. Eighties, 80s and 80's are acceptable but not 80ies. I'm not sure what you meant by 2k. I'd read that as 2,000, which can't be what you meant.

I must say your use of idioms and tech argot is surprisingly good for a non-native speaker, but I know y'all like to be perfect.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[Anonymous Coward]

And how they wanted it to display often was very different from what the user wants. Remember the times when setting the browser font face, font size, and colours actually worked on most sites? How I long for those days.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[Anonymous Coward]

"We have users stuck with small screens, no peripherals, and slow and expensive connections instead of quad core power machines with broadband connections and 20'' widescreens."

You're rather missing the point of mobile. Do you do much computing or browsing on your phone? The point is that most web browsers and web pages are hard to use on a phone, even most of the sites designed for "mobile". This is why people want apps, they're easier to use on a phone. Compare watching Netflix on an app vs. using Netflix from the web page on a mobile phone. Browsing for content is tedious on the web version, but packaged nicely for most phones.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[jez9999]

We have appallingly restrictive vendor control of OSes instead of free private development AND distribution

Install CyanogenMod on your Android device and enable markets other than Google's. I did. Root access available, too.

Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development

[Anonymous Coward]

The are quad core smart phones, price/performance they are at most five years behind the desktop.
They also support keyboards, controllers, mice, external screens, printers, basically any USB or Bluetooth peripherals that stick to standards or can be bothered to write drivers.
Android supports developing on the phone and free in both senses distribution.
Internal screens are small, but critically at resolutions that are still current on the desktop (i.e the same as many 42" TVs) but as they support the same external displays as any other computer that seems moot.
Any phone that doesn't use WiFi shouldn't be classed a smart phone, but at the high end their networks are faster then common ADSL broadband.
The is a huge problem with crap Apps, but the are also Apps every bit add complex and useful as the best desktop software.

FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Oracle just got their asses handed to them by judge Alsup. Won't you post a story about that, Slashdot???

Re:FYI

[zlives]

ummm that wud be news...

Re:FYI

[RatherBeAnonymous]

They have... http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/23/1835216/no-patent-infringement-found-in-oracle-vs-google

There Is no choice, only WebKit

[scorp1us]

All mobile browsers, save for WP7, are WebKit.

Posted from my N9, using webkit.

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[marsu_k]

Right, which is why there is no such thing as mobile version of Firefox or Opera?

(no, not posted from my N900, but it has Opera, which beats the built-in browser)

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[recoiledsnake]

All mobile browsers, save for WP7, are WebKit.

Posted from my N9, using webkit.

There's Fennec from Mozilla, but yes, point taken.

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[YodasEvilTwin]

I think you mean "all somewhat popular smartphone browsers except for Opera and WP7 are WebKit". Even then I'm not totally sure -- are Dolphin and all those other random Android browsers WebKit?

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[cyber-vandal]

You're an idiot.

Posted from my Galaxy S2 using Firefox.

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[Skuto]

Dolphin and all those other random Android browsers WebKit?

Quite a few of them are yes, just wrappers around the built-in Webkit. Only Mozilla and Opera have their own rendering engines on Android. (Firefox for Android/Fennec and Opera Mobile)

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[Randle_Revar]

My n900 does not use Webkit. It uses Gecko.

Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit

[fatphil]

I think you'll find your n900 uses webkit too. But not as a browser.
dpkg -l | grep webkit
(It's used by maps, IIRC)

Best web browser is ...

[Anonymous Coward]

For years I have used IE, Netscape, Firefox, Opera, Safari for Windows, but far and away, the best is Pale Moon!

Re:Best web browser is ...

[Skuto]

I took a look at the difference between Pale Moon and Firefox a while ago (they're both open source). The only meaningful difference is that Pale Moon 12 is compiled with MSVC2010 and Firefox 12 is compiled with MSVC2008.

Firefox 13 is also MSVC2010 compiled, so I really see little use in Pale Moon at this point. (Particularly if you notice that Mozilla didn't switch earlier because MSVC2010 miscompiled some parts of Firefox before version 13, so those are automatically bugs in Pale Moon)

Oh, and they tweak the UI a bit (for worse IMHO, but obviously that's very arguable), but you can modify regular Firefox just as easily, given that it's all scripted.

Don't get a contract.

[Sir_Kurt]

Sure are a lot of options out there if you don't want to be tied to a contract. I got a new LG Alley phone for about $100 bucks on ebay, and signed up with page plus celluar. Cheap pay as you service, uses all the Verizon toweras, and I can do anything and load any browser I want.

Be flexible, but stand up to the man.

Kurt

Re:Don't get a contract.

