Android Options Mean "Best" Browsers Might Surprise You

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from Tom's Hardware: "Due to Apple's anti-3rd-party browser stance, and Windows RT's IE-only advantage on the 'Desktop,' Android is the only mobile platform where browser competition is thriving. The results are pretty surprising, with the long-time mobile browsers like Dolphin, Maxthon, Sleipnir, and the stock Android browser coming out ahead of desktop favorites like Firefox, Opera, and even Chrome. Dolphin, thanks to its new Jetpack HTML5 engine, soars ahead of the competition."

Comments

Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[crazyjj]

There are plenty of other Safari skins available!

But seriously, these walled gardens make me long for the 90's, when you could sanction a company for even *including* their own browser with an OS, much less outright forbidding other browsers from being installed.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[telchine]

But seriously, these walled gardens make me long for the 90's, when you could sanction a company [wikipedia.org] for even *including* their own browser with an OS,

The reasons those sanctions came about was because Microsoft had a near monopoly on the operating system market. None of the companies in the mobile space have a monopoly.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Dupple]

They're not all skins, but they mostly use webkit, or does that make Chrome a skin as well then?

The only real difference is that other browsers don't have access to Nitro Java Script engine

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[crazyjj]

Yes, in 1998 Apple, Amiga and BeOS all included their own browsers with their OS's.

And I'm the fucking idiot.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a shitton of web browsers available for any iOS device, including Chrome and Opera. Firefox was available until September 2012, but work on it ceased due to Mozilla's lack of resources.

That's not really Chrome. It's Safari in Chrome's clothes.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[bondsbw]

It depends on what you mean by monopoly. IANAL, so I don't know the legal definition. But I would argue that Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.

It's not just that browsers must wrap Safari. It's that they must use a crippled version of UIWebView, one that is much slower than Safari's Nitro engine. The result is that web pages take almost exactly double the time to load in other browsers.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[crazyjj]

There are more browsers in Apple's iOS App Store than there are grains of sand on all the worlds beaches

All just webkit skins, except for Opera I think (which uses some kind of weird server-side rendering to bypass the walled garden).

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[kelemvor4]

They're all just skinned versions of safari. Apple's TOS forbid improving iOS.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[TheViciousOverWind]

People keep spouting this like it's gospel, and it might be legally correct, but that doesn't make it any less crappy for the consumers. Apple is on the way to be a more evil version of Microsoft when it was worst, and I think the world would be a better place if they were forced to be slightly more open.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[JDG1980]

I know that's how the law is written currently, but it seems to me that the law hasn't kept up with the times. The rule should be that if you have any kind of substantial market share (more than 25% or so) you can't engage in these kind of anti-competitive activities.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[aliquis]

much less outright forbidding other browsers from being installed.

Are you a terrorist?

This look really suspicious to me!

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[mjr167]

I suppose that's why I downloaded chrome on my iPad?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[SJHillman]

Opera Mini (not to be confused with Opera Mobile, their actual browser) is called a "remote document viewer" or something because it goes through Opera's servers, which handle rendering, compression, etc. So at any time, Opera Mini only ever connects to Opera's servers as opposed to a web browser which will connect directly to the web host. It's a technicality only from the user's viewpoint... under the hood, they work fairly differently.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really matter if there's only slow browsers on iOS anyway.
 

iPhones are for old people, they're used to slow.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the companies in the mobile space have a monopoly..

I see. So, what does the blogsphere say about the browser space in terms of total market space in the computing-sphere? Obviously, there isn't a point where the price point comes into parity since, well, they're all without any upfront costs in the consumersphere. But,I'll leave that up to the social-networking-space to decide.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[CritterNYC]

Not sure if trolling or clueless. On the off chance you are clueless, Apple doesn't permit competing browsers in their app store. They sneakily did this by banning all interpreted code (for 'security reasons'). That means no JavaScript. And a browser is mostly useless on the modern internet without JavaScript. So, the only thing you can do with a browser on iOS is to wrap Safari in a skin. But, surprise, Apple screws you there, too, because they give you a slower engine in that mode. So, every single browser on iOS is just a Safari skin and they all run slower than Safari. Hurray for Apple's walled garden. There is one exception in the app store, and that's Opera Mini. To get around this rule, Opera has a server farm in the cloud rendering pages and JavaScript and sending the results down to the Opera Mini clients. It's inefficient and doesn't work as well as a native browser, but it's the only way to "compete" with Apple. Oh yeah, and the whole Opera Mini client is designed for dumb phones that lack the power to run a real browser.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Rob Riggs]

I think the world would be a better place if [Apple] were forced to be slightly more open.

The question is "who is going to force them?" In this case (browser choice on smartphones), I think that market forces can do that just fine. There are enough choices available right now. That said, I can certainly see where Apple could be considered guilty of tying in this case since an argument could be made that the browser is a distinct program and that this is harming competition and innovation.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[samkass]

Nitpick: Apple bans apps that explicitly download code, not interpret code. There are LUA, Python, and other development environments, as well as tons of embedded JS and other scripts running many apps for iOS.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now instead of a monopoly you have a triad. I don't forsee another company jumping into the mobile OS market with all the patent lawsuits.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a shitton of web browsers available for any iOS device, including Chrome and Opera. Firefox was available until September 2012, but work on it ceased due to Mozilla's lack of resources.

That's not really Chrome. It's Safari in Chrome's clothes.

You are mistaken. It really is Chrome. Chrome is just another webkit browser.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't really matter if there's only slow browsers on iOS anyway.

iPhones are for old people, they're used to slow.

As anybody who ever got stuck behind them on the road, or had them get in the way at the grocery store because they need their 25 minutes to choose a pack of lunchmeat (because they never heard of shopping lists) knows - not only are they used to slow, they inflict it on others any chance they get!

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[pauljlucas]

Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.

They're Apple's devices and should be allowed to do whatever they want with them. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

The difference with Microsoft is that they had a monopoly on virtually all other manufacturers' hardware since (at the time) they made no hardware of their own. Now that they make Surface, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. The market will decide its fate.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're Apple's devices

Then I guess I had better give the one I've got back.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[h4rr4r]

They are Apple's devices?
I thought they sold them to people, not leased them. Am I mistaken?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[DJRumpy]

A monopoly is not illegal. If you abuse a monopoly, thats when it becomes a legal matter. Microsoft threatened vendors when they wanted to put other browsers on their OEM builds and that's what made it illegal. just bundling your own browser is not illegal. Threatening to kill a vendors access to the market dominant OS if they put a competitors browser on is definitely illegal.

Apple is not a monopoly, they are not doing anything illegal, and they can put whatever browser they choose on their devices. I agree with the parent. If you don't like it, don't buy it, and obviously many don't since Android is the dominant OS, no?

The market health seems fine to me.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wasting your time playing with words. You know what he meant.

Apple can do what it likes with its stuff... OS, store, browser, whatever. They're not leveraging a mobile operating system monopoly to force all smartphones to use safari. That's what's different from the msft situation.

On a mostly unrelated point, you can do most anything you like to your iphone, including putting a different browser on it. Apple just doesn't have to offer a competing browser in the app store.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing you can do with a browser on iOS is to wrap Safari in a skin.

This is blatantly false. iOS only permits webkit browsers, so all the browsers are webkit-based, but they are not all re-skinned mobile Safari. Huge conceptual difference there.

This is incorrect. Apple only allows browser who use the *built in* webkit engine that Safari use. Chrome is not allowed to use their own webkit engine on iOS. So Chrome on iOS is Safari webkit with Chrome UI.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are right. Apple is being anti-competitive.

Yet as a consumer, we have a choice still in which phone/device to purchase and use. Apple holds a "monopoly" on the iOS platform. This distinction is meaningless - Apple has no obligation to open competition for browsers on iOS.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because I don't give a fuck about Apple enough to want to have money taken at gunpoint to make them do things your way.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Inda]

iOS has a browser? Honestly? :)

"You'll have to view that with Safari" I said to my iPhone owning friend.

"I don't use it. It sucks" came his reply.

He had no idea it was the browser. He had no idea he'd been using it daily. He is the typical iPhone user and they do not care.

I could tell him that Firefox 2012 was the best browser for his phone and it would be meaningless to him. He doesn't use a browser on his iPhone, you see?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[bhagwad]

Apple just doesn't have to offer a competing browser in the app store.

Then let them allow regular users to install software from third party sources please.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Commodore went bankrupt in 1994, so I guess I'm the fucking idiot (because I bought 2 Amigas). But hey, they had a browser!

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[bill_mcgonigle]

I thought they sold them to people, not leased them. Am I mistaken?

yes, you're welcome to use your property as a standalone device (or hipster-compliant paperweight). As soon as you use any of Apple's services, you incur an agreement that says that they have full control of the device.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the new rallying cry of the liberal iphone owner?

The answer to, "I wish this product did X instead of Y" isn't to run to your legislators. Complain to the company or man-up and buy something else.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox OS, openweb OS, chinese OS's, new Finnish operating systems.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're Apple's devices and should be allowed to do whatever they want with them. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

By the same reasoning they are free to leave the market if they don't like the rules set up.

Perhaps they should be allowed to make the case out of asbestos. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

What if Apple added a feature to remotely detonate the device without the buyers consent. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amiga included a web browser with it's operating system? Really? [citation needed]
I could be wrong; I only owned two of them (from 1986-2000). I know that browsers were available, but I don't recall any coming with WorkBench.
I don't really consider the hobbyist versions after that as counting.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Lucky75]

On a mostly unrelated point, you can do most anything you like to your iphone, including putting a different browser on it. Apple just doesn't have to offer a competing browser in the app store.

This is incorrect. You can't do that unless Apple allowed sideloading (or you root your device, which Apple doesn't "allow").

