Google Updates Chrome for iOS with Passbook Support

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

3 things :

- WebKit is not an Apple project. It was originally known as KHTML/KJS (http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104197092318639&w=2), a LGPL'ed HTML/Javascript engine made by the KDE project (http://www.kde.org). Apple forked the code base around version 3.0.2 and renamed it WebKit (yes, KHTML/KJS was already pretty advanced, and was powering what I considered the best browser at the time, Konqueror).

- Google surpassed Apple for Webkit commits (http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/06/google-apple-webkit/) around 2010. Also, the Webkit team is not "funded by Apple", it's quite evenly distributed (http://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit%20Team) with even outsiders.

- Google has their own Javascript engine in the desktop version of Chrome : V8 (http://code.google.com/p/v8/). Apple doesn't allow 3rd party Javascript/HTML rendering engines in the App store, otherwise I'm pretty sure Google would simply incorporate V8 and let Apple have its little fun time with Nitro on its own. As it stands, Apple is artificially limiting competition in the Browser arena on iOS.

So maybe your vitriol is misplaced here. It is apparently quite ignorant of the reality behind WebKit, the App Store model and development in general too.

The more you know.

----------

Nope, a lot more people use the Chrome app than the YouTube app.
The YouTube app still doesn't support AirPlay or the iPad, why would anyone want to use that?

The Youtube is ranked #3 in the App Store this morning, Chrome sits at #57, the free app section.

However, Google does not share's Apple management policies and has such, doesn't have small core teams that they assign to projects based on priorities. Google has a Chrome team, and they have a Youtube team. Both are independant of each other and are not a single entity where work on one project interferes with work on another.

So "update Youtube first" makes no sense. Why should the Chrome team twiddle their thumbs and not provide updates if they can ? Why should they wait for the Youtube team ?

Keeps getting better. Now if only Apple would let the 3rd party apps get the same version of WebKit as safari so it's on par with speed.

Yeah, a lot more people use the YouTube app than Chrome.
Update that first please.

Yeah, a lot more people use the YouTube app than Chrome.
Update that first please.

Nope, a lot more people use the Chrome app than the YouTube app.
The YouTube app still doesn't support AirPlay or the iPad, why would anyone want to use that?

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

Except this is against apples developer guidelines.
Users must use the built in Webkit UI Webview for any apps that want to display a website.
Unfortunately this does not include the nitro enhancements.

Google and almost every developer ever would LOVE to be able to use their own web renderer in iOS. But they cant.

Keeps getting better. Now if only Apple would let the 3rd party apps get the same version of WebKit as safari so it's on par with speed.

You know - it's things like this that make me... sad.

Chrome is on the same open source version of WebKit that Apple has funded for the past 10 years.

It doesn't have the nitro engine, which Apple spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars developing - for Safari, not WebKit.

Freeloaders like Google should write their own engine for the app, not ask Apple to give them theirs for free.

Could you please provide a source for this? I haven't been able to find any support for the assertion that Dart VM is implemented in Chrome for iOS.

Of course he can't. The guidelines for iOS are clear and it's the reason all browsers on the app store are just GUIs around UIWebView. Google even states so much in their faq :

https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/iosoverview

Anyway, it's point 2.17 (Apps that browse the web must use the iOS WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript) of the App Store guidelines, I don't know how much more clear it can get than that, obviously something spyguy doesn't want to tell us. The guidelines are available to registered developers from here :

https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

I've moved him to ignore, he only brings hate and vitriol to the discussion, with no basis in reality.

3 things :

- WebKit is not an Apple project. It was originally known as KHTML/KJS (http://lists.kde.org/?l=kfm-devel&m=104197092318639&w=2), a LGPL'ed HTML/Javascript engine made by the KDE project (http://www.kde.org). Apple forked the code base around version 3.0.2 and renamed it WebKit (yes, KHTML/KJS was already pretty advanced, and was powering what I considered the best browser at the time, Konqueror).

I like your revisionism.

1. KHTML was not that advanced and was almost dead as Firefox was used and promoted by everybody
2. Apple created Webkit from KHTML and make it easy for everybody to use on the opposite of KHTML which was made specifically for Konqueror and used only ... by KDE people.
3. Konqueror has always been the worst browser ever. That's why any linux user's first task was to install Firefox.
4. And yes, Webkit IS an Apple project. KHTML was indeed not ...

So maybe your vitriol is misplaced here. It is apparently quite ignorant of the reality behind WebKit, the App Store model and development in general too.

WebKit only survived becuase apple threw tons of cash at it.

Uh ? You haven't been around many open source projects. It has nothing to do with money.

Unlike Apple which commits bundles, Google commits every time they change a few lines. I've been auditing WebKit a little bit here and there... I know.
Much more % of code, I'm sure, has been done from Apple's coders.

You just want it to be so. Reality obviously tells a different story. Otherwise, provide sources for your claim.

Apple does allow 3rd party rendering engines now - but they can't use BOTH the BUILT IN WebKit and a 3rd party engine. (If they included V8 compiled, that would be Okay) Look at Opera Mini and many other apps.

Opera Mini does not have a Javascript engine nor does it have a HTML rendering engine. Apple absolutely does not allow 3rd parties to implement Javascript/Rendering engines.

It's apparent that your arrogance is ignorant (not you, just your arrogance) of the possibility that it could possibly be Google's fault.

Again, you just want it to be Google's fault. The fact remains : Google cannot use anything but UIWebView, so they are stuck with all its limitations (no Nitro, no background thread rendering, etc...). All browsers on iOS are limited this way.

Opera Mini is not a browser per se. It does not fetch and render HTML on your IOS device. I think you need to read up on how Opera Mini works.

I only use Safari on my Mac and iPad, so I persuaded my girlfriend to switch to Chrome on her Mac and also use Chrome on my iPad. Now we can both enjoy cloud synced bookmarks and tabs without overriding each other's open pages! Maybe someday :apple: will add user accounts to the iPad but until then we're just fine sharing one.