{"id":34934,"date":"2022-02-07T17:02:05","date_gmt":"2022-02-07T22:02:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=34934"},"modified":"2022-06-24T15:02:07","modified_gmt":"2022-06-24T19:02:07","slug":"the-danger-of-sideloading-chromium","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2022\/02\/07\/the-danger-of-sideloading-chromium\/","title":{"rendered":"The Danger of Sideloading Chromium"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peter Ammon<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The sideloading debate is really about Chrome. Sideloading Fortnite is about money, but sideloaded Chrome is an existential risk, threatening to do to iOS what it has done to Windows and Mac.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Peter Ammon<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

So many users live in Chrome and use nothing else. You may think that development is good or bad, but it’s obviously undesirable from Apple’s perspective, since it gives Google extra leverage over Apple’s products.<\/p>\n

If your users live in Chrome, then you are at Google’s mercy. You are dependent on Google to make any changes. Apple can add features like Do Not Disturb, but they’re borderline useless if Chrome doesn’t use native notifications, which for many years they did not.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

It’s hard to find examples on the Mac side. But on iOS, it would be bad (from Apple’s perspective) if features like Face\/TouchID web auth, Apple Pay, Pencil, iPad trackpad, etc. required Chrome support before any users saw them. That’s the existential risk to Apple.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Jen Simmons<\/a>, Apple Evangelist:<\/p>\n

\n

Gosh. Catching up with tech Twitter this morning and there seems to be an angry pocket of men who really want Safari to just go away.<\/p>\n

Do we really want to live in a 95% Chromium browser world? That would be a horrible future for the web. We need more voices, not fewer.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ironically, Apple believes that the way to ensure this is by only allowing one voice on iOS. In the short term, that probably is<\/em> slowing the advance of Chrome, albeit by preventing Apple’s customers from accessing certain sites and features. But this is depressing as a long-term strategy.<\/p>\n\n

Safari should not merely be good enough to keep iOS users from abandoning the platform in order to switch browsers. It should be good enough<\/a> that Apple doesn’t fear Chromium browsers taking over if users were allowed to choose. Exclusive<\/a> features<\/a> help<\/a>, but they alone are not the answer. Users and developers both need better compatibility with the Web as it is, not as Apple wishes it were. I prefer<\/em> Safari, but I can’t always use it. If macOS restricted browsers the way iOS does, I would have to get a PC or run an emulator or something.<\/p>\n\n

Similar logic applies to the debate around Web apps vs. native apps on the desktop. The way to avoid a monoculture and get more native apps<\/a> is not to ban Web apps. It’s to make it so that native apps can do more and work better, so that developing, distributing, and selling them is easier—so that users and developers choose them.<\/p>\n\n

To bring this full circle, I’m not sure I want to know the percentage of people who buy Macs to essentially use them as really nice Chromebooks. Here the dominance of Chromium works to Apple’s advantage, in a way, because currently Apple makes the best notebook hardware for running Chrome. But in terms of what’s best for the Web and for macOS as vibrant platforms, I hope it’s not satisfied with this outcome.<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n