And one could use the same argument to say that you can do anything you like on your computer, including putting a different operating system on it. Msft just doesn't have to offer a competing operating system in the stores.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Runaway1956]

Isn't that part of what "jailbreaking" is all about? Deciding that you're going to do what Apple and/or your telco permit you to do? Don't ask them - TELL them what you're going to do.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

What??? Chrome, Opera and others are free in the AppStore. You are years out of date.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[thetoadwarrior]

Microsoft makes one component of a computer and bullies the OEM to building it their way. Apple makes hardware and their own OS so it's not really the same thing. It's also why no one moans about the PS3 or Wii or many other devices having only one browser.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Bogtha]

it might be legally correct, but that doesn't make it any less crappy for the consumers

It does, and that's the point. If you don't like the way iOS does things, you can switch to another platform without too much difficulty. When Microsoft got done for bundling Internet Explorer, switching to another platform meant things like your online banking failing to work because they'd coded it specifically for Internet Explorer. They were slowly turning the web from a cross-platform system to a Microsoft-controlled one, and that's bad for everybody even if (especially if) you weren't their customer.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Market share does not automatically give you market power. E.g., if other firms can enter the market in response to a price increase, you have no power.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[tlhIngan]

It's not just that browsers must wrap Safari. It's that they must use a crippled version of UIWebView, one that is much slower than Safari's Nitro engine. The result is that web pages take almost exactly double the time to load in other browsers.

That's because Nitro compiles to native code and runs it. I don't know about you, but you should have alarm bells ringing at that - remote code downloaded, compiled and executed. Forget any other security hole, this is actually a security nightmare.

On iOS, this is resolved because Safari itself runs with even less priviledges than the normal "mobile" (used for apps) user, so it's sandboxed. That way if some remote code tries to exploit a hole, the attack surface is much smaller.

Unfortunately, such things also make it useless for apps - unless your app wraps a website, there's nothing much you can do in an even more restrictive sandbox than what apps get.

Android's mechanisms could be more secure to prevent something like that from happening on that platform so regular apps can execute arbitrary code willy-nilly without problems. Though permissions to stuff like contacts and other things...

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[CannonballHead]

Microsoft threatened vendors when they wanted to put other browsers on their OEM builds and that's what made it illegal.

Do you have a citation for this? I've never heard this particular statement before. Furthermore, if the problem was that they threatened vendors, shouldn't that have been what the lawsuit was about, and not about bundling the browser?

It seems silly to me that the argument went like: "You are threatening vendors and forcing them to not put other browsers on OEM builds. Therefore, we require that you remove your own browser, even though that's not the problem, that's not what was illegal, and there's nothing wrong with you having it there."

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Reapman]

From a few posts down:

"Chrome for iOS has some pretty major technical restrictions imposed by the App Store, such as the requirement to use the built-in UIWebView for rendering, no V8, and a single-process model," explained Google engineer Mike Pinkerton

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[squiggleslash]

As long as Apple isn't able to significantly damage Android using dubious lawsuits, etc, there's no reason to consider it "Anti-consumer" in that sense. Right now, saying Apple is abusive for those reasons is like saying MacDonalds is abusive for offering tasteless, expensive, hamburgers (which it does, I think we can agree on that.)

You can always go to Five Guys. You don't have to go to MacDonalds. You don't have to buy an iPhone, and quite honestly, I'm still baffled that platform is so popular, just as I am MacDonalds.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[bodangly]

They all are using Safari's engine.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Nobody moans about the lack of competing browsers on the PS3 or Wii because nobody actually browses the web on their TV anyway.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[man_of_mr_e]

That's not what happened.

Microsoft threatened Compaq's license not because they wanted to include a different browser, but because they wanted to remove IE.

They had no problem with MS including a different browser, so long as IE was kept as well.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

And microsoft was not paying any lobyists either while raking in a bunch of cash.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[N0Man74]

A monopoly is not illegal.

True. It is possible to have a monopoly without being illegal, and it is possible to be guilty of anti-competitive acts without having a monopoly.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[DJRumpy]

I suppose it could be viewed either way. The end result is the same. OEM's were prohibited from removing IE and putting any other alternative browsers under threat of losing their Windows distribution licenses for Windows 95. They didn't threaten OEM's with removal until Windows 98, when they then claimed it was integrated and couldn't be removed.

[Complaint: U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.] (source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm)

18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license, preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to require PC manufacturers to license and distribute Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with Windows.

20. Microsoft designed Windows 98 so that removal of Internet Explorer by OEMs or end users is operationally more difficult than it was in Windows 95. Although it is nevertheless technically feasible and practicable to remove Microsoft's Internet browser software from Windows 98 and to substitute other Internet browser software, OEMs are prevented from doing so by Microsoft's contractual tie-in.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Cinder6]

Personally, I use an iPhone (5) because I prefer its UI and the fit and finish of its hardware over the Android options I've tried (fairly wide variety, but not comprehensive). At this point, there are really only two things I wish Apple would change from an ideology standpoint:

1. Allow competing web rendering engines. Browsers that provide different chrome for UIWebView don't count (even though Chrome on iOS has a very nice interface--superior to Safari's). This is because I want the full version of Opera Mobile, not just Mini.
2. Allow users to change the default web browser, email client, etc.

Yes, Android does this. No, they aren't big enough issues for me to jump ship at this time. Maybe in two years it will be--who knows?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[DJRumpy]

Exactly. Simply being dominant in the market isn't illegal unless you leverage that to a competitors detriment, or lacking a monopoly, you could use something like an essential patent or collude with other small players on prices to put a dominant player at a disadvantage. In short, it's not how big your business is, but how you use it ;)

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[micheas]

In the US you can go to jail for jailbreaking an iPad (you are allowed to jailbreak an iPhone however) Wouldn't exactly call that a viable option.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[micheas]

In the US:

• Rooting your cell phone is legal.
• Rooting a tablet is punishable by jail time.

This is as per the US copyright offices current interpretation of the DMCA.

Just a heads up for those of us in the US.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Cinder6]

It's still not the same as Safari, though. Safari on iOS has access to Nitro, Apple's fast Javascript engine. UIWebView (which is what Chrome and other browsers must use--except for Opera Mini, which is an OBML reader) does not have Nitro, so Chrome, Dolphin, etc. are all inherently slower than Safari. However, UIWebView is still plenty quick for the vast majority of options, which is why I find myself using Chrome (for its better UI) and Opera Mini (though at the moment I'm just testing it--due to its nature, it's not as good as it should be).

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[TemporalBeing]

Microsoft threatened vendors when they wanted to put other browsers on their OEM builds and that's what made it illegal.

Do you have a citation for this? I've never heard this particular statement before. Furthermore, if the problem was that they threatened vendors, shouldn't that have been what the lawsuit was about, and not about bundling the browser?

It seems silly to me that the argument went like: "You are threatening vendors and forcing them to not put other browsers on OEM builds. Therefore, we require that you remove your own browser, even though that's not the problem, that's not what was illegal, and there's nothing wrong with you having it there."

It wasn't simply IE. It was repeated things about many MS products and MS forcing OEM vendors to do things that would promote MS at the expense of competitors. IE is just one example - threatening vendors if they included Netscape on the install, for example. They did similar things with Office and other products (MSN).

And if you're really interested (and have the time), take a look at Groklaw's Comes Exhibits. There's lots of juicy things in there about what Microsoft did and why, and how much they knew it would hurt competitors (like Netscape, Novell, WordPerfect, etc.) in numerous areas (OS, Web Browsers, Office Productivity).

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[KingMotley]

OEM's were prohibited ... putting any other alternative browsers under threat of losing their Windows distribution licenses for Windows 95

That is not correct. See the following, where the bolding is mine.

24. Fourth, Microsoft has misused, and continues to misuse, its Windows operating system monopoly by requiring PC OEMs to agree, as a condition of acquiring a license to the Windows operating system, to adopt the uniform "boot-up" sequence and "desktop" screen specified by Microsoft. This sequence determines the screens that every user sees upon turning on a Windows PC. Microsoft's exclusionary restrictions forbid, among other things, any changes by an OEM that would remove from the PC any part of Microsoft's Internet Explorer software (or any other Microsoft-dictated software) or that would add to the PC a competing browser (or other competing software) in any more prominent or visible way (including by highlighting as part of the startup sequence or by more prominent placement on the desktop screen) than the way Microsoft requires Internet Explorer to be presented.

They could add any competing browser they wanted, but they had to make IE as prominent as it. So an icon on the desktop to launch a ballot screen asking which browser you wanted to use would have been acceptable then.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Obfuscant]

As I recall, it was worse than this. I have no problem with them forcing IE to be a part of the OS (even though I understand why Netscape would not like that), but I did have a serious problem with them forcing hardware vendors to install Windows on EVERY PC computer they sold if they wanted to have a license to install it on ANY PC they sold.

I.e., if a company wanted to sell PCs to Mom and Pop home user with Windows pre-installed, they had to sell the PC hardware to ME with Windows pre-installed, even though the first thing I did with those systems was install Linux. That applied to the big companies as well as the local computer shop that wanted to keep its Microsoft Dealer status. I can't tell you how many copies of Windows 98 I have that were never used.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[GoogleShill]

Here's the best citation you can get: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

There were TONS of things they did to violate antitrust laws with regards to IE, including coercing ISPs to make their websites IE-only by including ActiveX components on the front page and using FrontPage extensions which would create non-standards-compliant HTML and only render correctly on IE.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[hawkinspeter]

Not in the US, but I'm curious - has anyone actually been punished for rooting a tablet?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[GoogleShill]

Sorry, but that is exactly what happened: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#vf

MS pressured OEMs to make sure that Netscape was not included on any new machine.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Prseto layout engine is different to Safari's.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[coinreturn]

Please stop confusing the Apple haters with facts. The summary was designed specifically to troll them and it worked.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you're obviously a fanboy and resorted to generalizing the "typical iPhone user"... The typical Android user doesn't even know that they are running an Android phone. I've met a number of people who just got a free "smart" phone with their contract, but had no idea it was running Android, and they certainly couldn't tell you what browser it was using.

I would say that this kind of ignorance is far more common in the Android world than the iPhone world, simply because of number of free Android phones in the wild.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[DJRumpy]

As I said, in essence, both correct. You could unininstall IE from Windows 95. They didn't make it difficult until Windows 98. Initially they just required them to bundle IE, or lose their right to distribute. They went farther with Windows 98 and make it difficult to unbundle from the OS.

Bolded part mine from your own quote:

Microsoft's exclusionary restrictions forbid, among other things, any changes by an OEM that would remove from the PC any part of Microsoft's Internet Explorer software (or any other Microsoft-dictated software)

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[thetoadwarrior]

Yes they do. The only people that want to pretend that doesn't happen are xbox fanboys because their walled garden didn't include a browser until a couple months ago and it requires a gold subscription. If I were getting butt hurt like that I'd want to convince myself surfing on the TV is dumb.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Guspaz]

Apple does not block third party browsers. They block third party javascript engines. Chrome has an iOS port, and it's a pretty nice improvement over Safari in many ways. Completely different interface and usage paradigm, no max-tab limit, sync with your Google stuff... The only shortcoming is that it has to use Apple's version of webkit. That itself isn't a big deal, since both Safari and Chrome are webkit browsers, the downside comes in Apple preventing third-party apps from using the faster of the two javascript engines built into iOS webkit.

