[HN Gopher] Vivaldi on iOS
___________________________________________________________________
Vivaldi on iOS
Author : aeadio
Score : 82 points
Date : 2023-10-05 17:03 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vivaldi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vivaldi.com)
| leotravis10 wrote:
| Although I appreciate Vivaldi for getting a iOS version out, do
| keep in mind that it's very inferior to Safari much like all non-
| Safari browsers on iOS running WebKit because of how very
| privileged Safari is and sadly their hands are very tied. The
| only hope is that the EU's DMA and DSA can allow third-party
| browsing engines on iOS eventually, and this release is a head
| start type of move toward that goal I feel.
|
| Until that happens, Safari will always be the only browser that
| truly matters if you use a iOS device and that's a fact.
| freediver wrote:
| Can you give an example of such privileges?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Safari's rendering and JavaScript engines are the only ones
| allowed to run on, or be distributed to, iOS.
| freediver wrote:
| That is technically WebKit, which is open source.
| leodriesch wrote:
| Support for web extensions as an example (Safari extensions)
| lhnz wrote:
| Doesn't Kagi for iOS support web extensions already?
| elashri wrote:
| Not yet. The support is very limited.
| dkonofalski wrote:
| That's not a fact. All browsers on iOS use the same rendering
| engine. The differences between them are all in the UI and
| other front-end features. That doesn't make Safari superior to
| them, especially since they're all starting off with the same
| base rendering. Anything outside of that can easily be better
| than Safari.
| cal85 wrote:
| Third party browsers are forced to use a slower JavaScript
| engine than Safari. They also can't support extensions or PWA
| features.
| callalex wrote:
| The JIT thing hasn't been true for several years thanks to
| WKWebView.
| [deleted]
| gameoverhumans wrote:
| Rather than just downvote you for stating incorrect things
| with such conviction, I'll refer you to Apple's own website
| :)
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-
| eg/guide/security/sec15bfe098e/...
|
| > Memory pages marked as both writable and executable can be
| used only by apps under tightly controlled conditions: The
| kernel checks for the presence of the Apple-only dynamic
| code-signing entitlement. Even then, only a single mmap call
| can be made to request an executable and writable page, which
| is given a randomized address. Safari uses this functionality
| for its JavaScript Just-in-Time (JIT) compiler.
|
| In other words, Apple only allows Apple to do Javascript JIT
| on iOS.
| btown wrote:
| While this is technically true, WKWebView (which I believe
| is used by all non-Apple browsers on iOS) does allow
| Javascript JIT, because the renderer runs in a subprocess
| with these permissions. See:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19379739 .
|
| But there are many other reasons besides JIT to want to
| have non-Apple-Webkit-based rendering engines (including
| wanting different JS engines with their own JIT) - and so
| IMO it's very much a restriction that regulators should
| force Apple to relax. The security considerations should be
| no different than those on a desktop platform.
| gameoverhumans wrote:
| Interesting, thanks. Didn't realise there was ways to
| embed WebKit views that also got JIT (escaped the walled
| garden a while ago!)
|
| Still, my original point still stands. As you note, you
| can't have Spidermonkey running on iOS doing JIT. But you
| also couldn't have Gecko doing rendering and using WebKit
| JIT, either. ... Right?
|
| > The security considerations should be no different than
| those on a desktop platform.
|
| Completely agree. The "it's for your own security" angle
| is just usual Apple FUD to make their anti-competitive
| stance seem pro-consumer.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Your control over the web process is very limited,
| correct.
| 123sereusername wrote:
| [flagged]
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > Although I appreciate Vivaldi for getting a iOS version out,
| do keep in mind that it's very inferior to Safari much like all
| non-Safari browsers on iOS running WebKit because of how very
| privileged Safari is and sadly their hands are very tied. The
| only hope is that the EU's DMA and DSA can allow third-party
| browsing engines on iOS eventually, and this release is a head
| start type of move toward that goal I feel.
|
| This is a double sided coin. 90% of the browsers on Google Play
| are absolute trash (if not, arguably, straight up malware), and
| some are apparently very popular.
|
| Give 3rd party iOS browsers more permissions, and devs will
| exploit every single bit of privilege to the max, and then
| some, en masse.
| kernal wrote:
| Since you claimed 90% of the browsers on Google Play are
| "absolute trash (if not, arguably, straight up malware)"
| could you list these browsers? Or are you just talking out of
| your ass?
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| 90% may be hyperbole, and I cannot, because the web results
| are for some reason totally different that what I am being
| served in a search on my phone.
|
| But still:
|
| https://play.google.com/store/search?q=adblock%20browser&c=
| a...
|
| https://play.google.com/store/search?q=video%20download%20b
| r...
|
| Top results are OK, but it goes downhill pretty quickly.
| rg111 wrote:
| Why would you even look at browsers other than the well known
| ones?
|
| Chrome, Brave, Firefox, Edge, DuckDuckGo, etc. are used by
| ~100% people.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| > Chrome, Edge
|
| Gratuitous data harvesting, and Edge in particular has
| gotten really spammy with Microsoft promos.
|
| > Firefox
|
| Very slow/power hungry for me, especially with extensions
| which I need for dark mode, adblocking and such.
|
| > DuckDuckGo
|
| Probably good?
| mattnewton wrote:
| I don't ink it makes sense to argue against consumer choice
| because consumers might go out of their way to choose
| something worse than safari.
