Apple does not restrict rendering engines, they restrict javascript engines. You can't execute arbitrary code in an app.
Opera got around this by running the javascript server-side and pre-processing the page before sending the text data down to the phone. There are obviously side effects to this.
SkyFire got around this by running the entire browser server-side and just streaming images of the web pages to the phone.
iOS only has Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, Android has both. Opera Mini uses Opera Servers to pre-render the website, so no HTML/JS/.. code gets interpreted on the iPhone. Opera Mobile on the other hand is a 'real' browser, which Apple doesn't allow on iOS
I believe it's for security reasons, since Apple's Nitro JS Engine requires that unsigned code be run, and Safari takes steps to prevent that from being used maliciously. Allowing third party apps to do the same could open some holes in security.
Isn't that why they have a stringent screening process? Charge more and give the appearance of quality when in reality restricting other app functionality in the name of security is just BS for your on iOS use our products only. They have always been a closed system hether its hardware or software.
I'm yet to see any exploits on the android version of these apps which are from well known developers like Opera or Dolphine.
No it isn't and it's certainly not going to catch errors that a developer might make which would possibly allow for something like this to be exploited.
Without the JIT compiler, it simply cannot compete with safari. I'm honestly not sure why Google bothered pitching it as a full browser rather than just doing a "Chrome Sync" app like Mozilla did for Firefox.
This isn't actually arbitrary from Apple. The problem as I understand it is that the JIT compiler can't be run in the sandbox as it sets memory pages executable, and could thus be used to trivially jailbreak.
And yet the device is still being Jail broken albeit other methods. When are they going to learn to give up some restriction in favor of user choices. If iOS offers what everyone needs then they truly don't have to worry about jailbreaks but with a closed restrictive monopolistic environment they spend half their time trying to patchup potential holes that will always be there.
Good catch, I compared the Chrome output to what I had in my table. Apparently iOS 6 B2 has changed the core webkit version to be newer once more than Chrome. Interesting.
I must be doing something wrong. I got the app, synced with my Google account, and spent 60 seconds cursing at how choppy it was compared to Safari before giving up.
Dunno man, webpages are loading much faster for me on chrome than safari. It's almost like desktop browsing. I was really surprised by how snappy it was. I wasn't expecting much difference so it's a surprise to me as well.
HTML rendering may be faster, but JavaScript performance will be *way* slower.
Mobile Safari has access to the Nitro JavaScript JIT.
Chrome on iOS does not have access to Nitro, and does not include V8, meaning it's manual, slow, non-JIT interpretation of all JavaScript, one slow instruction at a time.
I'd be interested in seeing some page load times for a variety of websites. I'm curious to see how having a slower Javascript engine affects performance. It seems pretty quick to me. Possibly quicker than Safari, somehow.
So far I'm quite impressed with Chrome on iOS. This is the first time I'm considering completely replacing Safari with a third party browser. Right now I only use Dolphin for when I want to view pages in desktop mode. I couldn't get the desktop mode in Chrome to work on Engadget, I had to scroll to the bottom and choose desktop view. But It worked on every other site I tried.
I'm more interested in how the iPhone in the picture appears to be using 3G T-Mobile! I thought you could use an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile, but it was stuck using GSM/Edge, and you still had to manually enter some settings to work, and don't get visual voicemail, etc.
Is that not the case? Does T-Mobile work more smoothly with the iPhone now?
Regarding Chrome-I'm installing it, but remain incredibly disappointed that Apple doesn't allow 3rd party browsers. HUGE advantage Android has there.
The one thing keeping me with Apple is the awesome podcast support, only they seem to be destroying that with their HORRIFIC "podcasts" program they released a few days ago...like rumors have it iOS 6 will ONLY support that, which will quite possibly leave me with no reason to use iOS over Android or Windows Phone 8.
There was a mention somewhere a few weeks ago that T-Mobile was starting to switch 3G bands to better accomodate iPhones in the future - they want in on the next round of updates. One of the first locations is supposedly right around Moscone Center - this was discovered more or less at WWDC, and it's the same place that I/O is happening at.
Because Apple doesn't enjoy a 99.9999% market share in smart phones. Apple is doing this to protect the their image and integrity of their product. Can it been seen as anti-competitive? Sure. Is it monopolistic? Not even close.
I agree 100%, but Apple is still in the fan stage and in the general public's eye...Can do not wrong. As general consumers gain greater technical knowledge and learn about the other choices in the market...they will begin to realize the trap they've fallen into. Proprietary he_l.