From the user's perspective, though, none of that really matters. What you get in the end is a different browser that works quite differently. The unlimited-tabs is the killer feature for me. It makes it very easy to browse a blog-style site (like, say, io9), opening stories of interest in a new tab as I go, and then reading through the individual stories tab by tab. You can't really do that with Safari and its 8-tab limit.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Guspaz]

What's to prevent Apple from setting a flag that would run the third-party browser under the more restrictive account?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Guspaz]

Chrome is a webkit browser to begin with. So, wouldn't the desktop version of Chrome then just be a "webkit skin"?

Does it really matter what API is used to communicate between the UI and the rendering engine if the end-result is more or less the same?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Guspaz]

Opera Mini does not use Presto. It operates through a server-side proxy that renders the page (on the server) to OBML (Opera Binary Markup Language), which is sent to the user.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[man_of_mr_e]

Here's a hint. Why don't you actually READ what it is you link to? Then you won't making a laughing stock of yourself.

Specifically, read sections 204-206. Here's an except:

"When Microsoft learned of Compaq's plans for the Presario, it informed Compaq that it considered the removal of the MSN and Internet Explorer icons to be a violation of the OPK process by which Compaq had previously agreed to abide."

Simply put, you are flat out wrong, and an idiot for linking to something you had not actually read.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[man_of_mr_e]

The per processor pricing you are referring to was part of Microsoft's original consent decree, and covered the time before Windows 95, much less IE was out there.

Microsoft moved to a per model method that meant they had to buy a windows license for every PC they sold of a given model. This allowed them to sell specific models without windows if they so wanted, but they could not sell a PC without Windows if that model was SKU'd as a windows model.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[theguyfromsaturn]

That's the problem with Apple. You don't buy an Apple device. You buy the right to USE one of THEIR devices. It has always been so, and the reason I was never tempted to buy anything Apple.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the real reason is simply that Nitro needs to be able to map executable and writable memory pages (for its JIT code). Apple doesn't want to allow this capability for third-party apps, because it would allow them to self-modify and defeat the App Store review process. It would also means that (local) exploits in App Store apps might be used as the gateway to a jailbreak.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[mjwx]

Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.

They're Apple's devices and should be allowed to do whatever they want with them. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

If all Apple did was produce crappy products I wouldn't give a crap.

However, if a competitor produces a product in the same space they will sue them and attempt to get injunctions in order to prevent them selling that product. It seems Apple is doing everything it can to force me to buy an Apple product regardless of if I want one or not. For the frivolous patent law suits Apple have been bringing, they need to be sanctioned heavily.

Apple's approach to deciding the market on its devices is anti-competitive behavior.

They're Apple's devices and should be allowed to do whatever they want with them. Don't like it? Don't buy one.

The difference with Microsoft is that they had a monopoly on virtually all other manufacturers' hardware since (at the time) they made no hardware of their own. Now that they make Surface, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. The market will decide its fate.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[pauljlucas]

[I]f a competitor produces a product in the same space[,] they will sue them and attempt to get injunctions in order to prevent them selling that product.

My comment was only in reference to Apple allowing (or not) 3rd-party browsers on iPhones. I made no comment on their lawsuits. As such, your response is irrelevant.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Stupendoussteve]

It's actually the interpretation by the Library of Congress. You also won't be able to legally unlock phones after sometime next year, but you can still root the OS.

The tablet laws affect any tablet that attempts to prevent rooting, using the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA. A great example of legislation being abused to its fullest.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is not a monopoly

Sure they are. iTunes is a monopoly on digital content sales by anyone's measure. And guess which mobile OS is the only one to work with iTunes? iOS of course. Apple abuses their monopoly standing every day by refusing to license their DRM to other companies.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it not monopolistic abuse to leverage one product (iTunes or iStore or whatever they're calling it now, iOS - you know, their whole stack) to artificially restrict market access and hedge out anything which might be conceivably considered competitive? This is somewhat explicitly the case when you consider their predatory lawyering towards Android builders (eg. HTC, Samsung).

You know, pretty much what MS did with Windows and IE back in the day. Except you could actually get Netscape installed, if you wanted it. For all intents and purposes, this is more like not being able to install anything but Windows on the machine due to exclusive relationships with all Windows resellers - which didn't happen.

No, things are much worse in terms of software freedom now than they were then, and you've got government agencies embracing the totalitarian corporate encroachment. And people thought Ma Bell was bad back in the day as a monopoly - their antics pale in comparison, in every facet and fashion.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts would seem to disagree with you. The simple fact is that Android came out from nowhere, took the lead, and is thriving in 2 years. You can buy audio in any number of places including Amazon. There is no market stranglehold, as much as you might wish it were so. In the MS case, they held a total lock on the OS market where other OS makers had literally no chance of competition. The complete opposite is evident today.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft makes an operating system which everyone and their dog can create their own software for, add a default browser to it, gets slapped with a lawsuit for it.

Apple makes an operating system with draconian restrictions on what software can run on it, has a default browser, but is left alone.

I don't get this... Why was microsoft wrong in adding a default browser but allowing everyone to make software for their OS, but apple is left alone with their limits?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[joh]

From a few posts down:

"Chrome for iOS has some pretty major technical restrictions imposed by the App Store, such as the requirement to use the built-in UIWebView for rendering, no V8, and a single-process model," explained Google engineer Mike Pinkerton

Ironically Chrome on my iPhone still works better than Chrome on my Nexus 7, where it is buggy as hell (just try to edit HTML text areas with it).

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[GoogleShill]

Laughing stock.. You said they couldn't remove IE, while they just wanted to remove the icon from the desktop, or even place it below the other online services. In fact (if you actually decided to read the thing and not come off looking like a complete tool):

Microsoft's restrictions succeeded in raising the costs to OEMs of pre-installing and promoting Navigator. These increased costs, in turn, were in some cases significant enough to deter OEMs from pre-installing Navigator altogether. In other cases, as is discussed in the next section, OEMs decided not to pre-install Navigator after Microsoft brought still more pressure to bear.

and

233. When Compaq eventually agreed to restore the MSN and Internet Explorer icons and program entries to the Presario desktop, it did so because its senior executives had decided that the firm needed to do what was necessary to restore its special relationship with Microsoft. On May 13, 1996, Compaq signed an addendum extending the firms' Frontline Partnership to the realm of network-related products. Pursuant to the addendum, Compaq agreed to ship Internet Explorer as the default browser product on all of its desktop and server systems, to adopt and promote Internet Explorer internally, and to focus the majority of Compaq's key network- oriented announcements and marketing activities on Microsoft's technologies and strategy. In September of the same year, Compaq agreed to offer Internet Explorer as the preferred browser product for its Internet products and to use two or more of Microsoft's hypertext markup language ("HTML") extensions in the home page for each of those products. Then in February 1997, Compaq committed itself to promote Internet Explorer exclusively for its PC products in exchange for Microsoft's agreement to pay Compaq a bounty for each user that signed up for Internet access using a Compaq PC. Despite the view of some within Compaq that the firm's goal should be "to feature the brand leader Netscape," Compaq elected not to resume the pre- installation of Navigator on its Presario PCs after it removed the joint Spry/Navigator icon. In fact, Compaq stopped pre-installing Navigator on all but very small percentage of its PCs.

234. In return for Compaq's capitulation and revival of its commitment to support Microsoft's Internet strategy, Microsoft has guaranteed Compaq that the prices it pays for Windows will continue to be significantly lower than the prices paid by other OEMs. Specifically, the operating system licenses signed by Compaq and Microsoft in March 1998 gave Compaq "[g]uaranteed better" pricing than any other OEM for Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT Workstation (versions 4 and 5) until April 2000. Compaq's license fee for Windows is so low that other OEMs would still pay substantially more than Compaq even if they qualified for all of the royalty reductions listed in Microsoft's Market Development Agreements ("MDAs"). What is more, while Microsoft requires other OEMs to verify actual compliance with particular milestones in order to receive Windows 98 royalty reductions, Microsoft has secretly agreed to provide the full amount of those discounts to Compaq regardless of whether it actually satisfies the specified conditions. In addition to a guaranteed most-favorable price on Windows, Compaq has enjoyed free internal use of all Windows products for PCs since March 1998.

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't have a monopoly of *any* hardware. Key difference. Whereas, guess what, Apple had a monopoly of *their* hardware. And fucked over their own 3rd party makers in typical ruthless fashion. Plus ca change...

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[Vlado]

Hmmmm...

Now here's an interesting thought for visitors to the US.

If you visit the country with your phone/tablet of choice, that you legally jailbroke in your own country, are you commiting a felony during your stay in the US?

Re:Hey, Apple has browser competition!

[nobodie]

I wonder ... is this specific to Apple? My WeTab has a root terminal available in their app store which automatically gives me root access. Plus their community forum pages give lots of ways to install other OSs.

Just proving the point

[paulsnx2]

Walling yourself up and limiting consumer choices and controlling the platform ...

It works for Apple for the natural 20 percent of the market where people will tolerate limited choices. Apple got ahead of the curve with the IPod, IPhone, and IPad. But they are destine to drop back to their natural 20 percent. The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

Re:Just proving the point

[Desler]

The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap. Not because they care about being able to root the phone, install alternative browsers, or wanting "chaos". The XDA-like crowd is a pretty niche minority.

Re:Just proving the point

[jkrise]

the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap. You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer. And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open' and less tightly controlled by a bunch of perverted sadists and corporate trolls.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

So does that go for folks who buy PCs over Macs, too? The only reason the vast majority make that choice is because they're just too stingy to shell out for the "good" computers?

Re:Just proving the point

[ozmanjusri]

The XDA-like crowd is a pretty niche minority.

But the people who want a choice of screen sizes, durability, features, looks and yes, even cost are a real majority. The price and popularity of Samsung's Galaxy models should tell you that the "cheap Android" slur is just FUD.

Re:Just proving the point

[serviscope_minor]

You mean low cost, not cheap.

