> number of web standards only Safari hasn’t implemented is many times bigger than those of Firefox and Chrome
Is that actual web standards, or just what is listed on caniuse.com? The reason I ask is that a lot of "standards" aren't actually standards:
Service workers are not yet a standard: "This is a living document. Readers need to be aware that this specification may include unimplemented features, and details that may change. Service Workers 1 is a version that is advancing toward a W3C Recommendation." (https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/)
Web Application Manifest is not yet a standard: "This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group as a Working Draft using the Recommendation track.
Background sync is not a standard: "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." (https://wicg.github.io/background-sync/spec/)
Cookie store is not a standard: "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." (https://wicg.github.io/cookie-store/)
Streams is not a standard, it's just a specification: "This specification provides APIs for creating, composing, and consuming streams of data that map efficiently to low-level I/O primitives." (https://streams.spec.whatwg.org)
So does Safari suck because it's not supporting actual standards, or does it only suck in comparison to Chrome because Chrome is willing to implement technologies that aren't finalized standards and technologies that aren't even on a standards track?
It is pretty funny to defend Apple (or any other browser vendor) using the argument that standards are unfinalized. Running living standards was the coup done by WHATWG, a.k.a. browser vendors.
Counterpoint: I don't think it matters much if something is final or not, because what matters more is market adoption.
Second, especially with HTML5 and Javascript I believe, they don't do big, formal versions anymore, but evolutionary and incremental design. This prevents a lot of administrative and bureaucratic overhead (see also Java's standardization process and stagnation after 6), at the cost of having fixed targets to work towards.
Or, to take it a step further (and in a slightly different perspective):
Does Safari suck because it's not supporting actual standards, or does Chrome suck because it's trying to make sure that the web only works on Chrome, like Microsoft did with IE 20+ years ago?
Why make it so complicated? Just assume everyone has a 2G connection (you don't see them because of a demographics problem, but 2G users are out there) and make sure all static information is accessible without JS. Don't think about web browser compat at all because that's a software problem which costs nothing to fix on the user end, while 2G and slow processors are hardware problems which cost a lot to fix.
For the past 1.5 years I've been working on apps for the agriculture industry, mostly in Australia.
This means 2G, slow 3G or satellite using customers are extremely common. No G too, if they're using your product out in the field. I myself lived 30 minutes drive from a mobile connection in 2021. A sheep literally ate my internet by chewing through the cable from the satellite to the house.
So those users definitely exist in my demographic. And very much in the demographic of my clients, as potential customers.
Still, it seems to be a hard sell to make things work with crap connections or offline. First off, frontend devs resist because you're taking away their favourite toys. (Very rational from their perspective - their next gig is probably in banking or retail or somewhere else with ubiquitous fast internet). Second off, those allocating budgets are very hesitant to spend money on any software dev out of the mainstream. From their perspective software is risky enough given its expense, let alone doing something that might require specialists. (This may be more of an Australian thing, they're not risk takers like Americans).
So yes, you're very right on a technical level. I'm with you, and would love to talk to others who see this. On a more practical level - it's hard to make the stars align, even if it will land you customers.
Don't worry, we're slowly circling back to servers pushing out fully pre-rendered pages that don't require any scripts - or make it more convenient to create those, anyway. React's upcoming server-side components will likely be a very popular solution for achieving this.
What I find funny was the whole idea of a "web app" used to be that having JavaScript on the frontend perform lean API requests to the backend would result in a snappier experience for the user. It's turned out to be quite the opposite, though I primarily blame the developers rather than the technology itself; pretty much everyone is using the technology wrong, otherwise so many blogs wouldn't completely fail to show content with NoScript enabled.
You are a 2G user when you most need the Internet. Just drive in parts of New York state or Northeastern Pennsylvania (I mention these two states because they are not remote empty rectangles like Idaho or Utah).
1. Other mobile browsers update independently from the OS, whereas Safari is only updated when there is an update to iOS. iOS devices that are no longer supported with newer versions of iOS cannot update to the latest version of Safari.
2. All browsers in iOS are based on Webkit: There are Chrome and Firefox versions for iOS but those use the same engine as Safari in iOS. This is because of an Apple guideline which mentions that all iOS browsers must use Webkit.