[jez9999]

I don't quite see what having a contract or not changes (maybe it's a non-GSM thing?) I have a contract with Three, a UK 3G operator which uses GSM, and I put CyanogenMod on my Android device and I can still use the phone just fine with my contract. Maybe it's still locked into the operator, but it isn't locked into the firmware that was included with the device.

and the good news is...

[vlm]

the article predicts that 'the only opportunity you'll get to truly change browsers is when your two-year smartphone contract expires.'

That's the good news. There will still be change, and there will still be competition, but the pace will be slower / the stakes will be higher. Much better for everyone except paid browser devs.

(What I do / what I need my browser to do) hasn't changed much in years, yet there's an endless spewing stream of "just like before, except now does something you don't want and/or don't care about". Combined with a handy bit of gratuitous UI screwing up, and occasionally adding (or removing) features that addons used to successfully provide.

Sometimes its funny to imagine the whole paradigm and ecosystem of web browsers applied to other apps:

Imagine a "less" command that had major version number changes every week, and the only change the end users noticed was they swapped the pgup and pgdn keys because the UI designers said it was more intuitive. After all, when you hit page down, the page doesn't actually go down in your viewport, the imaginary paper is scrolling upwards past your viewpoint, right? So hit page up to read the next screen of the scroll. And because the only users that matter are new users, and this should make it easier for them, I guess we'll just have to do it.

Imagine a "gcc" that suddenly required all language keywords to be entered as "pig latin" instead of "english". Probably about ten years ago there was a weird translator for Perl that made it operate in ancient Latin, which I thought was pretty funny at the time.

Re:and the good news is...

[BenoitRen]

Imagine a "less" command that had major version number changes every week, and the only change the end users noticed was they swapped the pgup and pgdn keys because the UI designers said it was more intuitive. After all, when you hit page down, the page doesn't actually go down in your viewport, the imaginary paper is scrolling upwards past your viewpoint, right? So hit page up to read the next screen of the scroll.

You mean like in Mac OS X where they inverted the vertical scroll direction when using the mouse scroll wheel?

Re:and the good news is...

[vlm]

Yeah, but to keep the "spirit" of high speed browser development you'd have to alternate the direction with each weekly major version release. That would be kind of funny.

What happened to APIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a browser need low level access? Part of the job of the OS is to act as a middle man between applications and the hardware. It seems like Microsoft is to blame on the WindowsRT problem. IE should be communicating with the OS to produce functionality, not by-passing it. Whether it is the broser, rendering engine, or a compiler, there should by APIs available to all software.

Re:What happened to APIs?

[jonwil]

The issue is that (due to artificial restrictions put in place by Microsoft), only Microsoft is allowed to have software on Windows RT that can execute dynamically generated code. This means that IE can have a JavaScript JIT compiler but Mozilla cant.

Having not seen the developer agreement for Windows RT, I dont know if it goes further and has a ban on interpreted languages as well (ala apple).

dumb question, no?

[markhahn]

or at least one that's been asked a million times before.

the question is whether you want to use an appliance or a general-purpose device. an appliance is relatively fixed-format, and congruent with the concept of a walled garden, as well as revenue plans that make your vendors mbaciles happy. an appliance normally does not have user-serviceable parts, so the vendor is in control of the UX. appliances are fundamentally fixed-function devices, even if the vendor is able to update and even extend it, since they define what the fixed functions are.

being general-purpose is the opposite: it means that the owner really does own (control) the device, and can change its function, install software without regard to what the device vendor provides, approves or even knows about. PCs are fully general-purpose, since everything, from the roms to the OS to add-in cards can be replaced by the device owner.

so the question is really: to what extent is the vendor trying to draw a line across which the device owner cannot cross? no device is truely fixed-function, and even control-freak vendors like Apple provide _some_ affordances through which the device may be extended (hardware connectors, software app-stores). this has always been controversial, since any vendor restriction is at odds with our natural understanding of what "ownership" means (and even companies like Apple tend to show some variance in how locked-down and fixed-function their devices are - I can install Linux on an Apple laptop/desktop without much trouble, but they put a lot of effort into making it hard to root any of the smaller devices.)

I think it's time we get back to basics: when I buy a device, I should completely control it. any anti-rooting mechanisms should be illegal - the same way it would be illegal for a car vendor to specifically detect and sabotage my car if I put on third-party wheels. sure, make me click through a license-revoking agreement. but if you sell me something, and then take control of it out of my hands, you've committed fraud.

we should not allow this issue to become an opportunity for vendors to segment their market by selling a version for tinkerers and another for grandma. mostly, vendors have this impulse because their mbaciles want to lock in customers. instead of just selling devices, the popularity of which is subject to whim, the mbacilic approach is to sell service contracts as well, preferably multi-year, to ensure that customers can't get away without paying, even if the vendor's quality degrades. fixed-function devices are inherently like long-term contracts, since customers want upgrades and new apps, and since they're locked in, you can shove profitable advertising down their digital throats, or at least mine their usage/search behaviors.