There are also cheap android phones out there. Ones that are nwe, but low spec and a bit clunky and not as capable but cheap. As in, don't cost much money as in cheap.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap.

Bollox. The majority are buying them be they can't stand Apple and the pretentious dicks that have to bleat on and on about their new iPhone +=1. They are buying them because there is are variety of devices with proper screen ratios and sizes, capacities (SD cards options), and form factors. But don't let consumers' choices get in the way of your myopic Apple zealotry.

Re:Just proving the point

[JDG1980]

You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.

Most Android phones don't offer as polished or clean an experience as iOS. Samsung's phones are an exception, which is why Apple has been trying to cripple them via lawsuits – but the good phones like the Galaxy Note II are as or more expensive than an iPhone. The majority are crammed full of un-removable carrier crapware. The Nexus 4 at least does offer a clean experience at a lower (un-subsidized) price than the competition.

Re:Just proving the point

[Desler]

You mean low cost, not cheap.

No, I meant exactly what I said. People buy the phones because they are cheap. And many of those cheap phones are junk with low resolution screens, crappy GPUs, if they even have A-GPS many of them don't even work that great, etc. You need to realize that the vast majority of Android phones being sold are not the Nexus, HTC Ones or Galaxy SII and SIIIs. The vast majority of Android phones are basically only slightly better than feature phones.

Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost.

Let me guess, you're comparing the unsubsidized price of the newest iPhone to the subsidized price of an Android device. Otherwise, you're full of it. The iPhones don't cost anymore on contract than any comparable Android device. And on the unsubsidized price the difference is usually 10-15% higher for the iPhone. At least in the US, that is.

So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.

No, the "value" was the fact that they got it free or for less than $100 not anything else.

And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open'

Of which the average consumer neither knows nor cares. I know people who work at Verizon and T-Mobile stores. The people buying the phones overwhelmingly do it for price. That and the fact that the people selling the phones in stores get higher commissions for pushing Android devices usually. Outside of geeks the buyers couldn't care less about Android using Linux, or being open source or that they can root and install custom ROMs. Geeks love to project this as the reason why people buy Android phones overwhelmingly. It is not.

Re:Just proving the point

[Desler]

But the people who want a choice of screen sizes, durability, features, looks and yes, even cost are a real majority.

No, the real majority just care about costs. I know this because I know people who work at the stores selling these phones. The people zoom in on what is the cheapest looking phone that looks the coolest. That's about it. They couldn't care about the resolutions, the CPUs cores, the amount of memory, etc.

The price and popularity of Samsung's Galaxy models should tell you that the "cheap Android" slur is just FUD.

And worldwide, those phones represent around 5% of all Android phones. If you look at the Android phones being sold in China, Africa, etc. they are not phones like the Galaxy models. They are basically phones that are just steps up from feature phones.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap. Not because they care about being able to root the phone, install alternative browsers, or wanting "chaos". The XDA-like crowd is a pretty niche minority.

Right, because every person using an android phone would immediately switch to an iphone if they could get one as the "free" contract phone from their provider.

Oh right, Verizon does have the iphone 4 as the free phone now that the 5 is out.

Idiot.

Re:Just proving the point

[nyctopterus]

Hmm, I'll get labelled an Apple fanboy, but I disagree. Android made great inroads with cheap phone that were underpowered and in many ways a poor experience. The HTC Desire is one phone that springs to mind, web browsing like molasses, horrible jerky scrolling, games would get 4-10fps, etc. There were quite a few of those sorts of phones on the market, and they drove Android adoption like crazy. They were cheap in the cheap sense.

I don't know what the situation is now though.

Re:Just proving the point

[jader3rd]

Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer. And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open'

Or it's because user tracking and ad targeting are what the 'open' platform is built on, which subsidizes the phone by making Advertisers the customers of Android and the device owners part of the product.

Re:Just proving the point

[quacking duck]

the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap.

You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.

This "low cost" Android-using Slashdot user disagrees: "I own an Android device myself. But the only thing on it that's usable at all is Maps. There are tons of super-cheap Android devices sold that don't have great touch screens and thus people don't use them much except for the basics like email and maps and texting."

Yeah yeah, it's one person's opinion, he didn't specify what Android device or if it's even a phone, and one anecdote doesn't make it data. But, his opinion/experience is just as valid as yours.

And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open' and less tightly controlled by a bunch of perverted sadists and corporate trolls.

Okay maybe his opinion is more valid. You're showing just a hint of bias there.

Re:Just proving the point

[h4rr4r]

Because clearly Apple or MS would never do that. I could not even keep a straight face while saying that.

If you are concerned you do know you can get android build from outside google right?

Re:Just proving the point

[strength_of_10_men]

No, the "value" was the fact that they got it free or for less than $100 not anything else.

Considering that you can now get an iPhone 4 for free and the 4S for $99, then by your specious argument would have that those phones would vastly outsell those "cheap" Android phones because they're better, right? The fact that they don't must mean SOMETHING...

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean low cost, not cheap. Android phones can do everything an iPhone or Windows Phone does, at a lower cost. So it is not cheap, it is a more valuable option for the customer.

Most Android phones don't offer as polished or clean an experience as iOS. Samsung's phones are an exception, which is why Apple has been trying to cripple them via lawsuits – but the good phones like the Galaxy Note II are as or more expensive than an iPhone. The majority are crammed full of un-removable carrier crapware. The Nexus 4 at least does offer a clean experience at a lower (un-subsidized) price than the competition.

I would alter your comments by stating that you mean *stock* Android phones. Since most, if not all, Android phones can be rooted easily the rest of your comment does not apply except when referring only to the stock loads. Once you root them the crapware can be removed, features enabled that are part of the device and not the network, etc, etc, etc. Many custom ROMs are as polished, if not more so, than iOS and can be configured and/or customized to the users taste. That is something that is not possible in iOS.

While I currently have an iPhone mainly because I didn't want a larger phone, I have had several androids that I rooted and they were comparable in most respects and better in others.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think Android is popular with most people because it is CHEAP. iPhone's hardware design has always been another level of premium compared to Android's efforts. There's a built in $100 dollar Apple tax accepted by the average consumer, and an Android device of comparable storage and form factor as an iDevice isn't competitively unless it's that much cheaper. Most people would not spend the same amount of money to buy a 4 inch Android phone if it costs the same as an iPhone 5. Or the same amount of money for a 7 or 10 inch tablet. Android has to offer bigger screens, better storage, or lower price to compete at the iPhone price point. People care more about style and app selection than ecosystem integration and loyalty and openness. This is coming from someone who jumped ship to Android this year for the cost savings, having good google integration is a plus but I wouldn't have done it if Android wasn't cheap.

Re:Just proving the point

[X.25]

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap. Not because they care about being able to root the phone, install alternative browsers, or wanting "chaos". The XDA-like crowd is a pretty niche minority.

You seem to personally know the vast majority of Android users, it appears.

Funny man.

Re:Just proving the point

[Leejjon]

Most Android phones don't offer as polished or clean an experience as iOS.

It might be a tiny bit more polished/cleaner but 1. who cares if you can get them twice as cheap 2. you can easily customize it to how you like it, any noob can do that and 3. if you remove the crapware from your homescreen you'll never see it again. PS: Where I live the new iPhone 5 costs €750 and the Galaxy Note II costs €650.

Re:Just proving the point

[Emetophobe]

The HTC Desire is one phone that springs to mind, web browsing like molasses, horrible jerky scrolling, games would get 4-10fps, etc.

That has probably more to do with the terrible skins and bloatware that HTC puts on their phones. The HTC Desire has roughly the same specs as my Nexus S (1GHz single core, 512MB ram on the Nexus S vs 576MB on the Desire), yet my Nexus S runs extremely fast with stock Jelly Bean.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

And the reason for that is because the underlying platform is more 'open'

Of which the average consumer neither knows nor cares. I know people who work at Verizon and T-Mobile stores. The people buying the phones overwhelmingly do it for price. That and the fact that the people selling the phones in stores get higher commissions for pushing Android devices usually. Outside of geeks the buyers couldn't care less about Android using Linux, or being open source or that they can root and install custom ROMs. Geeks love to project this as the reason why people buy Android phones overwhelmingly. It is not.

You don't understand. The consumer doesn't have to know or care that it's open. Openness allows many manufacturers to make Android phones. This increases competition. Competition drives down price, which *gasp* causes consumers to buy the phones.

Q.E.D. Consumers buy Android because it's open, but consumers are generally unaware of it.

Re:Just proving the point

[nyctopterus]

Perhaps, but I also had experience with a Samsung phone of the same era, and it wasn't much better. I agree that there have always been better Android phones out there, but the low-end stuff was pretty poor last I looked about 18 months ago.

Re:Just proving the point

[Emetophobe]

If you look at the Android phones being sold in China, Africa, etc. they are not phones like the Galaxy models. They are basically phones that are just steps up from feature phones.

China actually has some pretty nice android phones that are on par with the iPhone 5 or the Galaxy S3.

The Xiaomi M2 has a 1.5GHz quad core, 2GB ram, 720p screen, and it runs MIUI 4.1 (Android 4.1 with a custom chinese rom). It costs $310, which is less than half the price of an iPhone 5 (and it has better specs than the iPhone). The Xiaomi M2 is basically on par with the newly released Nexus 4, but it costs $50 less.

There's also the Oppo Find 5 which will have a 1.5Ghz quad core, 2GB ram, 16 or 32GB storage, 1920x1080 resolution (1080p screen!), 2500mAh battery, and it runs Android 4.1. It might also be the thinnest smartphone to date.

They have cheaper phones too, like the Beidou Little Pepper which is only $156, and it has a 1.3Ghz quad core, 1GB ram, 5MP camera, 800x480 screen, and runs Android 4.0. There's also the older dual core variant for only $110.

Re:Just proving the point

[Emetophobe]

You're right. I think alot of that has to do with Froyo or Gingerbread on those old phones though. ICS and Jelly Bean fixed alot of those UI issues. My Nexus S definitely felt like a brand new phone when I upgraded from Gingerbread to ICS.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The Galaxy S3 is not cheap and is selling as well as the iPhone, so that kind of throws your argument out the window.

Re:Just proving the point

[Nerdfest]

If you check the history of the person who made that comment, he an iOS developer and a major Apple fan. I'd be curious about the device as well, as I use a 3 year old Android device and it's quite usable for everything.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who buys HTC or Samsung, or basically anything that isn't Nexus, and then doesn't immediately reflash it to an AOSP-based community ROM, is a complete idiot and should have bought an iPhone instead.