| btown wrote:
| FWIW as of a few months ago, Google and Mozilla were already
| prototyping porting their respective engines to iOS to prepare
| for this eventuality: https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-
| iphone-browsers/ https://9to5google.com/2023/02/06/google-
| chrome-blink-ios-we... - and Vivaldi would benefit from this
| work getting to Chromium as well.
| verandaguy wrote:
| I'm not seeing a whole lot about whether or not this uses WebKit
| or Blink -- and IIRC newer versions of iOS have relaxed the
| policy about needing to use WebKit.
| Klonoar wrote:
| You do not recall correctly.
|
| There is ongoing pressure to open that up and there have been
| changes to allow non-Safari default browsers, but at the moment
| WebKit is still the name of the game for iOS.
| verandaguy wrote:
| Appreciate the clarification, this sounds more in line with
| Apple's historical policies.
| tpmx wrote:
| Of course it's using WKWebView.
| pluc wrote:
| Chrome on the App Store is nothing new.
| denysonique wrote:
| Lack of an option to have the address bar at the bottom near the
| keyboard like on Safari, lack of address bar gestures for tab
| navigation. I don't see the iOS version of Vivaldi having any
| features that would be compelling enough to degrade my user
| experience by switching to it.
|
| The only other bottom address bar browser with gestures that I
| have seen is Kiwi on Android and I am surprised this paradigm is
| still not more common.
| mozman wrote:
| I always prefer the address bar at the top, I use Firefox on
| iOS for this reason. Is there something I am missing out on?
| keyle wrote:
| You can change Safari to put the bar up top...
| cycomanic wrote:
| firefox on android has had the addressbar at the bottom since
| focus was around at least.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I think it's configurable?
| rg111 wrote:
| Yes, you can change the position.
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| If you're not using Vivaldi on the desktop, this isn't for you
| (yet). It doesn't have many of the features that desktop Vivaldi
| has, and it doesn't have many features that other browsers don't.
| Right now the main feature of this is that it syncs with the
| desktop version, which is something that people (Vivaldi users)
| have been asking for for a long time.
|
| But Vivaldi (the company), over the course of many years, took
| their desktop browser from a Chromium clone to the most feature-
| packed browser currently available. I'm confidently they'll do
| the same with their mobile browsers.
| rgreekguy wrote:
| I might have missed an update in the past couple of days, but,
| otherwise, the experience on a fully up-to-date iPad Mini is the
| same like in Android in the past. Maybe a bit worse, too.
|
| It happily crashes, lags, as in, the touches take a couple of
| seconds to register, and overheats the iPadlet like I've been
| using the pen for 30+ minutes in the summer.
|
| Also, I can not understand why they do not have the custom themes
| on mobile, Android or i*OS.
| aeadio wrote:
| The slowness seems to come from rendering the desktop-style tab
| bar. With that disabled, the UI seems more or less as snappy as
| Safari on the iPhone.
| [deleted]
| haolez wrote:
| I've tried to use Vivaldi for a few weeks, but I kept getting hit
| by glitches and small annoyances that ended bringing me back to
| Chrome.
|
| There are nice ideas there, but if I were them, I'd focus on
| making sure you are not losing users before going all in on
| growth and features.
| albumen wrote:
| Orion is the first browser on iOS that has convinced me to move
| away from safari. From the Kagi team, and admittedly still in
| beta, it's fast, rejects telemetry, and allows install of Chrome
| and Firefox extensions. The built-in pop up and blocking is
| great, and nukes YT ads too.
|
| Still a little rough around the edges (sometimes freezes; restart
| it; and switching orientation is slow), but the pros outweigh the
| cons.
|
| https://browser.kagi.com/
| MrAlex94 wrote:
| Does it actually allow installation of WebExtensions on iOS? I
| thought that was currently against the App Store rules?
|
| Edit: I can't find any hard and fast rule about browsers not
| being allowed WebExtensions on iOS, so interesting to see for
| sure.
| [deleted]
| jbverschoor wrote:
| My thumb can't stretch like that.. perhaps try out an app on real
| devices instead of simulators.
|
| Edit:
|
| It is quite fast. Search button tries to fix address bar
| location, but I don't like it. Switching tabs is a pain and
| sweeping them interferes with iOS app switching. Difficult to add
| a new tab
| the_gipsy wrote:
| It's just a WebView, right? Illusions.
| tonetheman wrote:
| [dead]
| mrtksn wrote:
| What does it matter? All engines are supposed to display the
| content the same way anyway.
| matsz wrote:
| Can't speak for the OP, but "Takes a bite out of the Apple"
| implied to me an alternative engine at the first glance.
| dylan604 wrote:
| yeah, i also read it to mean taking a large number of
| users.
| dylan604 wrote:
| <snicker>
|
| yeah, "supposed to" is doing a quite a bit of heavy lifting.
| it has gotten soooo much better than in the past, but yet
| things still do slightly weird things depending on browser.
| the closer to the designer you are, the more you notice. by
| notice, i mean have it pointed out to you.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| Then this is a click baity title. There are tons of reskinned
| browsers, how is Vivaldi different form the rest?
| howinteresting wrote:
| It's not just about the engine itself, it's about things like
| supporting extensions. Safari's content blocker API is less
| powerful than Firefox's on desktop/Android, for example. I
| don't know how much of that is a technical engine limitation
| versus an Apple policy decision.
| meindnoch wrote:
| And desktop Vivaldi is just Chromium, right? Illusions.
| catlover76 wrote:
| ...this strikes me as like over a decade late? What is this lol,
| am I crazy?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-10-05 23:00 UTC)