These users can't fix this problem without getting a new device.
OP is written by LINE employee, that's widely used messenger in some Asia. So it seems that it covers wide user range. Maybe Asia is good at 4G deployment, some developing country just skip 3G and deploy 4G. Or OP maybe only see Japan, where 4G coverage is enough high to stop supporting 3G on 5G phone.
If a user on 2G you'd probably be better off moving away from typical web dev entirely, and delivering a desktop or mobile app with as much clientside logic built in as possible (offline database, CRDT for syncing, no external dependencies, binary protocol for any critical networking, etc).
Firefox was in its prime when it was the main competitor to IE. It was just a no-brainer for users: it was faster and it had tabs!
Now Chrome has become dominant. I don’t know all the reasons, though I’m sure marketing is a big one. Firefox can’t compete with Google’s marketing budget, and as a user and a web dev, I haven’t found any other compelling reasons to make FF my primary browser. Their dev tools weren’t as nice as Chrome’s the last time I checked, and it seems like common (for tech folks) Chrome plugins make up the privacy differences.
We do need a healthy multi-browser ecosystem in order to prune web tech to follow a user-centric direction. I want FF to convert me. I just haven’t seen the substantial arguments yet.
It’s kind of telling that Microsoft didn’t either, so they switched Edge over to Chromium, a tool from one of their main competitors. It’s possible that this puts FF into the same position of being “the outsider” that it was in before. I hope that stress makes them do something radical to sway more users. If they do, it will likely be related to browsing privacy (especially if it’s a default) and will upset the status quo again.
Why is that surprising? Firefox doesn't have a narrative that's compelling for the typical user and I'm not sure it's ever had one that was really viable. 'Not-google' really isn't good enough for the average user, and no amount of 'we care about your privacy' is going to convince the common user that Mozilla _does_, in fact, care about their privacy.
The reality is that most typical users care about their privacy a lot less than we might expect or want. That's probably not a great sign for society in general, but I think it's the truth.
Webkit was made to be embeddable, so it spreads faster. More webkit-based browsers exist.
Firefox as a project seems directionless. New releases anger its users with unwanted feature. Its custodians wasted so much energy on silly projects that people are reluctant to donate.
Oh and of course the competition comes pre-installed on millions of devices. Operating systems even remind you when you're not using their bundled browser.
I ask this every time it comes up, but how do you know the market share of Firefox, and are you sure you aren't only counting Firefox installs with no ad blocking? There is definitely a larger ratio of ad-blocking on Firefox than Chrome, Safari, or Edge.
Those are total market shares including smartphones, which Firefox has very little presence. Most people look at Firefox market share tends ( or used to ) focus on Desktop market share. ( The term Desktop actually includes Laptop LOL, which used to be a separate category. )
>Safari is the baseline in terms of web standards: The sites we develop must work in Safari versions at least 2 years old.
How can anything work reliably when software's lifetime is less than the time I can store meat in my freezer? Future shock has hit the software world hard and nowhere harder than on the web. I can understand the financial motivations for for-profit businesses and why they behave this way. And I know that's not going to change.
But as people, as human people and not just an employee fufilling a corporate person's goals, we can write, support, and use software for far longer than 2 years and we should.
To say it the other way round: Use HTML/CSS for information purposes (JS where needed, nice explanatory animations etc), get back to using real nice native code for applications, using the OSes capabilities to the fullest, providing an experience integrated with the rest of the OS, having full performance.
Pretty much a non-starter. If you're selling a desktop app and your competitor is a browser-based SaaS you will lose every time. It's one of the rare things both end-users and IT will agree on.
You'll have to make some really convincing arguments to get me to install your software on my computer. I much prefer an instantly accessible, sandboxed web app.
I wish we'll finally get some regulators to force Apple to allow use of other browsers and installation of standard web apps in iOS. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of abuse of monopoly/platform power. I bet once that happens all of a sudden Safari will make an about face and also get many of the features it's resisting now.
The outsized chrome bars atop every graph say "Safari monopoly" to you?
On the contrary, seems like Safari (webkit, which Chrome used to be as well) is one of the few moats against total chrome, and one of the few to remain up to date across devices. For this you want regulators involved?