I do have an issue with the speed in which Apple is injecting itself into public school systems. Selling 15 million worth of Ipads to a California school system. What idiot thinks all these children will care for the hardware? I'll be interested to see how many units are broken after the first month and by the end of the first school year. Then try and see how they will pay for the repair/replacement costs. Do the parents have to sign a responsibly agreement? I'll guarantee they won't all sign if that's the case.
Just a bad idea and some salesmen just rose up the Apple ranks.
I think you may be missing the point. General consumers don't want more technical knowledge. Unlike readers of this web site, general consumers prefer appliances over tinker tools. Provided said appliances let them achieve their goals, they prefer a minimum of hassle understanding and configuring the appliances. I think that's why general consumers like Apple products, and that's what Apple is trying to provide. It doesn't appeal to us tech types and offends our sense of what everyone should want.
Apple created the hardware (and thus the ecosystem). When was the last time you tried sideloading your own special OS/app on a Sony Vita or add an App to your featurephone? Should we sue featurephone makers for not allowing you to develop and load an MP3 player app for use with a featurephone? Just because a device maker opens their device enough to allow third-party apps doesn't mean they are required to be fair about it. Windows, however, did not make the PC hardware that the OS ran on, they simply forced OEMs to sell ONLY their OS on ALL of their kits going out or they would not be able to put Windows on anything. Once they became the de-facto PC OS and had the market entirely dependent upon them, then they were restricted in what they did with that position. If Apple forbade carriers from selling Android/Win7 phones if they were to sell the iPhone, and somehow became the 95% marketshare leader that MS was, then you might have an argument about monopolistic practices. But Apple's business practices don't do well as a market share leader, as they were never aiming to be such. They're a company like Rolex: they sell overly-expensive items with an air of higher-quality, even if only marginally so (or not, depending on taste).
I don't buy that argument. Seems like exactly the same situation to me, and Microsoft gets jumped on for...you know, like icons being too prominent or something, while Apple gets praised for flat out blocking competition.
Their situation with like Barnes & Noble and Amazon not being able to sell books directly through t heir programs on iOS (and only iOS) is ludicrous too.
Isn't it exactly what Apple is trying to do here as well, create a monopoly or sue everyone regardless of whether hardware is not the same, screen and OS is different. Circumventing vendors to sell only to its stores or devices. It would have been extremely successful had it priced its hardware right and kept it an open environment with micro sd and USB connectivity. Basically unlike MSFT its keeping its customers unhappy. Its forcing its own demise through its stupidity. Adding insult to injury, comes up with hardly the latest new or innovative hardware and charges twice the amount for it while dropping support for its devices which are just over 2 years old and which still cannot be unlocked until its 5 years old.
Full OSes and Mobile OSes are an entirely different ballgame. And Microsoft had a massive market share, unlike iOS.
It's likely for security reasons that Apple isn't allowing UIWebView to use the Nitro Javascript Engine, as it requires that unsigned code be run. Safari has things in place to prevent that from being exploited and allowing UIWebView to have access to the Nitro JS Engine may allow for it to be exploited.
I'm sure they could ask other developers to put in similar safe guards if security was the only issue which I'm sure most would comply to be able to sell the full third party browser experience to Apple users.
Sure... but remember that this means every UIWebView -- including apps already on the App Store -- would have this potential problem. Perhaps Apple will open it up (safely) for UIWebView, but they absolutely won't if it could be exploited. I honestly don't know why they do it but, seeing how Apple keeps things locked down, it just fits.
And what about developers that don't? There will be plenty of them.
Apple was a dominant player in the early pc market but closed, over priced environment and hardware forced many business especially during recessions to move with a stable low cost alternatives which included first IBM and then Dell running a cheaper but stable OS, Windows whose updates and support didn't fave to be paid for.
Apple is doing the same thing all over again and its only a matter of 1-2 years before they lose to alternative hardware and OS devices.
Apple never had the market they have with the iOS devices now. And the iOS devices are similarly priced to the competition. I don't think you can compare this exactly to the desktop computer industry in the 80s and 90s. The iPod certainly never lost to cheaper competitors. Apple basically led that market until the market itself was replaced by smartphones.
Apple screwed up badly in the 90's after Jobs left. They made dozens and dozens of different models of Macs with slightly different specs, like the dreaded Performa series.
