A bit of context: Apple is being forced by different jurisdictions (EU, UK, Japan) to allow third-party browser engines. In all other regions it's still not allowed to use them.
Apple has been maliciously compliant, putting up roadblocks to testing and distribution. For example, the existing Firefox iOS app cannot be simply updated to use Gecko/Servo; it needs to be a new app.
As far as I know, none of the major browser vendors have released apps with their own engines on iOS. I suppose maintaining two (or more) different codebases for US, EU, etc. is not very attractive.
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
> Adopt the latest security mitigations (for example, Pointer Authentication Codes) that remove classes of vulnerabilities or make it much harder to develop an exploit chain;
These allow Apple to take a security-maximalist approach and block alternative browsers that don't include the most performance-killing mitigations possible.
I don't think these points are bad per-se, but within the context of malicious compliance that Apple has already displayed, I'd be scared to invest money on alternative browser for iOS.
"We're smart enough to safely use these languages but you're not" is a bold claim that just happens to end up with the exact same consequences of their earlier rule that was deemed anticompetitive, there's no conspiracy here!
For instance, rust doesn't support PAC yet https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73628. Support for PAC wasn't even in upstream LLVM for a while (it now is, but lld still doesn't support it).
This is great and long overdue for outdated devices!
Those devices are forced to use an ancient Safari version of WebKit which includes tons of vulnerabilities that are not patched anymore, and same time doesn't support modern ECMAScript functionalities.
With a modern browser engine, those old devices can be used for valid browser usage.
I would pause here and reflect. There is zero chance this performs better (speed, latency, memory, battery life, etc) than Safari on iPhones since the latter has been heavily optimized over the decades for this exact use case. Older devices not even getting iOS updates are likely the devices that will work worst with this software in its current form.
Of course if Apple had allowed third party browser engines from the start, it would likely be a much more even playing field!
it's already working really well on my iOS 13 iPhone SE. the safari on this version struggles to render any 'modern' website these days, this browser works perfectly and I can even use uBlock Origin with it.
Yeah, this is a real thing: Mozilla doesn't have a team dedicated optimizing Gecko-based Firefox for iOS just in case it can be shipped someday. That Firefox can be built and will run on iOS doesn't mean it will immediately be a great browser there - there are some things you just don't know to optimize until you've gotten the thing into a lot of users' hands over a decent span of time.
I wonder if there's simple way in the EU or markets that allow non-appstore to install this without TrollStore or something that needs to re-certificate each time.
TrollStore is just for old devices. On devices which natively support alternative stores, enabling something like altstore the first time is annoying (because apple makes it so) but after that it's not a problem and doesn't need to recertificate afaik.
One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.
Creating a separate app would work, but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone).
Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store (which is what the Github repo linked is doing), which is an amount paid per user that downloads an app outside of the app store. Epic has promised to cover that cost (out of spite, probably) for one of the major alternative stores, but if they go back on their promises you're suddenly paying Apple so people can use your free app on the phones they bought.
There are also other issues (Apple's arbitrary testing requirements, for one); Apple has once again succeeded in implementing the law in such a way that it's impossible to exercise your rights. Until the next big Apple lawsuit about this, I don't expect browser companies to bother with a non-Safari overlay.
Hmm it worked for Microsoft and other companies have also done a switch as you pointed out (I remember facebook splitting off messenger and later putting it back).
> Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
Well, there's a solution to this: ditch that fruit phone until the fruit factory allows owners to use their hardware with the software they want. Let them click some boxes that yes, they understand that they'll leave the boundaries of fruity fruitland and beyond this checkbox dragons abide so abandon all hope all who enter here but otherwise let them install the software they want.
...
Yes, I thought so too, they won't, not without a court order. Now that several courts have ordered such and there is a precedent which makes clear that those dragons aren't all that fierce the fruit factory shouldn't have any excuses any more but that doesn't bother them just as long as the true believers keep on coming for their indulgences. Hence, ditch that thing and maybe they'll get the message.