I just recently redid my company's website and used CSS grid this time. Our designer used a grid-based layout as well so it was super easy to lay out elements according to the design. I'm fortunately in a position where we don't need to support every browser under the sun, so using a lot of the modern standards was overall pretty fun.
I'm not really a frontend guy so hopefully next time I need to make a website the standards will have advanced even further.
I'm using more and more grid elements on my website. I'm surprised by how easy it is to make them responsive. Small features like grid-gap are also very useful.
It seems that Vue has some points in its favor over React in terms of speed, despite React's finner control over reactivity.
In the article they associate that with React's internals, but I wonder if also their philosophy to leverage the developer to trigger reactivity makes it easy to generate inefficient code, and in that case it may be that Vue's reactivity model has it's perks after all.
Is Safari on MacOS and Safari on iOS the same? I'm confused when it says things like Safari is the new web baseline, but I'm not sure which version it means. I would think Safari on iOS would be more important than Safari on desktop. Everyone that has an iOS device is using Safari (whether directly or under the hood), while I'm not sure I've ever met anyone that uses Safari on desktop (other than to download a different browser).
> not sure I've ever met anyone that uses Safari on desktop
Odd conversation starter, I certainly haven't polled most of my acquaintances. The ones who have nerd-ish leanings overwhelmingly use it, though, as Chrome is a crapfire for laptop batteries and privacy.
I find the framework part difficult. There are so many factors that impact bundle size and performance. To start what type of apps? How much content do they pull in? How much interactivity is there?
If you for example compare a few very minimal mostly static site vs let's say data dashboards your comparison stops to make sense.
Also consider the people who use the frameworks; some of the frameworks are quite new, you can expect a higher percentage of "early adopters" which are likely to be more experienced and write more performant code in general.
It reminds me a bit of Wordpress. Can be very quick, but most sites were/are just 100 plugins bundled together into a slow mess. Its popularity and ease of use messing with its "score".
Anyway, it's definitely interesting to see such numbers, but I won't be using them to make decisions or draw conclusions.
I follow a different set of criteria for my content-based website. Some are stricter, and some are more relaxed:
- It must be readable on the shittiest monitor money can buy
- It must be readable at night without straining the eyes
- It must be understandable by non-native English speakers
- It must load quickly even in the Berlin U-Bahn (underground train)
- It must work fine with the strictest ad blockers
- It must work fine with JavaScript turned off
- It must be respectful of people's data plans
- It must work in Reader Mode, in Pocket, or as a printed document
- It must work in any reasonably modern web browser
Web developers tend to forget that many people access the web from places with poor reception, on cheap devices, with poor eyesight, and with ad blockers.
React is so slow, so hard to reason about with everything just "it will update at some point and everything is pinging around off each other reactively", and just generally terrible to use. I find it hilarious that it ever gained popularity. I am releasing a framework soon (well it is already on github with no documentation and not in release form) that uses web components and it has similar amounts of characters to type to perform tasks as React, yet thousands of times better performance. The library is so small, initial page load is probably the same as server-side rendering when you take into account users computer vs server.
JavaScript is not really a factor in anything, it is just how it is used by people that is the factor.
[+] [-] darklion|4 years ago|reply
Is that actual web standards, or just what is listed on caniuse.com? The reason I ask is that a lot of "standards" aren't actually standards:
Service workers are not yet a standard: "This is a living document. Readers need to be aware that this specification may include unimplemented features, and details that may change. Service Workers 1 is a version that is advancing toward a W3C Recommendation." (https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/)
Web Application Manifest is not yet a standard: "This document was published by the Web Applications Working Group as a Working Draft using the Recommendation track.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by W3C and its Members." (https://www.w3.org/TR/appmanifest/)
Background sync is not a standard: "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." (https://wicg.github.io/background-sync/spec/)
Cookie store is not a standard: "This specification was published by the Web Platform Incubator Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track." (https://wicg.github.io/cookie-store/)
Streams is not a standard, it's just a specification: "This specification provides APIs for creating, composing, and consuming streams of data that map efficiently to low-level I/O primitives." (https://streams.spec.whatwg.org)
So does Safari suck because it's not supporting actual standards, or does it only suck in comparison to Chrome because Chrome is willing to implement technologies that aren't finalized standards and technologies that aren't even on a standards track?