Re:Just proving the point

[gknoy]

Am I paranoid to be wary of using a Chinese phone, given recent articles on their extensive industrial espionage?

Re:Just proving the point

[snadrus]

I will second this. The pre-Android 4.0 was slow making it easy to competitive against the browser. This showed what's possible with the same hardware, thus driving Android improvements. If a phone is fast on slow hardware at a cheaper cost, it is a better value than one needing more expensive hardware for the same work. A competitive app market helps this.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

NO, I'm sure he means CHEAP. Most Android phones ARE cheap disposable phones! Flimsy plastic, slow processors, low-rez and low-viewing angle displays, limited ability to upgrade the OS.
Except for one model by Samsung and another by HTC, the rest are cheap junk that are designed to flood the market and capture market share. Manufacturers know most people don't want the latest and greatest, but especially they know that most people don't care what phone they use and don't give a flying fluck about the androidboy's android-linux-religion or their jihad against everything Apple as long as the phone doesn't cost them much.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

It does mean something... It means that most everyone knows that the iPhone 4 is over 2 years old now. Why would they buy that when they can get a shiny new ChinaFoo-X35 Android phone for the same (zero) cost?

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

This 'open platform' bullshit has got to stop. If Android, as a platform, is open, why do Android users have to a)look to Google's one model per year to find a handset that is guaranteed to run the current version of Android, or b) root their device and install something from the Android aftermarket? Dont' say "it's the carriers" - Google *chooses* to let those carriers sell their operating system with all of that crapware, UI reskins, and inability to upgrade past whatever version is included on the device. Google *chooses* to let the carriers continue to ship brand new devices that are running fucking Android 2.3. Why does Google allow US carriers like Sprint to block telephony functionality present on the device and supported in other countries? Google is *worse* than Apple, because Android offers this amazing idea that the user is going to be in control of their device, if they choose, and Google lets these carriers put these bullshit UIs, unremovable apps, "unrootable" devices, etc. on the market. The promise of Android is amazing, but Google isn't interested these days in the promise of Android; they're interested in turning phones into another platform war against Apple, and in order to gain a larger installed base they will let the carriers do whatever the hell they want as long as they run Android. Fuck Google, and fuck Apple; the difference between them is that Apple chooses what goes on the iPhones, and Google concedes device control to the carriers.

Re:Just proving the point

[jader3rd]

Because clearly Apple or MS would never do that.

Of course Apple and MS build up profiles to track users, but it's not as pervasive in their solutions. If Android wasn't providing that information to Google, Google would kill the project and find something more profitable to do. Apple and MS would just charge more for their software.

Re:Just proving the point

[mjwx]

The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are better value

Fixed that for you.

Considering the popularity of high end phones like the Galaxy S3, Galaxy note, One X/XL people aren't just buying low end Android phones. But even a brand new Note 2 is cheaper than the cheapest Iphone 5 and does a lot more. It represents better value, not just lower cost.

A lot of people are falling off the iBandwagon because they are sick of Apple's abusive "my way or the highway" policy. I'm hearing this a lot from people who don't even know the difference between RAM and sheep. People are demanding control, compeition and freedom, as these concepts are worth a tangible amount of money they fall under the umbrella of value.

Also, when people ask for help with the Android browser, the easiest solution is to ask if they've tried another browser. This fixes most problems. If someone has a problem with the IOS browser, the answer is not to use the iDevice. When Apple says "no", non-fanboy users get pissed off.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"polished or clean an experience as iOS"

You say this, but it really kinda means nothing. It's like saying "I think an Impala has better curves than a Corvette". OK, great. You're entitled to your opinion, but such polish is often seen inversely when you're coming from the other direction: meaning it's just that, a biased opinion regardless of who holds it. (I, personally, think iOS is a bit clunky/awkward, dated, overly simplistic, and artificially limited. But that's coming from the perspective of having used multiple other devices for much longer than I've ever used an iOS device.)

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

XDA is a niche minority?

Someone needs to look at the CyanogenMod statistics.There have been over 3 million installs of CyanogenMod on various devices! That may not seem all that significant, but those are the numbers for the past 90 fucking days and only includes a fairly small subset of the available Android phone models (due to the manufacturers/resellers locking them down, though this is improving).

Yeah, the iPhone sold something like 14 million devices last quarter. I guess that's impressive, too. But do consider that those CM installs aren't even including the hundreds if not thousands of other XDA posted ROMs which are, in many cases, more popular than CM for given platforms.

Re:Just proving the point

[Anonymous Coward]

But the people who want a choice of screen sizes, durability, features, looks and yes, even cost are a real majority.

No, the real majority just care about costs. I know this because I know people who work at the stores selling these phones. The people zoom in on what is the cheapest looking phone that looks the coolest. That's about it. They couldn't care about the resolutions, the CPUs cores, the amount of memory, etc.

Now have another read of the quote you replied to, and note the lack of any mention of 'resolutions, cpu cores, amount of memory etc', and the fact that you basically agreed when you said "the cheapest looking phone that looks the coolest".

Methinks you need to take a few more minutes to take in what you're reading before jumping the gun and hitting "reply".

The price and popularity of Samsung's Galaxy models should tell you that the "cheap Android" slur is just FUD.

And worldwide, those phones represent around 5% of all Android phones. If you look at the Android phones being sold in China, Africa, etc. they are not phones like the Galaxy models. They are basically phones that are just steps up from feature phones.

Wrong again.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiQtA7fcwhQWwmf_okBOJtDvQqfx_1rNeJko3d1xSrxa44X9pVKA

Re:Just proving the point

[Xest]

Also, there are far more high-end Android phones sold at around the same price point as Apple phones anyway.

So yes, a lot of Android's sales figures are because of people buying lower cost phones as the GP I believe intended, but even amongst those with money, people still opt for Android.

Huehuehuehue

[Anonymous Coward]

I use the Mercury Browser exclusively on my iDevices. It came from the AppStore. Didn't need to install it through Cydia or anything, so what's this about Apple being anti-3rd party browsers?

Re:Huehuehuehue

[lord_mike]

It still uses the painfully slow and limited Safari engine underneath it. It's not much more than a skin for Safari.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[ravenlord_hun]

All browsers on iDevices must use the WebKit engine. You may use a different "browser" but you always get the same engine.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[ProbablyJoe]

Mercury, and essentially every browser on iOS, is just a different UI on top of Safari. Obviously this allows for extra features, but limits how much can be done with them. Apple enforces this rule, and doesn't allow browsers which use a different rendering engine. Android doesn't have this limitation, which allows for a much larger variety of browsers, and much bigger gaps in performance. The same site did a similar test with iOS browsers, and the performance results were very similar, which isn't exactly surprising since they all use the same back end.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[Anonymous Coward]

Copy paste from http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ios-web-browser-safari,3326.html

"That's right folks, they're all WebKit browsers. And not just different WebKit browsers like Chrome and Safari on the desktop, either, but complete mobile Safari clones. Think of third-party iOS-based Web browsers as Safari wearing different clothes. Sure, some of them have totally different syncing features, bookmark mechanisms, on-screen keyboards, and even user interfaces. But when it comes to a Web browser's primary function of rendering Web pages, they are all just re-spins of Apple's stock, default mobile Safari."

Re:Huehuehuehue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. The WebKit engine that iOS apps are allowed to embed is a gimped version of Safari, with no JS JIT, and thus three times slower. Multiply Safari's score there by three and you'll get an approximation of where third-party browsers on iOS place on that list.

Apple has made damn sure that no competitive alternative browser can exist on iOS.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Konquerer (yet another webkit based browser) merely re-skinned Safari?

KHTML, part of KDE, was used by Konqueror for years before Apple forked KHTML and called it WebKit. So Safari is like a re-skinned and forked version of Konqueror's rendering engine.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[R_Dorothy]

All third party iOS browsers are a skin over the same system level WebView compontent which is a less performant version of the stock Safari Webkit. Even Firefox on iOS is using Webkit. There's a good explanation here: http://www.mobilexweb.com/blog/axis-opera-mini-alternative-browsers-iphone-ipad

Re:Huehuehuehue

[tibman]

What browsers are they comparing there?

Re:Huehuehuehue

[hawkinspeter]

"Literally"? I'd pay money to see that happening.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[RocketRabbit]

Yes, in actuality, R_Dorothy now shoots scented water into befouled vaginas in order to clean them as best he or she can.

Re:Huehuehuehue

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

The same site did a similar test with iOS browsers, and the performance results were very similar, which isn't exactly surprising since they all use the same back end.

Actually, 3rd party browsers will be slightly worse, since they can not access the Nitro Javascript engine, which is significantly faster.

Well, they can't unless you jailbreak it

Re:Huehuehuehue

[R_Dorothy]

At least I'm getting pussy.

Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm running Chrome on both my iPad AND OS X box.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[hsmith]

don't let facts get in the way of mindless hate

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[ravenlord_hun]

Don't be an appletard either. Firefox was not developed because EVERY WEB BROWSER ON iDEVICES MUST USE THE WEBKIT ENGINE. Even Chrome - which means what you get as "Chrome" on iDevice is basically a webkit with a different look'n'feel. Basically: a skin.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome uses Webkit.

Everywhere.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[ravenlord_hun]

Everywhere? I didn't know the Nitro Javascript engine was disabled on my PC. (It is disabled on iOS.)

iOS WebKit != WebKit

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[whisper_jeff]

Dude. Seriously. Chrome used WebKit. He k google's page on Chrome under "Speed" => "Fast to load web pages".

Chrome is powered by the WebKit open-source rendering engine...

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[JDG1980]

Why hasn't Firefox been developed for jailbroken iDevices?

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[CritterNYC]

Sorry, that's not Chrome. It's Safari with a Chrome skin, just like all the other "browsers" in the app store. And, like all Safari skinned browsers, it uses the purposely slower Safari rendering mode so that mobile Safari looks better. There is one exception in the app store, and that's Opera Mini. To get around this rule, Opera has a server farm in the cloud rendering pages and JavaScript and sending the results down to the Opera Mini clients. It's inefficient and doesn't work as well as a native browser, but it's the only way to "compete" with Apple. Oh yeah, and the whole Opera Mini client is designed for dumb phones that lack the power to run a real browser.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[CritterNYC]

Why would Mozilla invest the time and resources into a platform owned by a company that's completely hostile to competition and openness? Not to mention the small number of jailbroken iOS devices makes it a losing proposition. They could do it to prove a point, but that would be a very expensive point considering the effort to port Firefox to Objective C.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there aren't any serious projects on jail broken devices.