As a further case in point, it appears that Chrome for iOS is severely crippled in terms of performance. Normally, no one would complain and/or notice a 10-20% performance difference in page loads. But we’ve found that page load performance using Chrome on iOS is almost 2x slower than Safari. According to the results from our BrowsingBench test (www.eembc.org/benchmark/browsing_sl.php) run on an iphone 4G and an iPad2, Safari weighs in at 919 and 2340, respectively. On the other hand, when running Chrome on the same platforms, our test results were 478 and 1241, respectively. Although we didn’t do any under-the-hood analysis, we also ran the BrowsingBench test using the Dolphin browser on the iphone 4G, and obtained a score of 956.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
Back to Article
JMS3072 - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
I don't understand- Apple allowed Opera to release their browser with a custom rendering engine. Why isn't this the case any more?Guspaz - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Apple does not restrict rendering engines, they restrict javascript engines. You can't execute arbitrary code in an app.Opera got around this by running the javascript server-side and pre-processing the page before sending the text data down to the phone. There are obviously side effects to this.
SkyFire got around this by running the entire browser server-side and just streaming images of the web pages to the phone.
LauRoman - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Opera Mini is basically just a glorified pdf viewer.UpSpin - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
iOS only has Opera Mini, not Opera Mobile, Android has both.Opera Mini uses Opera Servers to pre-render the website, so no HTML/JS/.. code gets interpreted on the iPhone. Opera Mobile on the other hand is a 'real' browser, which Apple doesn't allow on iOS
toyotabedzrock - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
Because it is not an actual browser, it prerenders the page and compresses it up to +90% then sends it.Plus it helps Apple expand in areas where bandwidth is a concern.
MrSpadge - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
... imagine Microsoft would have done something like this 10 years ago!B3an - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Apple are just assholes. It's totally unacceptable to have these severe restrictions on something as important as a browser.xype - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
Why?Steelbom - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I believe it's for security reasons, since Apple's Nitro JS Engine requires that unsigned code be run, and Safari takes steps to prevent that from being used maliciously. Allowing third party apps to do the same could open some holes in security.Striderevil - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
Isn't that why they have a stringent screening process? Charge more and give the appearance of quality when in reality restricting other app functionality in the name of security is just BS for your on iOS use our products only. They have always been a closed system hether its hardware or software.I'm yet to see any exploits on the android version of these apps which are from well known developers like Opera or Dolphine.
Steelbom - Monday, July 2, 2012 - link
No it isn't and it's certainly not going to catch errors that a developer might make which would possibly allow for something like this to be exploited.darkcrayon - Monday, July 2, 2012 - link
Re: exploitsYou will. Just wait.
solipsism - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
MS had a monopoly and used anti-competitive means to restrict the market. The iPhone does not a market make and Android is doing quite well.Mr Alpha - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
Microsoft is doing the same thing on Windows RT. No third party JIT.Solidstate89 - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Richard (Dick) Gaywood.You can't make a name like that up.
schizoide - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Without the JIT compiler, it simply cannot compete with safari. I'm honestly not sure why Google bothered pitching it as a full browser rather than just doing a "Chrome Sync" app like Mozilla did for Firefox.This isn't actually arbitrary from Apple. The problem as I understand it is that the JIT compiler can't be run in the sandbox as it sets memory pages executable, and could thus be used to trivially jailbreak.
Death666Angel - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
And forbidding people to jailbreak the device is not arbitrary?solipsism - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.What exactly do you think is random or a personal whim about security?
Striderevil - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
And yet the device is still being Jail broken albeit other methods. When are they going to learn to give up some restriction in favor of user choices. If iOS offers what everyone needs then they truly don't have to worry about jailbreaks but with a closed restrictive monopolistic environment they spend half their time trying to patchup potential holes that will always be there.gcor - Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - link
I suspect the vast majority of iPhone users want restrictions, provided they bring stability, ease of use and security.NobleKain - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't your Safari (iOS6 B2) and Chrome versions have DIFFERENT webkit versions?Look at your screenies:
Safari: AppleWebKit / 536.13
Chrome: AppleWebKit / 534.46.0
Brian Klug - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Good catch, I compared the Chrome output to what I had in my table. Apparently iOS 6 B2 has changed the core webkit version to be newer once more than Chrome. Interesting.-Brian
DanielPox - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Hey, apparently Chrome has updated since I get the score 379 at html5test.com. I'm running iOS 6 B2 and just got Chrome. :)faizoff - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
The Chrome app is miles ahead of the default Safari browser. I love it already.Super56K - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I must be doing something wrong. I got the app, synced with my Google account, and spent 60 seconds cursing at how choppy it was compared to Safari before giving up.faizoff - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
Dunno man, webpages are loading much faster for me on chrome than safari. It's almost like desktop browsing. I was really surprised by how snappy it was. I wasn't expecting much difference so it's a surprise to me as well.phoenix_rizzen - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
HTML rendering may be faster, but JavaScript performance will be *way* slower.Mobile Safari has access to the Nitro JavaScript JIT.
