What are the benefits to Google in using a non-WebKit based browser?
The benefits for Google, the wet dream of Google is to have Apple reduced to HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Intel level, where by Apple, just makes/provides hardware and Google gets to design and run the Internet on all popular computer hardware, with Apple being relegated to a bit player OEM hardware maker sitting on the sidelines providing generic hardware, and nothing else. Courtesy of the EU and the American government picking winners and losers.
Apple being vertical is just too successful (it’s not the computing world they imagined 25 years ago), the other one percenters want to re-shuffle the deck, because they can’t compete with Apple straight up.
The same rules that might require Apple to allow non-webkit browsers on iOS will be the same that allows non-Google default browsers on Android
Which isn't really a big problem for Google since developers still need to use their APIs to create those browsers on Android. Though I suppose in the same way Google could still harvest data at the OS level, Apple could detect and potentially prevent data harvesting at the OS level too.
For how long do you think Apple can do that before the other one percenters cry foul? In the end, what the EU wants and the United States government wants is for Apple to build the infrastructure and just turn it over to the government, and then stand back and just be HP or Dell at the low margins of profitability.
What are the benefits to Google in using a non-WebKit based browser?
The benefits for Google, the wet dream of Google is to have Apple reduced to HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Intel level, where by Apple, just makes/provides hardware and Google gets to design and run the Internet on all popular computer hardware, with Apple being relegated to a bit player OEM hardware maker sitting on the sidelines providing generic hardware, and nothing else. Courtesy of the EU and the American government picking winners and losers.
Apple being vertical is just too successful (it’s not the computing world they imagined 25 years ago), the other one percenters want to re-shuffle the deck, because they can’t compete with Apple straight up.
The same rules that might require Apple to allow non-webkit browsers on iOS will be the same that allows non-Google default browsers on Android
Which isn't really a big problem for Google since developers still need to use their APIs to create those browsers on Android. Though I suppose in the same way Google could still harvest data at the OS level, Apple could detect and potentially prevent data harvesting at the OS level too.
Google is just a parasitic software ad company. Yes, they put out me too Hardware from time to time, but it never last, so they have no problems living off of Apple or Microsoft, as a parasitic company and there are many others. Spotify and Netflix who also won’t mind a reshuffle.
What are the benefits to Google in using a non-WebKit based browser?
The benefits for Google, the wet dream of Google is to have Apple reduced to HP, Dell, Lenovo, and Intel level, where by Apple, just makes/provides hardware and Google gets to design and run the Internet on all popular computer hardware, with Apple being relegated to a bit player OEM hardware maker sitting on the sidelines providing generic hardware, and nothing else.
This is a tiny little itty bitty (AKA massive) exaggeration. We're talking about a f%^&-ing web browser for goodness sake.
If it was no big deal?, then Apple would not have developed Safari, which, if they had not they would be have been relegated to the back end of the computing age, the same thing applies to the Apple retail store, Apple Maps, iMessage, Apple Pay and the Apple Watch. It also extends to the M series SOC/CPU they designed, when you’re not a monopoly in any market and you’re a vertical computer company, you can’t sit back and allow other companies to determine your future or or wait for them to support you.
Notice that when each one of those Apple products became successful, the crying ensued. It’s not fair it’s not fair, but at the time of their introduction, the financial analyst’s and the tech analyst’s made fun of it, but they’re not laughing anymore. The tech one percent, want a deck reshuffle.
This might be a hint that Apple is planning to—or might actually be compelled to—open up the current browser restrictions.
It might also be Google preparing itself to take advantage of that change just in case that happens.
Some browser competition on iOS would be good. Apple has dragged its feet on Safari for too long.
The ironic thing is that if Apple actually went all-in and made a first-class browser that would enable developers to due first-class progressive web apps (vs. native only) they'd likely achieve three things:
1. They offload a shit-ton of apps from the app store (and the corresponding load on that staff) that really do not need to be native apps. 2. They'd be able to point to this as an "alternative app store" (in a way) when the anti-trust bozos come knocking at their door for:
alternative app-loading
payment restrictions
browser competition
They could kill three birds with one stone if they simply opened up browser competition.
They would, in all likelihood, retain the apps as native that are most profitable to them anyway.
They might lose some revenue/profit but it's a small price to pay vs. the damage the DoJ could inflect if Apple isn't careful.
Apple's gonna claim "security" and "quality" and so on...but these are—in practice—lame (and indefensible) excuses.
[emphasis added]
That Apple has not adopted features does not mean Apple is dragging its feet. History suggests that Apple is carefully considering all options, deciding on the best way forward, developing a solution and will unveil that to the world once it meets a certain standard of quality.
I'm not keeping a close eye on web tech any more because most suggested features are "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "we can do this and it won't open a ton of security holes." Because contrary to your assertion, there are plenty of people in the world who recognise the work involved in dealing with security failures and would much rather avoid that mess. There are also people who appreciate high quality products and services and are willing to wait for a better result (c.f. iPhone customers delaying purchases rather than switching).
If you want a particular result and don't care about the costs, more power to you. If you evaluate the costs and feel the trade-off is worth it, also great - nobody should be forced to accept a situation they deem untenable. Just be open to the idea that (a potentially significant number of) other people will determine that they don't want to accept the trade-offs being made, and extend them the same courtesy.
Just as a FYI, Mozilla is also prepping for a webkit-absent Apple browser future.
This could just be preparation "just in case" but it's looking a lot more like they know something is coming.
This will be a good change if it comes to fruition. It will mean I can own an iPhone—which I love—and get the additional benefit of possibly better web browsers due to some competitive rivalry. Nice!
Comments
Notice that when each one of those Apple products became successful, the crying ensued. It’s not fair it’s not fair, but at the time of their introduction, the financial analyst’s and the tech analyst’s made fun of it, but they’re not laughing anymore. The tech one percent, want a deck reshuffle.
That Apple has not adopted features does not mean Apple is dragging its feet. History suggests that Apple is carefully considering all options, deciding on the best way forward, developing a solution and will unveil that to the world once it meets a certain standard of quality.
I'm not keeping a close eye on web tech any more because most suggested features are "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "we can do this and it won't open a ton of security holes." Because contrary to your assertion, there are plenty of people in the world who recognise the work involved in dealing with security failures and would much rather avoid that mess. There are also people who appreciate high quality products and services and are willing to wait for a better result (c.f. iPhone customers delaying purchases rather than switching).
If you want a particular result and don't care about the costs, more power to you. If you evaluate the costs and feel the trade-off is worth it, also great - nobody should be forced to accept a situation they deem untenable. Just be open to the idea that (a potentially significant number of) other people will determine that they don't want to accept the trade-offs being made, and extend them the same courtesy.
This will be a good change if it comes to fruition. It will mean I can own an iPhone—which I love—and get the additional benefit of possibly better web browsers due to some competitive rivalry. Nice!