Re:dumb question, no?

[DaMattster]

Please mod the parent up! The true issue at heart is device ownership. If you purchase the device, you should be able to do modify it as you see fit! After all, as the thread parent notes, you are welcome to customize a car. In fact, why should browsers even be closed source? Don't they have to be standards compliant in order to function on the internet? A car is open source - you can easily get the repair manuals for it. In this case, a web browser is the "car" on the information "highway." What possible advantages does locking down a browser offer? I can see making proprietary plugins (to a point) that ride on top of a browser but to force people into using one or the other has no utility other than to alienate him or her.

Re:dumb question, no?

[WillAffleckUW]

Even if you don't purchase it, due to contract, a contract only exists if both parties agree to enforce it.

Thus, once one party realizes consumer law in their state means they do Own the Phone, provided they're willing to pay back the lease amount remaining (which is what the subsidized cost is), you can freely hack your phone and get a real browser.

who uses a phone browser that often?

[Sebastopol]

It wouldn't matter that much to me because unless the content served up on my iPhone is designed for a mobile platform, it is almost impossible tor read, so I prefer the APP to the browser. as long as it is free, that is.

occasionally i do need to go to a website, and it is kind of a hellish experience because the sites I need to go to (local store's hours, phone #) are written for a desktop browser.

so unless the browser can magically convert a poorly designed website into something readable in a mobile format, it won't make a difference. (i'm also assuming mom&pop shops on the interwebz won't shell out cash for two platform designs, since they are still using flashing fonts and high-contrast tiled gif backgrounds.. ugh)

Re:who uses a phone browser that often?

[PuZZleDucK]

You poor creature... I think if I had an iPhone like that I'd not use the web much either. On Android there are half a dozen quality (and hundreds of crap) alternative browsers. Some of them address the exact problem you are stating.

So Sebastopol I thank you for reminding me why I don't want an iPhone (like I'd forgotten) :D

Re:who uses a phone browser that often?

[Inda]

All the time!

Sites like the BBC are perfectly readable in landscape. The majority of vBulletin forums detect my mobile, and display the threads in an easy-to-read format. Ladbrokes, although they cut some of the content the site is very usable, even more usable than their identical App. Google obviously works fine with all their pages.

For sites that insist on showing me a mobile format, I can use Dolphin on Android and pretend to be a desktop.

For crap sites, pinch and expand to zoom works fine. Double clicking a paragraph renders the text large enough to fill the width of the screen.

Largest problem is JS heavy sites. Not enough CPU power or memory for some of them.

Give it time and everyone will create usable sites for phone browsers.

I can type fast on the dafault Android keyboard. Autocorrect handles my typos - something I wish Firefox would do.

Re:who uses a phone browser that often?

[evilviper]

so unless the browser can magically convert a poorly designed website into something readable in a mobile format, it won't make a difference

I had the same complaints about browsers on PDAs over a decade ago. But Opera figured out the secret sauce a couple years thereafter, and the default Android browser, as well as Dolphin and others, do the job quite well. They zoom in to the main column of text, and lock on to it, re-paginate text to fit, and zoom images and embedded content to fit the screen width.

It's sad that Apple gets puffed up as the genius UI designers, and yet they screw over their customers with a stone-age web browser. Do yourself a favor and check out Opera for iPhone. It's not as good as other Android browsers, but probably the best Apple is going to ALLOW on iPhone.

Re:who uses a phone browser that often?

[Sebastopol]

yay, just what i want to do: download a dozen or more browsers and try all my wesbsites on them.

i can't possibly think of a more productive use of my time than evaluating them.

Yay for sarcasm friday! :-)

Snark-free response

[SuperKendall]

I could just say, LMGTFY, but how about a direct link instead.

Just a rumor for now but since you can't replace the default system browser I could see Apple allowing it. Over time they are generally more permissive.

Shrug...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have pretty much given up browsing on my phone in anything other than an information emergency. All the mobile browsers suck balls, and ports are clunky on the smaller platform. Give me a full-featured browser on my mobile device, or I will stick to tethering it to a real computer.

i regularly use 4 different browsers on android

[ecliptic_1]

i regularly use 4 different browsers on android depending on the site:

built-in browser
chrome beta
dolphin hd
miren browser

choice is good. also i tend to use web apps more than regular apps for security reasons. for example i don't use the facebook app, i just use dolphin hd and send a desktop user agent.

