▲ 917 ▼ Mozilla will open Firefox for Android for more extensions (blog.mozilla.org) submitted 3 years ago by sverit@feddit.de to c/technology@beehaw.org 146 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) They'd still be restricted to the Webkit rendering engine though, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 19 points 3 years ago (1 child) If you can sideload anything you want, why would that be the case? I don't think there's a technical limitation, they just don't allow it on the app store if it doesn't use safari. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 years ago Oh that's true, I always thought iOS just didn't have that capability at all but that makes sense that it would just be blocked at the App Store level. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) If you can sideload an app there's nothing Apple can do to stop you from shipping a new rendering engine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) They can still prevent the JIT from working because the resulting native code would not be signed. That would result in worse JavaScript performance in such browsers, but considering today's hardware and software optimizations, it may not matter that much in practice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, but the point of the law is that apps that you install that are not from the official store actually have to work. It even has clauses so that installing stuff from different sources than Apple can't intentionally be a worse experience than the official app IIRC. That might be just for messaging though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aasikki@sopuli.xyz 19 points 3 years ago (1 child) If you can sideload anything you want, why would that be the case? I don't think there's a technical limitation, they just don't allow it on the app store if it doesn't use safari. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 years ago Oh that's true, I always thought iOS just didn't have that capability at all but that makes sense that it would just be blocked at the App Store level. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 years ago Oh that's true, I always thought iOS just didn't have that capability at all but that makes sense that it would just be blocked at the App Store level. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 years ago (1 child) If you can sideload an app there's nothing Apple can do to stop you from shipping a new rendering engine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) They can still prevent the JIT from working because the resulting native code would not be signed. That would result in worse JavaScript performance in such browsers, but considering today's hardware and software optimizations, it may not matter that much in practice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, but the point of the law is that apps that you install that are not from the official store actually have to work. It even has clauses so that installing stuff from different sources than Apple can't intentionally be a worse experience than the official app IIRC. That might be just for messaging though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] realharo@lemm.ee 3 points 3 years ago* (1 child) They can still prevent the JIT from working because the resulting native code would not be signed. That would result in worse JavaScript performance in such browsers, but considering today's hardware and software optimizations, it may not matter that much in practice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, but the point of the law is that apps that you install that are not from the official store actually have to work. It even has clauses so that installing stuff from different sources than Apple can't intentionally be a worse experience than the official app IIRC. That might be just for messaging though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 8 points 3 years ago (1 child) Yes, but the point of the law is that apps that you install that are not from the official store actually have to work. It even has clauses so that installing stuff from different sources than Apple can't intentionally be a worse experience than the official app IIRC. That might be just for messaging though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] realharo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] realharo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago* I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either. permalink fedilink source parent