Literally thousands of different icons, silly Siri mods, notification center mods. But there aren't a whole lot of fully featured programs that aren't just ports of Linux tools(with missing functionality).

That being said, I'm sure you could find the Firefox or chrome source somewhere if you would like to take on the project.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[ravenlord_hun]

Yup, a blunder on my part. I only remembered it's a different engine - the one Safari uses on iOS - but I forgot the original's called the same as well. Still: it's not the same as the "other" Chromes. No Nitro for one.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome uses Webkit.

Everywhere.

But they are still not allowed to use their own implementation of webkit on iOS. They have to use the built in Safari version of webkit. They are not allowed to use their own Javascript engine on iOS either. They have to use the built-in. So yeah.. it is pretty accurate to describe it as a reskinned Safari and not really Chrome.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[bill_mcgonigle]

It's inefficient and doesn't work as well as a native browser, but it's the only way to "compete" with Apple.

It's surprising that they can even be profitable doing so. Are they injecting their own ads on the render farm?

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[bill_mcgonigle]

oh, nm, I forgot all the money is made these days in selling analytics.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[pavon]

No he's right. On the desktop Safari and Chrome both use heavily modified versions of webkit for rendering, and they use completely different javascript engines. On iOS Chrome is forced to use the exact same webkit as Safari and a crappy interpreted javascript engine, rather than V8 (it's own JIT engine) or even Nitro (Safari's JIT engine). Chrome is prevented from changing anything that matters for the browser so it really is just a skin of UIWebView.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[catmistake]

Thanks for pointing out that the OP was inaccurate and that you agree with his inaccuracy. A web browser engine is not the browser itself. If that kind of logic was accurate, then a '68 Camero is just a re-skinned '68 Nova because they use the same 350 engine.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is false. The logical mistake you are making is known as YOUR A BLOODY IDIOT THAT IGNORES FACTS.

If Google's Chrome wanted to support something like say HTML6 and they had a version of Webkit that did it, could they include it with iOS Chrome? No... because it uses whatever rendering engine Apple lets them. They have NO SAY in how to render pages.

If you REALLY think that Chrome and Safari are the same web browser on the desktop, please turn in your geek card at the door. Trying to confuse people with wording doesn't change the simple fact that there if I write a "browser" for iOS I MUST use whatever rendering subsystem Apple tells me to. I have zero choice. This is something known as FACT.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking moron.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for pointing out that the OP was inaccurate and that you agree with his inaccuracy. A web browser engine is not the browser itself. If that kind of logic was accurate, then a '68 Camero is just a re-skinned '68 Nova because they use the same 350 engine.

Not a valid comparison. You can't drive a car engine by itself. The browser rendering engine plus JavaScript engine are a fully functional browser in their own right. Changing out the tires (networking code) and adding air conditioning (minor features) does not make it a different car, but at best, the luxury model of the same car. And if adding those features also forces you to move from a V8 to a two-stroke lawnmower engine, not even that.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, and the whole Opera Mini client is designed for dumb phones that lack the power to run a real browser.

Actually it's primarily designed to compress pages and use less data when browsing.

Re:Apple HAS browser competition!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fucking moron that has merely been re-skinned.

If Apple ever got a higher marketshare...

[ravenlord_hun]

...they would get smacked around for the same anti-competition behaviour which hurt Microsoft during the XP days, forcing them to change this "One browser" approach (and maybe for other apps as well). In a sense, they are lucky their rather unusual philosophy - where instead of designing products to meet the demand, you shape the demand yourself - hit the wall before they became a monopoly.

Re:If Apple ever got a higher marketshare...

[Quakeulf]

Wrong. Every politician with decision power have already blindly hopped on the i-bandwagon and will not want to oppose Apple in any way because, hey, it works, and it is not like they even want to have any insight on this matter.

Re:If Apple ever got a higher marketshare...

[quacking duck]

Apple has almost zero lobbying presence in Washington. Politicians may be idiots, but they don't blindly hop onto anything for free, and they're certainly not blind to the fact they're NOT receiving any real money from one of the biggest companies in the country.

Remember, the DOJ didn't hesitate to take on Microsoft, a hugely successful company in the mid-90s that was far closer to monopoly status than Apple ever will be over a general market area.

Re:If Apple ever got a higher marketshare...

[Quakeulf]

They don't need to lobby because Apple zealotry is unfortunately strong enough as it is.

Re:If Apple ever got a higher marketshare...

[Lucky75]

One doesn't need lobbyists to be a fanboi.

Interesting, but not that useful

[ProbablyJoe]

While some of the results are interesting, I don't think this is a particularly good comparison. For a lot of the tests they said "This doesn't work on this browser, so we didn't include that test". Surely that should be a win for the browsers that DO support it, rather than just ignoring that feature. Personally, I'd care more that a browser can render more things, rather than if it can render some things a few seconds faster, but fail at others.

Not to mention, it completely ignores things like features, reliability, usability, security, etc, which are very varied between the different browsers. That's what I base my choice on anyway, and many that I've tried either crash, fail to load some pages, render pages incorrectly, or lack important features. Personally I find Firefox works best for me, but results would probably vary with different phones/OS versions, and some features are more important than others for different people

But hey, everyone loves benchmark numbers

Re:Interesting, but not that useful

[afidel]

Yep, the fact that Chrome on my phone syncs my bookmarks (and open pages!) with my other machines is a killer feature for me, as is the fact that with 1 click I can get the exact same site I would get in desktop Chrome. Firefox Fenec just eats too much ram for me, it basically pushes everything else out of ram on my current phone and on my previous phone with 384MB of ram would push out not only all user apps but would actually push out my launcher causing a 30+ second delay when I dropped back to the home screen. I loved Opera Mobile on my previous phones where the competition was the Gingerbread Browser and the Blackberry browser, but having a real browser with pinch/ambiguous touch zoom is much better. I guess if I had a limited data plan or wasn`t on WiFi 90+% of the time the Opera compression stuff would be interesting.

Re:Interesting, but not that useful

[fermion]

When I choose a tool my question is whether it gets the job done for me for a reasonable cost, not whether other people like it or if the numbers are good. For instance, on the desktop i still use Camino . It is not going to be the best in terms of numbers, and there are things it can't do, but for everyday work it is good. And I have no problem keeping several browsers on my computer and switching when I need to. The right tool for the job and all that.

I do use Chrome, particularly when I use Google Docs for collaborative work, but there are use cases where Google fails, so it cannot be my primary Office Suite. MS Office does not provide good value for what I do, so although it would win any contest, I do not use it.

In terms of the iPad, I have tried other browsers but the numbers do not work for me. Safari is good enough and automagically syncs my bookmarks from my desktop. Yes, I know that other browsers will do this, but that is the major concern for me. Safari works.

This reminds me when people ask me why I shop at a store where the selection is not as great as another store. I say it is because I am not primarily concerned about selection. As long they have the stuff that I want and the quality that I want, I am happy. The other store may have stuff I occasionally need, but that does not mean I have to shop there all the time. I don't want more stuff, just nicer stuff, and I do not see that the other side of the fence always provides nicer stuff.

Re:Interesting, but not that useful

[sp332]

Fennec has officially been promoted to Firefox for Mobile, for about a year now. They also removed XULrunner in favor of more native code, so it uses a lot less RAM. The Firefox Beta I'm running scores slightly higher on HTML5test.com than the desktop Aurora version of Firefox I'm running now.

Re:Interesting, but not that useful

[afidel]

Perhaps I should give it another shot, I had basically given up on it on my last phone and only used it for sites that would force me to a broken mobile site unless I used FF with the user agent switcher and then never installed it on the new one since it came with Chrome.

Re:Interesting, but not that useful

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, in my Opinion all the Browsers suck, at least on Gingerbread. The stock browser had this funny behaviour where you'd have to "force close" every day or it would refuse to load pages. I used Dolphin for a while but it just stopped working one day, and hasn't worked since, even with uninstalling and reinstalling it. Firefox worked well, but was very slow and sucked down my battery pretty fast. Chrome only runs on ICS and above. I've settled on Opera, because it seems to be the most stable, but many sites (facebook included) don't render the same way they do on the stock browser, not sure it it doesn't support advanced features or if the devs just don't care. I don't used the Facebook App on my phone because that thing is an abomination. I like my Android phone in general, but the browsing experience is probably my biggest complaint.

No other Ipad browser?

[busman]

then what do you call this that I use to browse the web?
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/atomic-web-browser-full-screen/id347929410?mt=8

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[lord_mike]

Check again... If you run it, you'll see that it's basically using the Safari engine underneath it all. Not much of a difference.

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or this?
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puffin-web-browser/id406239138

I don't understand how this story got published -- it's not even close to true?

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[paxprobellum]

It's entirely different, if nothing else than it's "not Apple's browser".

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[robmv]

Calling all iOS browsers different browsers is like calling all applications using the Internet Explorer engine different browsers. All iOS browsers are just a skin of the Apple embedded browser engine. If Apple does not enable WebGL for example on their browser, no other browser on iOS will have WebGL, simple as that, no ohter engine is allowed

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

Clueless iSheep. All those "browsers" use Safari's rendering engine. It's just Safari with a different skin. That's all Apple allows for.

There are a few exceptions, like Opera Mobile where the rendering is done on Opera's server and sent to the phone, but that doesn't really count.

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[yacc143]

Hint: yes. Apple only allows the browser competition to use the Safari browser (in a slower mode than by default, to add insult I guess), hence all these other browsers are slower than Safari (different mode), but offer in the end rather exactly the same rendering experience.

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[Lucky75]

I call it Safari in a different skin.

Re:No other Ipad browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I take a Honda, spray painted it, removed all the Honda logos and wrote "Pax-mobile" on it, is it no longer a Honda?

Firefox & ABP+

[Luthair]

In my usage I've generally found Firefox with ABP installed to be much faster than Browser & Chrome. Its amazing how much snappier sites are on arm processors when they don't load ads, and as an added bonus accidental clicks are eliminated.

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[drinkypoo]

Is that the only ad-blocking android browser? My only android device is too old to run Firefox.