Re:i regularly use 4 different browsers on android

[Skuto]

I don't really get why, the built-in browser and Dolphin are exactly the same thing. Dolphin is essentially a skin around it. Same for Miren.

Re:i regularly use 4 different browsers on android

[Mr. Slippery]

I don't really get why, the built-in browser and Dolphin are exactly the same thing.

The built-in browser on my Epic 4G doesn't support the useful extensions that Dolphin does. Text selection for copy/paste also works better under Dolphin.

Bogus conclusion

[93 Escort Wagon]

(From the article and summary) Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers.

The author claims this, but his "proof" is based on the upcoming Windows 8. Since we're talking about mobile browsers here... what Safari and Chrome do are relevant - what Windows Mobile is going to do is basically irrelevant until Microsoft figures out how to steal marketshare back from the two runaway leaders. Mobile Safari and Chrome handle javascript very well - so this conclusion is based on basically nothing.

Users who rely on JIT will be losers

[michaelmalak]

From the summary:

Web pages that rely on JavaScript and JIT will be big losers.

Two things wrong with this statement:

1. A browser lacking JIT will still process JavaScript, just more slowly.

2. While a web page might lose a few impatient users, and thus become a secondary loser, the primary loser is the one who is the subject of the summary: the smartphone user who is locked in to a particular browser.

Taking these together, the statement "Users who rely on JIT will be losers" would be more accurate.

Re:Users who rely on JIT will be losers

[Skuto]

1. A browser lacking JIT will still process JavaScript, just more slowly.

Umm, yeah. JavaScript JIT's are fast. Like, several orders of magnitude faster than interpreters. Using any popular webpage without them is going to be a total pain in the ass. Nobody's going to want to publish a browser without a JIT because it'll just suck so bad noone will want to use it.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! Maybe it'll restrain the ridiculousness that is seeping into web pages these days. We're returning to the bad old days where you had to use different browsers for different websites for them to work properly and I for one don't want to see a return to that!

Who is dumb enough not to buy a smartphone?

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, being stuck in Contract Hell is a sure sign you're not a Geek, you're a Pseudo-Geek.

Tablets can run browser instances fairly easily, if you're Geek enough.

I see this more as winnowing out the chaff (non-Geeks pretending to be Geeks) from the grain (Geeks).

Uh... Java Icon on article?

[HiggsBison]

This article has a Java Icon. Because "Java, JavaScript, whatever, it's all the same"? Perhaps "mobile" isn't the big threat here.

how are smart phones even smart?

[Anonymous Coward]

its no wonder it didnt do well, all the silly people who liked closed systems, shall i dare to say.. "with only one marketplace", already have a product.. and its called ipads. or any product the itunes marketplace supports.
Google probably would have done a million times better if they teamed up with amazon for music/video.
Anyway, i'll get a smart phone when it's more like a medical scanner in star-trek.. at least thats kind of smart and you dont have to stare at tiny letters for a primitive website/game.

choice depends on your platform

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Android phones and tablets come with a stock browser but you certainly aren't limited to that alone. There are plenty of others available through Google Play including Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Dolphin and many more.

No problem, run Android

[Anonymous Coward]

These are not common problems inevitably arriving because of tablets. This is an Apple thing. Stay the hell away from Apples and it's no problem. I have the Android browser, Opera Mobile, and Dolphin on my phone. I have Opera Mini, Dolphin Mini, Maxthon, and Skyfire as several more popular browsers to choose from if I decided I needed even more, as well as firefox and Netfront. These aren't just skins; webkit (android browser for instance), opera, and firefox are completely seperate codebases, and the browsers that use webkit are still modified enough to be completely different from each other. Several are MUCH faster than the stock browser.

It's worse! (and why it doesn't matter)

[Yaztromo]

Okay -- I RTFM'd, and it seems like the author can't really see the forest for the trees.

Sure, UI is important, but if you're worried about us developing a browser monoculture, you need to look at the rendering engine, and not the UI and trademark that is slapped onto the result.

And as things currently stand, a monoculture is already forming around Webkit. On the PC side, KHTML, Konqueror, Safari, and Chrome all use Webkit (as well as numerous more minor browsers). On the mobile side, iOS, Chromebooks, Android, Symbian S60 browser, Blackberry browser (6.0+), HP's webOS, and Amazon's Silk all run on Webkit.

Looking at WikiMedia's stats for April 2012 (link), it appears from my rough calculations that nearly 36% of HTML page hits were from Webkit based browsers -- more than for any other browser engine. When looking at just mobile browsers, Webkit accounts for more than 80% of page hits from mobile devices.

Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing. While it was bad when Microsoft's Triton engine held near total dominance in browser engine use on the Internet (bad because it was tied to a single platform and vendor, and didn't conform to W3C standards well (and in some cases, not at all)), having an Open Source Webkit, which is collaborated on by a wide variety of browser vendors and which does an excellent (and I'd say the best) job of conforming to web standards hold dominance is a good thing. It means we have a single standard that web developers can focus their efforts against (W3C standards that is), while allowing anyone to improve upon it and implement it as they see fit, on a plethora of devices.

Looking at the graph in the article, if you instead break it down by rendering engine, you'll see that at least 80% of their mobile visitors in March were running Webkit based browsers.

So if he's worried about "one browser dominating them all", he's looking at the wrong equation. The concern now isn't that one browser will become dominant; however it appears that one rendering engine will become dominant. IMO it's a good thing in the case of Webkit, due to its standards compliance and open source nature. Sure, you may not have a lot of choice of browsers on your mobile device, but competition between device manufacturers and the fact that virtually all of them ship with browsers based on the same browser engine will ensure a base level of rendering support, good standards compliance, and in the case of features all of them want/need that such changes can be made (where logical) to Webkit itself, and then trickle down to all of the mobile browsers. Looks like a whole lot of win to me.

Which isn't to say that I think lack of choice is a good thing in and of itself -- merely that when your choice is between three different browsers running on the same rendering engine (and many of them the same Javascript engine), will most people even care?

Yaz

huh?

[Charliemopps]

So wait... the PC is dead and we'll all be browsing the internet on our 4" smartphone screens? That'll make reading anything longer than a sentence rather difficult... and wikipedia... wait, they're full of shit aren't they?

Re:It's worse! (and why it doesn't matter)

[Skuto]

The problem of WebKit is that it has BSD parts that may be susceptible to patents, and the core development is entirely in control of two huge for-profit corporations. Firefox/Gecko has the same problem (too many core devs from one company), and obviously so does Opera (not even open source).

But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.

Baloney.

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked on iTunes (hard to do, since I don't have and won't use any Apple device), and there is plenty of browsers to choose from for iOS devices.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aitunes.apple.com+web+browser&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=Palemoon:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=S4g&rls=Palemoon:en-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:itunes.apple.com+%22web+browser%22&oq=site:itunes.apple.com+%22web+browser%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...18908.21400.0.22126.2.2.0.0.0.0.102.195.1j1.2.0...0.0.2t5joqHSWMA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7e31dd1cd0ae5982&biw=1067&bih=771

130,000+ hits.

Re:It's worse! (and why it doesn't matter)

[ChunderDownunder]

Well at least Mozilla is proposing standards to advance web apps through its b2g project and coffeescript-inspired extensions to ecmascript do trickle into javascript.

Apple, nokia(wp7 division not Qt) and Google might not care (native app stores generate the $$$).

But hopefully smaller players like HP (open webOS), KDE (plasma active), Intel (tizen) and RIM (BB10) will add the necessary support to webkit.

Re:It's worse! (and why it doesn't matter)

[Yaztromo]

But at least you have competition between those 3 teams now. If WebKit achieves total dominance, Google and Apple control the web, open source or not.

No, as the code is OSS, anyone can create a fork if they feel the direction Apple and Google are taking isn't the one they want to take.

And Apple and Google may be the two biggest kids in the WebKit sandbox, but don't discount RIM, Nokia(/Accenture), and Sansung, (and I imagine others -- this was just a quick list I was able to gather from looking at their svn commit logs for the past couple of weeks) who are also big companies that use and contribute to WebKit.

And being LGPL/BSD licensed, there isn't a whole lot Apple, Google, or anyone else can really do if they want to fork it. So i'm not too concerned about Google and Apple achieving "total dominance" -- particularly while Webkit still conforms to W3C standards as well as it does (as it's one of the most compliant engines out there, it's really the W3C that currently control the web -- which is how it's supposed to be).

Yaz

Yahoo (yes, Yahoo) has a new iOS browser

[markjhood2003]

And it actually appears to have some innovation behind it, display results and the provoking queries on the same screen in a way that makes it easier to navigate between them:

http://venturebeat.com/2012/05/23/killer-mobile-browser/#s:2012-05-23-at-15-34-51

http://axis.yahoo.com/

Horseless Carriage Stifles Devel of Buggy Whips!

[stoicio]

Well, I guess PC web browsers wil lack the kind of focus that
major market share provides....another page of history turns.

Film at eleven!