Chrome on iOS does not have access to Nitro, and does not include V8, meaning it's manual, slow, non-JIT interpretation of all JavaScript, one slow instruction at a time.
faizoff - Thursday, June 28, 2012 - link
Now all that remains on Chrome is to get Ad Block and I'll be extremely happy.duffman55 - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I'd be interested in seeing some page load times for a variety of websites. I'm curious to see how having a slower Javascript engine affects performance. It seems pretty quick to me. Possibly quicker than Safari, somehow.So far I'm quite impressed with Chrome on iOS. This is the first time I'm considering completely replacing Safari with a third party browser. Right now I only use Dolphin for when I want to view pages in desktop mode. I couldn't get the desktop mode in Chrome to work on Engadget, I had to scroll to the bottom and choose desktop view. But It worked on every other site I tried.
P.S. The tab close animation is fun to play with.
Wolfpup - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I'm more interested in how the iPhone in the picture appears to be using 3G T-Mobile! I thought you could use an unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile, but it was stuck using GSM/Edge, and you still had to manually enter some settings to work, and don't get visual voicemail, etc.Is that not the case? Does T-Mobile work more smoothly with the iPhone now?
Regarding Chrome-I'm installing it, but remain incredibly disappointed that Apple doesn't allow 3rd party browsers. HUGE advantage Android has there.
The one thing keeping me with Apple is the awesome podcast support, only they seem to be destroying that with their HORRIFIC "podcasts" program they released a few days ago...like rumors have it iOS 6 will ONLY support that, which will quite possibly leave me with no reason to use iOS over Android or Windows Phone 8.
aliasfox - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
There was a mention somewhere a few weeks ago that T-Mobile was starting to switch 3G bands to better accomodate iPhones in the future - they want in on the next round of updates. One of the first locations is supposedly right around Moscone Center - this was discovered more or less at WWDC, and it's the same place that I/O is happening at.michal1980 - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
M$ couldn't pull of this type of monopolistic behavoir ever. Why is Apple able to get away with everything?EJ257 - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
Because Apple doesn't enjoy a 99.9999% market share in smart phones. Apple is doing this to protect the their image and integrity of their product. Can it been seen as anti-competitive? Sure. Is it monopolistic? Not even close.GotThumbs - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I agree 100%, but Apple is still in the fan stage and in the general public's eye...Can do not wrong. As general consumers gain greater technical knowledge and learn about the other choices in the market...they will begin to realize the trap they've fallen into. Proprietary he_l.I do have an issue with the speed in which Apple is injecting itself into public school systems. Selling 15 million worth of Ipads to a California school system. What idiot thinks all these children will care for the hardware? I'll be interested to see how many units are broken after the first month and by the end of the first school year. Then try and see how they will pay for the repair/replacement costs. Do the parents have to sign a responsibly agreement? I'll guarantee they won't all sign if that's the case.
Just a bad idea and some salesmen just rose up the Apple ranks.
gcor - Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - link
I think you may be missing the point. General consumers don't want more technical knowledge. Unlike readers of this web site, general consumers prefer appliances over tinker tools. Provided said appliances let them achieve their goals, they prefer a minimum of hassle understanding and configuring the appliances. I think that's why general consumers like Apple products, and that's what Apple is trying to provide. It doesn't appeal to us tech types and offends our sense of what everyone should want.Ammaross - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
Apple created the hardware (and thus the ecosystem). When was the last time you tried sideloading your own special OS/app on a Sony Vita or add an App to your featurephone? Should we sue featurephone makers for not allowing you to develop and load an MP3 player app for use with a featurephone? Just because a device maker opens their device enough to allow third-party apps doesn't mean they are required to be fair about it. Windows, however, did not make the PC hardware that the OS ran on, they simply forced OEMs to sell ONLY their OS on ALL of their kits going out or they would not be able to put Windows on anything. Once they became the de-facto PC OS and had the market entirely dependent upon them, then they were restricted in what they did with that position. If Apple forbade carriers from selling Android/Win7 phones if they were to sell the iPhone, and somehow became the 95% marketshare leader that MS was, then you might have an argument about monopolistic practices. But Apple's business practices don't do well as a market share leader, as they were never aiming to be such. They're a company like Rolex: they sell overly-expensive items with an air of higher-quality, even if only marginally so (or not, depending on taste).Wolfpup - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I don't buy that argument. Seems like exactly the same situation to me, and Microsoft gets jumped on for...you know, like icons being too prominent or something, while Apple gets praised for flat out blocking competition.Their situation with like Barnes & Noble and Amazon not being able to sell books directly through t heir programs on iOS (and only iOS) is ludicrous too.