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[TheRaven64]

Or even with better privacy controls? I tried all of the browsers in the article, when I read it yesterday. None of them had any cookie management options other than block-all and accept-all. They all also only had a 'delete all' option for cookies, no selective deletion. Why does even Firefox have the same set of privacy options as the default Android browser?

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[ThatsMyNick]

You should try Dolphin and AdAway (host file based ad blocking). They blow away FireFox + ABP.

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[idontgno]

Yeah, but there're still some pretty crippling limitations. Without NoScript, you wind up with your recent browser history (your "back button" history) polluted with dozens of copies of the same pages you're looking at already, except for slightly different embeded ad content URLs... you have to spam the back button until you hopefully climb out of the hole o' advertising fail and back to the actual predecessor page you meant. Assuming you don't overshoot.

You don't see the ads, but they still screw up your browsing experience.

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[ThatsMyNick]

I have never seen an Ad URL embedded in the webpage URL. That is extremely poor coding. And I am not sure how NoScript prevents this. Does NoScript by some means modify history and remove any thing that should not be part of an URL? I am not sure how ABP can prevent this either (ABP does exactly what AdAway does actually).

Re:Firefox & ABP+

[TermV]

I use the version of Opera Mobile labs with extensions enabled.. It supports adblock and noscript, although noscript slowed down browsing to such an extent that I have disabled it. Ad-away is a very effective alternative if you have a rooted device

Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[lord_mike]

..except that it's a major battery hog. Most of the third party browsers for Android are, with the notable exception of Chrome (which has gotten worse,lately) and Opera Mini (Opera Mobile still hogs battery big time). Even the "stock" browser that shipped pre-Jelly Bean sucked battery power, too. Battery drain is an important consideration in a mobile browser. Also, on this list, only Firefox mobile supports Flash at the moment. All the others either explicitly don't support external plugins or refuse to allow their use on JellyBean OS's.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[Spad]

It's not the browsers so much as the wireless/cellular data that's a battery hog and it's Adobe that don't support Flash on 4.x rather than anyone else.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. You can test it by using a Bluetooth connection when browsing and using another device as Internet gateway. It uses way less power than usual browsing.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[Anonymous Coward]

..except that it's a major battery hog. Most of the third party browsers for Android are, with the notable exception of Chrome (which has gotten worse,lately) and Opera Mini (Opera Mobile still hogs battery big time). Even the "stock" browser that shipped pre-Jelly Bean sucked battery power, too. Battery drain is an important consideration in a mobile browser. Also, on this list, only Firefox mobile supports Flash at the moment. All the others either explicitly don't support external plugins or refuse to allow their use on JellyBean OS's.

Actually Firefox isn't the only browser to support Flash, there are at least another 4 browsers that do.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[rwa2]

I run with OSMonitor, and I can pretty much see the CPU spike up whenever I'm scrolling (which is a lot on a small screen). I'd assume with Jetpack it would be using the GPU to scroll more than the CPU, but this doesn't appear to be the case.

It used to be possible to set the volume keys as page-up / page-down, which would likely save a lot of CPU cycles... Unfortunately they've been moving or removing a lot of this functionality over the past few months.

Dolphin moves their UI stuff around too much... it took me way too long to figure out that the replaced the "Find on Page" menu item with a long-press menu item, and then even longer to figure out that they replaced the long-press menu item with a gesture. Grrr....

It is a nice browser, esp. wrt speed and its handling of tabs, but... I'm ready to try something else.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[lord_mike]

The browser does make a difference in regards to battery life. You can use two browsers one after the other and see a big difference in battery drain between them. As for Flash, it's true that Adobe does not support it, but there are workarounds. Dolphin and Opera refuse to recognize those workarounds. Only Firefox (and a few other no name browsers) let you use unofficial flash in their products.

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[minasoko]

Xscope is a surprisingly great Android browser, considering I never hear anyone mention it. It has a great feature that renders all white page space in black and text in grey to prolong your battery life.

Supports flash, if that's your sort of thing (with push to load), adblock and has an incognito mode.

It wipes the floor with chrome, Firefox and opera for gestures and full-screen browsing. Really, do we have to stare at an address bar all the time on a mobile device?

Re:Dolphin is a fantastic browser...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same Dolphin as the KDE file manager? Or something else?

Power, memory and bandwidth consumption matter

[goombah99]

On mobile the best browser is not the fastest browser. What matters is that it is fast enough while consuming the least power, memory, and bandwidth, having a good resume-and-hibernate behaviour, and not achieve it's abilities by reaching out of its sandbox. A recent study I saw said that Safari had something like half the bandwidth usage as another common browser, as well as lower power usage. things that agressively pre-load pages, spawan zilions of rendering threads and so forth can consume more power for very little extra perfromance. I'm fairly sure these are the reasons Apple limits the browser. They want to assure phone owners get good battery life.

Re:Power, memory and bandwidth consumption matter

[h4rr4r]

So it is for your own good, since you are too stupid to make your own decisions?

What if I don't care about battery life? What if I really need a webpage to load correctly and not in a way safari does it?

If they want to set the defaults that is fine, but to prevent me from doing at all unless I use their one true way is why I will never buy and iOS device.

Re:Power, memory and bandwidth consumption matter

[MurukeshM]

Odd, since Opera and UC Browser did very well on all counts on Nokia phones (and these were decent touchscreen phones with maybe a quarter of the power of an iPhone). I don't see why they should fail. Any links to the study?

Re:Power, memory and bandwidth consumption matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I have used 3rd party browsers on Android and the sky has not fallen; my phone still works fine. No significant battery life difference. However, of a browser really didn't work well, I would just cease to use it. I don't see how taking this choice away from us can be a good thing. Bad browsers would be rated 1-star, and the market would slowly weed them out.

By the way, even if you accept that all browsers must wrap Safari, your explanation still doesn't justify the idea that I can't change the default browser, and doesn't explain why all 3rd party browsers using UIWebView are crippled speed-wise as compared to Safari.

My opinion is that Apple is doing this to inflate their mobile web browser usage stats, which the media keeps reporting on every month.

Re:Power, memory and bandwidth consumption matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd, since Opera and UC Browser did very well on all counts on Nokia phones (and these were decent touchscreen phones with maybe a quarter of the power of an iPhone). I don't see why they should fail. Any links to the study?

google it. Here's one example: apple maps consumes 80% less data than google maps for the same 3D views.
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/software/applications/apple-maps-uses-80-less-data-than-google-maps-1101501

Wow, stock browser wins over FF/Chrome? Strange.

[Revotron]

...and the stock Android browser coming out ahead of desktop favorites...

You mean, people are picking the stock browser over mobile versions of Firefox or Google Chrome? Wow. What could possibly be the meaning of this? Let's deconstruct it and find the real truth in all this...

Oh, here it is. It's a combination of No one cares and the mobile versions suck!

Firefox and Chrome may be competitive browsers in the PC realm, but in their transition to mobile platforms, they're bringing over all that bloat and feature creep and trying to cram it all into a small screen. My Android smartphone has acceptable (but not ideal) battery life when I use the mobile browser for quick things here and there, but when I've tried to use mobile FF/Chrome apps it drops like a rock. I suppose if you sit there tethered into the wall jack you'd be fine, but at that point, why not just whip out your laptop?

Default Android browser?

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I thought Chrome was the default browser on Android devices. At least that's the way it is on my Nexus 7...

Chrome runs on iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

This is mis-leading. I have been running chrome on my iphone for months.

Re:Chrome runs on iPhone

[CanHasDIY]

This is mis-leading. I have been running chrome on my iphone for months.

Are you sure it's really Chrome, or just Safari in a suit made from Chrome's skin, ala Buffalo Bill?

DESKTOP

[Anonymous Coward]

DESKTOP operating system market.

These sponsored posts are getting pretty obvious

[ourlovecanlastforeve]

I miss old Slashdot.

I'm using Chrome to write this on my iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Safari on the iPhone is no more required than IE on Windows. Yes, other apps call up Safari, frankly this is rare.

I love Chome on iOS.

Re:I'm using Chrome to write this on my iPhone

[h4rr4r]

Not even close to true.
What you are using is almost entirely a simple wrapper around safari.

"Chrome for iOS has some pretty major technical restrictions imposed by the App Store, such as the requirement to use the built-in UIWebView for rendering, no V8, and a single-process model," explained Google engineer Mike Pinkerton

Captain O to the Rescue!

[Anonymous Coward]

I must have missed something... It's surprising browsers specifically built for Android are beating out those who are just desktop Linux ports? The blue parts on a map is water (or, Antigua if you're using Apple maps)?

You are not their customer.

[goombah99]

If they want to set the defaults that is fine, but to prevent me from doing at all unless I use their one true way is why I will never buy and iOS device.

You are not their customer. So by all means roll your own.

Apple customers don't want the hassle of monitoring their major apps for good behaviour, reading TOMS hardware every 3 months and changing things. They do get upset if their battery is going down faster than apple said it would and they don't know what is causing it.

I'm a computer geek and I'm in that class. All I want out of my cell phone is very very high reliability, battery life and security. If I want to dink around and experiment on a mobile system I can buy an android phone or jail brake it. But for the one in my pocket, I want high usability with reliable behaviour, not jet packs.

Re:You are not their customer.

[h4rr4r]

They still will have to monitor apps for good behavior, just not web browsers. They used to not have too, but now that iOS has some slightly more reasonable form of multitasking they do.

The phone part of my smartphone is probably of the least value to me. I could almost do without it.

Re:You are not their customer.

[AmiMoJo]

They do get upset if their battery is going down faster than apple said it would and they don't know what is causing it.

Alternatively they could just tell you why your battery is going down, like Android does.

All you are doing is re-enforcing the GP's point and pretending it is okay because people are too dumb to understand their phone, which clearly is not the case. Apple loves to advertise how many apps their OS has because they know they are popular, while at the same time maintaining that people are too stupid to understand what they are or use ones that provide similar functionality to existing Apple ones.

Re:You are not their customer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple customers don't want the hassle of monitoring their major apps for good behaviour, reading TOMS hardware every 3 months and changing things. They do get upset if their battery is going down faster than apple said it would and they don't know what is causing it.