[+] [-] smorgusofborg|4 years ago|reply
https://whatwg.org/faq
[+] [-] conradfr|4 years ago|reply
It's really annoying when doing web development, especially as that's actually the browser that has the most chance to act different from the others.
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|4 years ago|reply
Second, especially with HTML5 and Javascript I believe, they don't do big, formal versions anymore, but evolutionary and incremental design. This prevents a lot of administrative and bureaucratic overhead (see also Java's standardization process and stagnation after 6), at the cost of having fixed targets to work towards.
[+] [-] danaris|4 years ago|reply
Does Safari suck because it's not supporting actual standards, or does Chrome suck because it's trying to make sure that the web only works on Chrome, like Microsoft did with IE 20+ years ago?
[+] [-] netr0ute|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LAC-Tech|4 years ago|reply
This means 2G, slow 3G or satellite using customers are extremely common. No G too, if they're using your product out in the field. I myself lived 30 minutes drive from a mobile connection in 2021. A sheep literally ate my internet by chewing through the cable from the satellite to the house.
So those users definitely exist in my demographic. And very much in the demographic of my clients, as potential customers.
Still, it seems to be a hard sell to make things work with crap connections or offline. First off, frontend devs resist because you're taking away their favourite toys. (Very rational from their perspective - their next gig is probably in banking or retail or somewhere else with ubiquitous fast internet). Second off, those allocating budgets are very hesitant to spend money on any software dev out of the mainstream. From their perspective software is risky enough given its expense, let alone doing something that might require specialists. (This may be more of an Australian thing, they're not risk takers like Americans).
So yes, you're very right on a technical level. I'm with you, and would love to talk to others who see this. On a more practical level - it's hard to make the stars align, even if it will land you customers.
[+] [-] krono|4 years ago|reply
It's like PHP but this time in JavaScript.
[+] [-] ravenstine|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lamad123|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jefftk|4 years ago|reply
1. Other mobile browsers update independently from the OS, whereas Safari is only updated when there is an update to iOS. iOS devices that are no longer supported with newer versions of iOS cannot update to the latest version of Safari.
2. All browsers in iOS are based on Webkit: There are Chrome and Firefox versions for iOS but those use the same engine as Safari in iOS. This is because of an Apple guideline which mentions that all iOS browsers must use Webkit.
These users can't fix this problem without getting a new device.
[+] [-] duckmysick|4 years ago|reply
Disagree. It costs them time and attention. If they don't have to do something, they won't do it.
Updating software is low on people's priority lists. And not everyone has automatic updates enabled.
[+] [-] fomine3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitwize|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blux|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filoeleven|4 years ago|reply
Now Chrome has become dominant. I don’t know all the reasons, though I’m sure marketing is a big one. Firefox can’t compete with Google’s marketing budget, and as a user and a web dev, I haven’t found any other compelling reasons to make FF my primary browser. Their dev tools weren’t as nice as Chrome’s the last time I checked, and it seems like common (for tech folks) Chrome plugins make up the privacy differences.
We do need a healthy multi-browser ecosystem in order to prune web tech to follow a user-centric direction. I want FF to convert me. I just haven’t seen the substantial arguments yet.
It’s kind of telling that Microsoft didn’t either, so they switched Edge over to Chromium, a tool from one of their main competitors. It’s possible that this puts FF into the same position of being “the outsider” that it was in before. I hope that stress makes them do something radical to sway more users. If they do, it will likely be related to browsing privacy (especially if it’s a default) and will upset the status quo again.
[+] [-] forbiddenvoid|4 years ago|reply
The reality is that most typical users care about their privacy a lot less than we might expect or want. That's probably not a great sign for society in general, but I think it's the truth.
[+] [-] nicbou|4 years ago|reply
Firefox as a project seems directionless. New releases anger its users with unwanted feature. Its custodians wasted so much energy on silly projects that people are reluctant to donate.
Oh and of course the competition comes pre-installed on millions of devices. Operating systems even remind you when you're not using their bundled browser.
