Slashdot Mirror


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?"

21 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices by CritterNYC · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>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.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Oh, that's bullshit. There's plenty of choices by BZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  2. history repeating by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:history repeating by oakgrove · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    2. Re:history repeating by Skuto · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

  3. Jailbreak by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  4. Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >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.

    --
    This space for rent.
  5. Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. I'm slowly but surely leaving web development by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:I'm slowly but surely leaving web development by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... 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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  8. Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem by recoiledsnake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >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.

    --
    This space for rent.
  9. dumb question, no? by markhahn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Chrome OS is also a huge problem by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  11. Re:Choose one by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:There Is no choice, only WebKit by cyber-vandal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're an idiot.

    Posted from my Galaxy S2 using Firefox.