Or, perhaps, apple users are rational actors that have different weights to their tradeoffs than you.
The last time I checked Android, the security and privacy story was much worse than Apple. Further, it's not just me who has to make the change - it's the family I share photos and videos and other things.
Yes, I would prefer to have other App Store options, but it is balanced against other issues. (And yes, I have owned an Android phone before - every time I buy a new phone I compare the two again.)
Nope, they're not rational actors by supporting marketing-driven limitations. These limitations are not needed to create a well-working device, they're only there to keep the profits up because heavens forbid, someone might offer an alternative which allows users to get their software fix without paying their pound of flesh to the app store.
The example you gave on it not just being you who needs to change but the family I share photos and videos and other things [with] is all the more proof that you shouldn't touch these mobile prisons with a 3-metre pole. I share my photos and videos and other things with family as well but I don't care what they're using to access them 'cause I use a (self-hosted, but that is not essential) web service for it. No lock-in, no nothing. If you want to view those photos on your Commodore-64, have at it. There's even apps you can use, including one for those stuck on fruit phones.
I don't believe the 'security and privacy' story the fruit factory pushes, there've been far too many examples to disprove the narrative. Not that I trust Google, mind you. I use Android but I do not use Google, do not have a Google account, don't have Google services (etc.) on my devices.
I'm on Android for this reason but it's not ideal either, Google is clamping down a lot. But yeah an Apple phone just won't work for me, there are wayyy too many things I need daily that won't work on Apple.
Yes, it seems Google has been oogling that juicy fruity profit margin thinking mine!. I recently got a new phone and given that I tend to use the things for about 8-10 years it might well be my last Android device if they make it (close to) impossible to avoid them. The new phone - a Motorola G75 - is de-Googled just like all my other devices, I did not allow it any internet access before taking off (as in 'disabling', the thing is not rooted yet) everything Moto and Google and replaced it with everything F-Droid. It is still on Android 14 and does not try to get me to install any updates 'cause the updater is also disabled - something which many people seem to think is impossible. I got another G75 and will try to get something like Lineage or maybe most of Graphene to run on it.
Should Android become too distasteful I guess the next step will be a Linux device of some sorts. I have about 8-10 years to find or build one assuming these G75s hold up like the Redmi Note 5 Pros did (used them for 8 years) and the Motorola Defy/Defy+ before that (used for 9 years). All those devices still work, one of the 2 Redmis is my new 'dangerous work phone', the other plays Linux server since it no longer has a screen (which is what happens when you lend it out...). One of the Defy's is in use as a trailer camera, also without a screen. Android devices remain useful long after the market has given up on them.
It's similar to what I do yes. I buy normal Android devices but I use ADB to get rid of most of the google stuff. In Google Play Services I just don't sign in and I disable all the data collection. It's not ideal but the problem is I really need the push service for work. And my devices are not supported by AOSP distros.
> One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.
Well, sounds like the next lawsuit waiting to happen then if the regulations can't be applied because of that
On android Mozilla already have Firefox and Firefox focus and Firefox nightly
So having two versions on iOS would be fine, and as apps can be limited to only show up in some regions wouldn’t be confusing as many would just see one
Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough.
> but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone)
You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?
> Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence.
> Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store
This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.
> You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS
Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
> which is what they should be testing anyway
Having a large part of your team be unable to reproduce bugs is a significant development issue. Some of these operating system features are simply not available outside of the EU.
If it were as easy as you're suggesting, Mozilla would have already done it. Google would have already ported Blink over, or Brave, or whatever browser you prefer. So far I think only Ladybird is really trying to go for a custom browser engine, though app store distribution will be an issue until they can pass enough tests (as Apple has decided your browser is not a real browser if it doesn't pass a certain threshold of existing tests).