solipsism - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
Read up on the damn case before you post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Micr...Striderevil - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
Isn't it exactly what Apple is trying to do here as well, create a monopoly or sue everyone regardless of whether hardware is not the same, screen and OS is different. Circumventing vendors to sell only to its stores or devices. It would have been extremely successful had it priced its hardware right and kept it an open environment with micro sd and USB connectivity. Basically unlike MSFT its keeping its customers unhappy. Its forcing its own demise through its stupidity. Adding insult to injury, comes up with hardly the latest new or innovative hardware and charges twice the amount for it while dropping support for its devices which are just over 2 years old and which still cannot be unlocked until its 5 years old.NobleKain - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
I agree with Wolfpup. Ammaross, you analogies are extremely poor.It's more like someone making an OS and a Web Browser, and then packaging them together, and selecting their browser as the default...
... hmm, wait. Doesn't this sounds familiar?... iOS was made and Safari was the default browser...
Hmm, but that's still not right.....
OH YES! That's right... Microsoft just got sued by the EU and forced to remove IE as the default browser of Windows. There we go.
One KEY difference. Microsoft didn't arbitrarily impede performance of competing browsers. Apple, is.
Perhaps someone should call the EU?....
wifiwolf - Friday, June 29, 2012 - link
You can wait for when the shares are on the downside. While they're going up, all EU and others are stakeholders there and probably shareholders too.Steelbom - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
Full OSes and Mobile OSes are an entirely different ballgame. And Microsoft had a massive market share, unlike iOS.It's likely for security reasons that Apple isn't allowing UIWebView to use the Nitro Javascript Engine, as it requires that unsigned code be run. Safari has things in place to prevent that from being exploited and allowing UIWebView to have access to the Nitro JS Engine may allow for it to be exploited.
Striderevil - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
I'm sure they could ask other developers to put in similar safe guards if security was the only issue which I'm sure most would comply to be able to sell the full third party browser experience to Apple users.Steelbom - Monday, July 2, 2012 - link
Sure... but remember that this means every UIWebView -- including apps already on the App Store -- would have this potential problem. Perhaps Apple will open it up (safely) for UIWebView, but they absolutely won't if it could be exploited. I honestly don't know why they do it but, seeing how Apple keeps things locked down, it just fits.And what about developers that don't? There will be plenty of them.
Striderevil - Sunday, July 1, 2012 - link
Apple was a dominant player in the early pc market but closed, over priced environment and hardware forced many business especially during recessions to move with a stable low cost alternatives which included first IBM and then Dell running a cheaper but stable OS, Windows whose updates and support didn't fave to be paid for.Apple is doing the same thing all over again and its only a matter of 1-2 years before they lose to alternative hardware and OS devices.
Steelbom - Monday, July 2, 2012 - link
I don't think Apple will ever lose what they've go so far. They won't let that happen.darkcrayon - Monday, July 2, 2012 - link
Apple never had the market they have with the iOS devices now. And the iOS devices are similarly priced to the competition. I don't think you can compare this exactly to the desktop computer industry in the 80s and 90s. The iPod certainly never lost to cheaper competitors. Apple basically led that market until the market itself was replaced by smartphones.ThreeDee912 - Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - link
Apple screwed up badly in the 90's after Jobs left. They made dozens and dozens of different models of Macs with slightly different specs, like the dreaded Performa series.I mean, look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Macintosh...
Plus the "Classic" Mac OS had horrible memory management and was prone to crashing.
Jobs returned in late 1997 after Apple bought NeXT, threw out the stupidly confusing lineup of beige boxes, and slowly moved everything to OS X.
It wasn't because stuff was closed or priced high, it was because their hardware and software back then were crap.
Steelbom - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
They've got reasons for not allowing UIWebView access to the Nitro JS Engine.ciparis - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
The opening images look so bad on a retina MBP that I thought my computer was broken. Please don't post text images again -- please, I beg you!Nihility - Saturday, June 30, 2012 - link
They look terrible on all LCD monitors.Markus@AnandTech - Friday, July 20, 2012 - link
As a further case in point, it appears that Chrome for iOS is severely crippled in terms of performance. Normally, no one would complain and/or notice a 10-20% performance difference in page loads. But we’ve found that page load performance using Chrome on iOS is almost 2x slower than Safari. According to the results from our BrowsingBench test (www.eembc.org/benchmark/browsing_sl.php) run on an iphone 4G and an iPad2, Safari weighs in at 919 and 2340, respectively. On the other hand, when running Chrome on the same platforms, our test results were 478 and 1241, respectively. Although we didn’t do any under-the-hood analysis, we also ran the BrowsingBench test using the Dolphin browser on the iphone 4G, and obtained a score of 956.