*Foreword: I'm not using any iOS device currently*

I almost never feel a need to "monitor my major apps for good behavior" (or ANY app for that matter), and certainly don't read any website every 3 months to learn of anything I need to change--I might keep up on what is out there, but that's just because I like to know how the market is advancing in general (I keep track of iOS, Android, and Windows Phone; also some WebOS and BlackBerry, but there's not much to talk about with those, I feel). Similarly, I also get upset if my battery is going down faster than I expect it to and don't know why (usually, it's pretty damn obvious when I've had the screen on for hours playing games...).

There's other ways to achieve the same results that you're talking about...

Re:You are not their customer.

[Xest]

I feel obliged to point this out each time this argument is made, if he is not their customer then who is?

Judging by Apple's 13.9% and falling marketshare it would seem that less and less people are deemed to be Apple's customer by Apple themselves.

In contrast Android's marketshare has grown to 75%, so the number of people who would be deemed to be Android's customer seems to be ever growing.

I don't think the argument really makes sense, if Apple simply says "you're not our customer" each time their device doesn't allow them to do something then it's eventually going to find itself with no customers.

Re:FF Mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Downmod because it's true. FF on the desktop is the best browser out there -- FF mobile sucks balls. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell you something.

It's all Webkit

[amram9999]

Unfortunately Webkit based browsers have 90% mobile market share, so there's little incentive for web developers to code for Firefox, Opera, etc.

Profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know how browsers make money?
I run Dolphin on my Android devices, but as far as I know, I don't give them any money or see any of their ads.
Likewise with Firefox on my Windows machines.

I tried the Nexus 7

[iceperson]

I gave the Nexus 7 a try just because I wanted more "choice", then found out that about a 3rd of the apps from google play were "not compatible with this device" and the app I wanted most, firefox with adblock, wouldn't let me browse more than a few pages without crashing to the desktop. Honestly, widgets are cool, but not enough to pull me away from a working product, so back to IOS I went.

Re:I tried the Nexus 7

[aitan]

I use Firefox daily on my Nexus 7 and I think that I haven't ever seen it crash.

When the Jelly Bean 4.2 was released Firefox was one of the apps that required an upgrade, but even then I didn't had a problem because I use the beta so by the time that Google sent the OTA to my tablet Firefox was already updated.

Re:I tried the Nexus 7

[tibman]

Apps on the market that aren't usable for your device sounds terrible. Until you realize that for your pc/mac you are in the exact same position. Not every linux program will be available for windows/mac. You are coming from an environment (iOS) where it is impossible to even see something that you cannot use. That is why you didn't like it.

But when will the Nexus 7 be compatible of Amazon

[QuickBible]

All this is great, hoorah, pom pom, etc. but when will my Nexus 7 be able to watch Amazon Instant Video? BTW - Installing Firefox beta and an old version of flash that deliver a laggy pixelated experience is not ever a solution, it is just a geek work around. A solution would be an Amazon Instant Video application for the Nexus 7. I am surprised it doesn't exist since there is one for iPad, Wii, and PS3. I can't understand what Amazon gains by limiting access to their pay content from the Nexus 7. I mean they sell their devices at a break even or loss price so it can't be because of that.

Does anyone have a sane answer or is this just Amazon sticking it to Google?

Ogg Vorbis & Theora & WebM

[YurB]

It seems that only Firefox supports all the three free formats on mobile (if html5test is not misinforming). For some reason Chrome Mobile doesn't like Theora and Opera Mobile is missing WebM as well as Theora support. Quite sad. But one ogg-enabled mobile browser is still better than no such browser.

Re:Ogg Vorbis & Theora & WebM

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just give up on those formats because nobody will ever use them with such stupid nerdy names.

Re:Ogg Vorbis & Theora & WebM

[Anonymous Coward]

Whereas a random jumble of letters and numbers like "MP3" or "H264" isn't nerdy at all?

Re:Ogg Vorbis & Theora & WebM

[YurB]

Look, if people are inventing new free formats, probably there's a reason for that. Did you know that to distribute a software or hardware encoder or decoder of mp3 one has to pay at least $15,000 a year? And what if the program is free? So there is a reason. Also, have you tried to encode a file with the same bitrate to mp3 and ogg and then compare the spectrum of those files to the original high-quality one? You'll see a big difference (try 128kbits/sec for instance.) Guess which file will be closer to the original.

What's this?

[grumpyman]

"Due to Apple's anti-3rd-party browser stance" - iOS may not have all the choices and a bit restricted on functionality but there are many options like Mercury, Atomic, Dolphin, Opera and even Chrome.

Re:What's this?

[Nemyst]

Which use the Safari rendering engine, as has been said a dozen times above. They're not actually Chrome or Dolphin, they're Chrome UI or Dolphin UI with the Safari rendering engine under it. Hence, performance is always limited by how fast Safari is, and Apple only offers a slower version of the Safari engine for third parties. Likewise for feature support and such.

You guys are in agreement

[Cajun Hell]

The rest of us demand more control, more chaos, and more competition.

No, the vast majority of Android users are people buying it because the phones are cheap.

You prefixed it with the word no, but then you agreed with what he said. The very people you just described, are showing their demand for control, chaos, and competition. Take away the control, chaos or competition that they demanded, and they wouldn't be able to have the phone that they ended up choosing.

If you don't understand this, then try looking at it from the other side. Imagine you liked iOS, walled-garden and all. You can't have an iOS phone, without settling for a very limited and homogenous set of phones (virtually no diversity at all) from one single manufacturer. You're getting an iPhone, period, whether that's what you want or not. Even worse, if iPhones happen to be expensive, then you can't have a cheap one.

Most people, when faced with that situation, say no to Apple, and their wallets vote for control, chaos and competition instead.

Fortunately for Apple, not everyone says no. There's a lot of money to be made in the "subservience, order and stagnation" market. ;-)

Adblock/AdAway/etc is all that matters

[hojo]

I have an iPad 2 and an HTC Evo 4G LTE (Android phone).

I would, sadly, rather browse the web on my cell phone than on the iPad 2. Why? Ad blocking.

This is trivial on my Android system, relatively speaking. I rooted it and installed AdAway, and then I'm done. No significant advertising in any app or when I browse the web. Problem solved! Amazing speed, no popups, life is beautiful.

The iPad, despite a great interface, is horribly crippled in that I can't control what it does when I browse the web. It grabs every ad, talking ones, animated ones, popup ones, hijacking ones, you name it, my tablet is the advertisers' whore. I only use the iPad for games anymore. And I rooted the iPad and STILL can't stop this crap. Chrome for iPad has no adblock. Neither does Safari.

If there were a way to do the hosts file trick on the iPad, I would love to use it more, but as it is that thing makes me angry every time I pick it up.

Re:But when will the Nexus 7 be compatible of Amaz

[Caffinated]

Amazon wants to sell kindle devices. They're more effective at locking people into Amazon's ecosystem. Not providing their video content on stock Android gives them a big lever to push people to pick up the Kindle if they're considering their tablet choices. If Kindle weren't selling, I quite expect that they'd provide an instant video app for Android; there's no obvious technical reason why they couldn't.

Re:Wow, stock browser wins over FF/Chrome? Strange

[whoop]

I have found the perfect combo for web browsing on the go to be my Nexus 7 with Chrome tethered to my phone's data connection. Chrome (at least on the N7) feels just like I'm at my desktop by bringing over my bookmarks, history, open tabs, etc.

Of course, some terrible web sites treat anything with "Android" in the browser tag as a mobile and bounce me to their "optimized' web site, but then I just lose interest and move on...

Nearly All Posts Here are Off-Topic

[coinreturn]

The article is purportedly about Android. However, nearly all posts here have taken the troll-bait and posted a response to the opening phrase.

Hard to tell what success looks like

[gelfling]

On my HTC Evo 4G the difference in performance between Dolphin and the built in browser is negligible because 90% of web sites struggle like a drowning man trying to resolve all the banners, dancing lizards popups, popdowns, embedded video players and of course 112 dozen different Java scripts they attempt to run. And this is on WiFi so the network isn't the issue.

And even some of the apps meant to replace browser pages, like the IMDB app for Android are so bloated and heavy anyway they barely render correctly anyhow.

No the problem is that virtually all websites are bloated terrible pieces of shit and the only reason we don't throw our laptops out the window is because they're basically equivalent to an NSA supercomputer of 8 years ago.

Here's why... and why it will change...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, all the dumbasses just use the stock browser. And anyone with any technical know-how will use the best browser (probably because they tried them all and found Dolphin really is the best).

BUT... as soon as the masses figure out how to change their browser, then you can bet the bank that the most "popular" browser will be the one that has the highest number of privacy issues, sends the most information about their browsing back to the company, is made by the worst and least ethical corporation, and has the worst dumbed down interface of them all.

I am predicting the future here for you. Just watch.

Apple allows other browsers now

[n01]

The times when Apple would reject any other browser are over. There's Chrome avaible here: https://itunes.apple.com/de/app/chrome/id535886823?mt=8 I even managed to get my own browser on the app store https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/resworb/id520270702?mt=8. I'm still waiting to win a most-useless-app-award with that one though.

Re:Apple allows other browsers now

[dmesg0]

It's not the real Chrome, just UIWebView skin. But you probably know that.

Safari is a piece of shit too!

[Weezul]

I detest Safari, talk about unstable badly written garbage. It crashes about every two days with maybe 100 tabs open, but no flash and javascript restricted. It's worse than the crashes, roughly ten times per day, it'll ask to restart it's javascript engine, fucking piece of shit.

NOT QUITE

[Anonymous Coward]

The absence of sanction is not based on market dominance, it's based on the absence of sanction. IF IE were to return to complete dominance, it's current policies would not necessarily change as there is no sanction currently implemented.

This isn't browser competition

[lucideer]

All of the people commenting "Apple HAS browser competition!" may not be correct (they are just Safari skins) but neither is the OP.

Dolphin, Sleipnir, Maxthon are all available on iOS in *the same* incarnation as on Android - as skins of the stock engine. The fact is - while many might criticise Opera and Firefox for various reasons, they're the ONLY two mobile browsers actually competing with stock offerings.

The OP mentions Dolphin Jetpack which is - according to Dolphin - a plugin "which provides extensive canvas/GPU/JavaScript performance enhancements". How they do this is not mentioned anywhere on the web I can find, which is somewhat odd. Standard issue Dolphin wraps the phone's stock Webkit - if they're including some new updated Webkit fork packaged into the Jetpack plugin, then where's the source-code? Isn't Webkit supposed to be open source?