> Having a large part of your team be unable to reproduce bugs is a significant development issue
But I just said, they are free and able to use development builds, regardless of geographical location. As far as I know, the OS is exactly the same, just has certain things disabled depending on region (for example you can breifly see the iPhone mirroring in the EU the first time, before it disapears).
> Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Why bother with any of it then? If it's hopeless and not enough people want it, why even bother?
> I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Let's put this another way, would many people be interested in a full blown adblocker like ublock origin? Because that's what I have on Firefox on Android.
With how few iOS users I see the existing content blockers already, shockingly few people as far as I can tell.
I want to see Brave and Firefox fight it off in an ad-blocking-mobile-browser competition to get some more market share, but it seems like iOS users are content with just Safari and ads.
Let me put it another way: why has no other browser company released a browser yet? Mozilla is only a small player, after all.
> Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Egg on Apple's face for expending so much effort to deny so few people something they don't actually want.
So far market demand hasn't pushed Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, or anyone else in this direction. It's not just Mozilla, who is often late to these kinds of developments.
> I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead.
Mozilla makes roughly $500m per year with maybe $1.5b in the bank. That's about 1-2 orders of magnitude short of what would be required to poke Apple in the eye and make them feel it.
> You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?
Yeah this, I honestly couldn't care less. On Android I have switched between nightly and regular several times. It's a 2 minute job.
If you want to have a browser with a different engine you need a whole different developer account org, you need to maintain two different code bases and you need to very specifically set everything up to pass all of Apple's tests, which are incredibly onerous in time and work, so it doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do so for such a small market share (hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them)
> hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them
It’s more likely that Google is trying to boycott EU initiatives to the extent it can since giving them any support would only turn the public opinion more favorable towards more US tech regulation, and that’s very much against Google’s own interests.
Also, Google is quite comfortable with the current duopoly in the EU market which works in their favour. The last thing they want is chrome becoming even more dominant on the mobile market there.
I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.
The Firefox repo gets 100-300 changesets per day, up to 1000 commits per week. Around 100-150 contributors land those in any given week. That's activity comparable to Linux or Chromium. And, the release schedule is accelerating from a four-week cadence to a two-week cadence this fall.
Just because other efforts and initiatives are flasher or noisier doesn't mean Firefox isn't the main priority.
This is based on Firefox's own iOS work, but their target is BrowserEngineKit, not making a web browser destined to jailbroken/TrollStore devices on older firmwares.
So close to something you could install in Japan via AltStore:
> One or more apps in source "Reynard Browser" are missing a marketplaceID. This most likely means they are not notarized, which is not supported by this version of AltStore.
I'm really looking to a successful version of a Gecko browser that can be installed with just AltStore via the Japanese law.
> 16.7.x (excluding 16.7 RC) and 17.0.1+ will NEVER be supported (unless a third CoreTrust bug is discovered, which is unlikely).
I am 100% over the walled garden, lock out, right to disrepair bullshit. If we had a government instead of a quasi-fascist kleptocracy billion+ dollar corps wouldn’t have the power to do this.
A bit of context: Apple is being forced by different jurisdictions (EU, UK, Japan) to allow third-party browser engines. In all other regions it's still not allowed to use them.
Apple has been maliciously compliant, putting up roadblocks to testing and distribution. For example, the existing Firefox iOS app cannot be simply updated to use Gecko/Servo; it needs to be a new app.
As far as I know, none of the major browser vendors have released apps with their own engines on iOS. I suppose maintaining two (or more) different codebases for US, EU, etc. is not very attractive.
The other requirements are also pretty vague and give Apple full discretion to remove browsers they don't like:
https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
> Adopt the latest security mitigations (for example, Pointer Authentication Codes) that remove classes of vulnerabilities or make it much harder to develop an exploit chain;
These allow Apple to take a security-maximalist approach and block alternative browsers that don't include the most performance-killing mitigations possible.