[+] [-] remram|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Waterluvian|4 years ago|reply
I don’t care to burn calories on being an “activist.” I just want to visit the sites I visit and get on with my life.
Sell me on Firefox.
[+] [-] gherkinnn|4 years ago|reply
At this point it's only idealism that keeps me there. Tiny things just don't work well. And it is so endlessly frustrating.
- I want the bookmark bar only to be shown in the new page tab. This does exist, but accidentally hitting _cmd+b_ resets it.
- The new-tab page is awful. It's trying to be clever when it really shouldn't be. So I have it all switched off.
- The container idea is nice, but so damn unusable in practice.
- I use Kagi as my search engine, but can't set the tokenised search URL so it works in private mode.
- The Settings are just so clunky. I wince every time I change something.
- When typing something in the omnibox, the suggestions are at the very bottom of the list. So far away, that I might as well not have them.
At least the dev tools are nice.
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|4 years ago|reply
How can anything work reliably when software's lifetime is less than the time I can store meat in my freezer? Future shock has hit the software world hard and nowhere harder than on the web. I can understand the financial motivations for for-profit businesses and why they behave this way. And I know that's not going to change.
But as people, as human people and not just an employee fufilling a corporate person's goals, we can write, support, and use software for far longer than 2 years and we should.
[+] [-] ubercow13|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] linopolus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ng12|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicbou|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] difosfor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Terretta|4 years ago|reply
On the contrary, seems like Safari (webkit, which Chrome used to be as well) is one of the few moats against total chrome, and one of the few to remain up to date across devices. For this you want regulators involved?
[+] [-] bschwindHN|4 years ago|reply
I'm not really a frontend guy so hopefully next time I need to make a website the standards will have advanced even further.
[+] [-] nicbou|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dusted|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timetraveller26|4 years ago|reply
In the article they associate that with React's internals, but I wonder if also their philosophy to leverage the developer to trigger reactivity makes it easy to generate inefficient code, and in that case it may be that Vue's reactivity model has it's perks after all.
[+] [-] msoad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] irrational|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Eric_WVGG|4 years ago|reply
> not sure I've ever met anyone that uses Safari on desktop
Odd conversation starter, I certainly haven't polled most of my acquaintances. The ones who have nerd-ish leanings overwhelmingly use it, though, as Chrome is a crapfire for laptop batteries and privacy.
[+] [-] codeptualize|4 years ago|reply
If you for example compare a few very minimal mostly static site vs let's say data dashboards your comparison stops to make sense.
Also consider the people who use the frameworks; some of the frameworks are quite new, you can expect a higher percentage of "early adopters" which are likely to be more experienced and write more performant code in general.
It reminds me a bit of Wordpress. Can be very quick, but most sites were/are just 100 plugins bundled together into a slow mess. Its popularity and ease of use messing with its "score".
Anyway, it's definitely interesting to see such numbers, but I won't be using them to make decisions or draw conclusions.
[+] [-] nicbou|4 years ago|reply
- It must be readable on the shittiest monitor money can buy
- It must be readable at night without straining the eyes
- It must be understandable by non-native English speakers
- It must load quickly even in the Berlin U-Bahn (underground train)
- It must work fine with the strictest ad blockers
- It must work fine with JavaScript turned off
- It must be respectful of people's data plans
- It must work in Reader Mode, in Pocket, or as a printed document
- It must work in any reasonably modern web browser
Web developers tend to forget that many people access the web from places with poor reception, on cheap devices, with poor eyesight, and with ad blockers.
[+] [-] awinter-py|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildandextreme|4 years ago|reply
JavaScript is not really a factor in anything, it is just how it is used by people that is the factor.
[+] [-] sylware|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austincheney|4 years ago|reply
* Sunset on Nov 2018.
* Support and compatibility from other MS products for IE terminated in Nov 2020.
* Security support terminated 15 June 2022.
[+] [-] dmitriid|4 years ago|reply
Also: ending IE support doesn't mean people magically just stop using it.
[+] [-] ksec|4 years ago|reply
Tim Cook: Apple doesn’t have a ‘dominant market share’ in any of its market.
[+] [-] ChrisArchitect|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093502
[+] [-] pvg|4 years ago|reply
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] MrYellowP|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]