I don't think these points are bad per-se, but within the context of malicious compliance that Apple has already displayed, I'd be scared to invest money on alternative browser for iOS.
Why do I have a sneaky feeling Safari for iOS isn’t fully written in a fully memory safe language?
"We're smart enough to safely use these languages but you're not" is a bold claim that just happens to end up with the exact same consequences of their earlier rule that was deemed anticompetitive, there's no conspiracy here!
For instance, rust doesn't support PAC yet https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73628. Support for PAC wasn't even in upstream LLVM for a while (it now is, but lld still doesn't support it).
This is great and long overdue for outdated devices!
Those devices are forced to use an ancient Safari version of WebKit which includes tons of vulnerabilities that are not patched anymore, and same time doesn't support modern ECMAScript functionalities.
With a modern browser engine, those old devices can be used for valid browser usage.
> This is great
Absolutely spectacular, indeed…
> and long overdue for outdated devices!
I would pause here and reflect. There is zero chance this performs better (speed, latency, memory, battery life, etc) than Safari on iPhones since the latter has been heavily optimized over the decades for this exact use case. Older devices not even getting iOS updates are likely the devices that will work worst with this software in its current form.
Of course if Apple had allowed third party browser engines from the start, it would likely be a much more even playing field!
it's already working really well on my iOS 13 iPhone SE. the safari on this version struggles to render any 'modern' website these days, this browser works perfectly and I can even use uBlock Origin with it.
Yeah, this is a real thing: Mozilla doesn't have a team dedicated optimizing Gecko-based Firefox for iOS just in case it can be shipped someday. That Firefox can be built and will run on iOS doesn't mean it will immediately be a great browser there - there are some things you just don't know to optimize until you've gotten the thing into a lot of users' hands over a decent span of time.
I wonder if there's simple way in the EU or markets that allow non-appstore to install this without TrollStore or something that needs to re-certificate each time.
TrollStore is just for old devices. On devices which natively support alternative stores, enabling something like altstore the first time is annoying (because apple makes it so) but after that it's not a problem and doesn't need to recertificate afaik.
The biggest question imo is why does Mozilla not do this
One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.
Creating a separate app would work, but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone).
Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store (which is what the Github repo linked is doing), which is an amount paid per user that downloads an app outside of the app store. Epic has promised to cover that cost (out of spite, probably) for one of the major alternative stores, but if they go back on their promises you're suddenly paying Apple so people can use your free app on the phones they bought.
There are also other issues (Apple's arbitrary testing requirements, for one); Apple has once again succeeded in implementing the law in such a way that it's impossible to exercise your rights. Until the next big Apple lawsuit about this, I don't expect browser companies to bother with a non-Safari overlay.
Hmm it worked for Microsoft and other companies have also done a switch as you pointed out (I remember facebook splitting off messenger and later putting it back).
> Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
Yeah that's a bit insane.
Well, there's a solution to this: ditch that fruit phone until the fruit factory allows owners to use their hardware with the software they want. Let them click some boxes that yes, they understand that they'll leave the boundaries of fruity fruitland and beyond this checkbox dragons abide so abandon all hope all who enter here but otherwise let them install the software they want.
...
Yes, I thought so too, they won't, not without a court order. Now that several courts have ordered such and there is a precedent which makes clear that those dragons aren't all that fierce the fruit factory shouldn't have any excuses any more but that doesn't bother them just as long as the true believers keep on coming for their indulgences. Hence, ditch that thing and maybe they'll get the message.
Or, perhaps, apple users are rational actors that have different weights to their tradeoffs than you.
The last time I checked Android, the security and privacy story was much worse than Apple. Further, it's not just me who has to make the change - it's the family I share photos and videos and other things.
Yes, I would prefer to have other App Store options, but it is balanced against other issues. (And yes, I have owned an Android phone before - every time I buy a new phone I compare the two again.)
Nope, they're not rational actors by supporting marketing-driven limitations. These limitations are not needed to create a well-working device, they're only there to keep the profits up because heavens forbid, someone might offer an alternative which allows users to get their software fix without paying their pound of flesh to the app store.
The example you gave on it not just being you who needs to change but the family I share photos and videos and other things [with] is all the more proof that you shouldn't touch these mobile prisons with a 3-metre pole. I share my photos and videos and other things with family as well but I don't care what they're using to access them 'cause I use a (self-hosted, but that is not essential) web service for it. No lock-in, no nothing. If you want to view those photos on your Commodore-64, have at it. There's even apps you can use, including one for those stuck on fruit phones.
I don't believe the 'security and privacy' story the fruit factory pushes, there've been far too many examples to disprove the narrative. Not that I trust Google, mind you. I use Android but I do not use Google, do not have a Google account, don't have Google services (etc.) on my devices.
I'm on Android for this reason but it's not ideal either, Google is clamping down a lot. But yeah an Apple phone just won't work for me, there are wayyy too many things I need daily that won't work on Apple.
Yes, it seems Google has been oogling that juicy fruity profit margin thinking mine!. I recently got a new phone and given that I tend to use the things for about 8-10 years it might well be my last Android device if they make it (close to) impossible to avoid them. The new phone - a Motorola G75 - is de-Googled just like all my other devices, I did not allow it any internet access before taking off (as in 'disabling', the thing is not rooted yet) everything Moto and Google and replaced it with everything F-Droid. It is still on Android 14 and does not try to get me to install any updates 'cause the updater is also disabled - something which many people seem to think is impossible. I got another G75 and will try to get something like Lineage or maybe most of Graphene to run on it.
Should Android become too distasteful I guess the next step will be a Linux device of some sorts. I have about 8-10 years to find or build one assuming these G75s hold up like the Redmi Note 5 Pros did (used them for 8 years) and the Motorola Defy/Defy+ before that (used for 9 years). All those devices still work, one of the 2 Redmis is my new 'dangerous work phone', the other plays Linux server since it no longer has a screen (which is what happens when you lend it out...). One of the Defy's is in use as a trailer camera, also without a screen. Android devices remain useful long after the market has given up on them.
It's similar to what I do yes. I buy normal Android devices but I use ADB to get rid of most of the google stuff. In Google Play Services I just don't sign in and I disable all the data collection. It's not ideal but the problem is I really need the push service for work. And my devices are not supported by AOSP distros.
I install my apps using Aurora and F-Droid.
> One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.
Well, sounds like the next lawsuit waiting to happen then if the regulations can't be applied because of that
On android Mozilla already have Firefox and Firefox focus and Firefox nightly
So having two versions on iOS would be fine, and as apps can be limited to only show up in some regions wouldn’t be confusing as many would just see one
Would they actually need to distribute this app outside of the appstore?
No, in the EU they should be able to distribute this
Need to? Probably not. Reynard isn't on the app store, though, so Mozilla's efforts wouldn't be very comparable if it wasn't.
Plus, iOS can really use a solid F-Droid alternative.
Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough.
> but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone)
You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?
> Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.
They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence.
> Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store
This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.
> You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS
Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
> which is what they should be testing anyway
Having a large part of your team be unable to reproduce bugs is a significant development issue. Some of these operating system features are simply not available outside of the EU.
If it were as easy as you're suggesting, Mozilla would have already done it. Google would have already ported Blink over, or Brave, or whatever browser you prefer. So far I think only Ladybird is really trying to go for a custom browser engine, though app store distribution will be an issue until they can pass enough tests (as Apple has decided your browser is not a real browser if it doesn't pass a certain threshold of existing tests).
> Having a large part of your team be unable to reproduce bugs is a significant development issue
But I just said, they are free and able to use development builds, regardless of geographical location. As far as I know, the OS is exactly the same, just has certain things disabled depending on region (for example you can breifly see the iPhone mirroring in the EU the first time, before it disapears).
> Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Why bother with any of it then? If it's hopeless and not enough people want it, why even bother?
> I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Let's put this another way, would many people be interested in a full blown adblocker like ublock origin? Because that's what I have on Firefox on Android.
With how few iOS users I see the existing content blockers already, shockingly few people as far as I can tell.
I want to see Brave and Firefox fight it off in an ad-blocking-mobile-browser competition to get some more market share, but it seems like iOS users are content with just Safari and ads.
Let me put it another way: why has no other browser company released a browser yet? Mozilla is only a small player, after all.
Yes but current content blockers aren't very effective on iOS.
I think the things mentioned in that open source report, basically Apple making it as hard as possible, plays a big role there.
> Firefox has struggled to get the sliver of market share they have today. I highly doubt that there are that many people like you and me who crave a real Firefox engine on iOS.
Egg on Apple's face for expending so much effort to deny so few people something they don't actually want.
So far market demand hasn't pushed Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, or anyone else in this direction. It's not just Mozilla, who is often late to these kinds of developments.
> I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead.
Mozilla makes roughly $500m per year with maybe $1.5b in the bank. That's about 1-2 orders of magnitude short of what would be required to poke Apple in the eye and make them feel it.
Yeah but what they'd be paying to Apple would be a tiny part of that.
> You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?
Yeah this, I honestly couldn't care less. On Android I have switched between nightly and regular several times. It's a 2 minute job.
If you want to have a browser with a different engine you need a whole different developer account org, you need to maintain two different code bases and you need to very specifically set everything up to pass all of Apple's tests, which are incredibly onerous in time and work, so it doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do so for such a small market share (hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them)
> hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them
It’s more likely that Google is trying to boycott EU initiatives to the extent it can since giving them any support would only turn the public opinion more favorable towards more US tech regulation, and that’s very much against Google’s own interests.
Also, Google is quite comfortable with the current duopoly in the EU market which works in their favour. The last thing they want is chrome becoming even more dominant on the mobile market there.
Long read, but it exactly explains why: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/
Thank you!
Thx!
There has been some work on porting Gecko to iOS, but there doesn't seem to have been any progress in over a year: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907
I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.
The Firefox repo gets 100-300 changesets per day, up to 1000 commits per week. Around 100-150 contributors land those in any given week. That's activity comparable to Linux or Chromium. And, the release schedule is accelerating from a four-week cadence to a two-week cadence this fall.
Just because other efforts and initiatives are flasher or noisier doesn't mean Firefox isn't the main priority.
This is based on Firefox's own iOS work, but their target is BrowserEngineKit, not making a web browser destined to jailbroken/TrollStore devices on older firmwares.
Maybe they don't have the legal budget to sue Apple.
i think it's because it will not pass AppStore review
So close to something you could install in Japan via AltStore:
> One or more apps in source "Reynard Browser" are missing a marketplaceID. This most likely means they are not notarized, which is not supported by this version of AltStore.
I'm really looking to a successful version of a Gecko browser that can be installed with just AltStore via the Japanese law.
Can’t you use notarized AltStore to install AltStore original, and from there install Firefox? I did that earlier today in EU.
I just wish they had a different name now for AltStore Original… telling them apart from the icon is basically impossible
Wonderful. I also learnt about TrollStore today - https://github.com/opa334/TrollStore.
Glad the apple ecosystem is being opened up (albeit unwillingly) by hackers.
> 16.7.x (excluding 16.7 RC) and 17.0.1+ will NEVER be supported (unless a third CoreTrust bug is discovered, which is unlikely).
I am 100% over the walled garden, lock out, right to disrepair bullshit. If we had a government instead of a quasi-fascist kleptocracy billion+ dollar corps wouldn’t have the power to do this.
Did it have to be notarized by Apple or there's a way to use that browser engine extension without it?
Will this be released to the App Store?
Can I load this with Sideloadly?
[dead]