Browser war reignited on mobile
Hopes for WebKit to take over and 'unify' the mobile web
When we spoke to McBlain, he told us that having worked on a number of mobile sites, initially focusing on BlackBerry, iOS and Android, he had high hopes for Windows Phone. "The [newer] desktop IE isn't bad, and I'd hoped the Windows platform would start rendering sites more or less the same as WebKit phones." Instead, many bugs from the previous version of IE for mobile were retained. "I got the same feeling as when realising back in 2006 that IE7 and IE6 weren't rendering sites the same—and that I'd have to start testing and developing multiple versions of pages."
Although WebKit browsers aren't identical across platforms, McBlain believes their quirks are more easily solvable, and also that the platforms they're used on tend to adapt more quickly than Microsoft's. And he argued third-party browsers (such as Firefox and Opera) can hinder rather than help: "They're not baked into the OS, and so users like my mother will never hear of them. The best we can hope for is for the stock browser to be rock-solid with respects to rendering sites to some standard."
The loser is the web
UX designer and developer Aral Balkan also spoke to us about the possibility of a browser war in this rapidly growing space. "I hope we're not heading for a browser war on mobile because the true loser in that war would be the web itself. Today, the web is facing its toughest challenge for survival ever as native platforms are catching up to it in key areas where it has traditionally had an advantage: deployment and distribution, seamless updates, and universal access. And, beyond that, it's also facing competition from cross-platform solutions that can be deployed natively across various devices," he said. "The last thing the web needs is in-fighting between browser manufacturers that fragments the experience for end users, alienates developers, and places it at a further disadvantage to other native and cross-platform alternatives."
On the suggestion that a single engine could perhaps solve the issue, Balkan claimed the web has "already benefited from having – for all intents and purposes – a single engine in the form of WebKit-based browsers". And he largely dismissed the differences in the various implementations: "You only need to compare the codebase of a JavaScript library like jQuery (31KB, minified/zipped) with that of a mobile framework like Thomas Fuch's zepto.js (7.4K, minified/zipped) to see the benefit of lower fragmentation in the mobile web. Zepto is four times smaller than jQuery, thanks, in large part, to not having to support as many browser inconsistencies."




7 comments
Comment: 1
Sure, using WebKit is easier for developers, but it doesn't reflect the worldwide situation. Have a look at these countries where Opera is the most popular browser: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FbLRTdkb7bE/Trqc0MgpSLI/AAAAAAAAAxo/IIHhY6MEeb... and take a look at StatCounter's global stats: http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201010-201110.
When you say WebKit, what do you mean? iOS WebKit and Android WebKit are not the same thing. Even in this one engine there is variety. Not everyone wants to use the same browser as you, and not everyone can use the same browser as you. Variety of rendering engine is down to preference and necessity, and it will *never* go away. Embrace the inevitability, and look on it instead as a bonus; competition drives innovation.
Comment: 2
LOL @ facts.
Comment: 3
Comment: 4
It always saddens me to see people actively wishing for a monoculture. Do they really look back at the halcyon days of IE6 monoculture on desktop with such rose-tinted glasses that they would wish to go back there? http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2010/in-praise-of-ie6/ ?
Ask the population of Korea how well their browser monoculture has served them. http://www.kanai.net/weblog/archive/2007/01/26/00h53m55s
Let's look at what Tim Berners-Lee said: "The principles of universality of access irrespective of hardware or software platform, network infrastructure, language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental impairment are core values".
Those who wish away browser diversity are wishing the Web away because making stuff work across browsers is too much effort.
Comment: 5
I want making, managing and maintaining websites to be as easy as possible for me as someone in web production, and as someone who uses webpages. I don't mind building sites to be robust enough to work on multiple platforms, but I want to avoid having to create browser specific versions of pages. We all had to bootstrap IE6 and IE7 on desktop for years.
The variables we're dealing with on sites are getting more challenging all the time. It used to be Javascript / noscript, and now we can add screen sizes (I've worked as small as 112px and as large as 1920px), various user contexts, accessibility concerns, touch vs. traditional inputs and the wide range of possibilities that mobile brings vs. desktop (geo location for instance).
IE7 bringing the fight to mobile in 2010 seems like a really avoidable problem. I wrote the article when confronted with my first IE9 mobile problem - who knows, maybe it will turn out to be a fluke bug, and it will be an otherwise rock-solid mobile platform.
'Browser monoculure' is a bit extreme (great link btw), but moving towards a mono-behaviour of predictable website rendering would be an ideal.
Comment: 6
The one thing that would serve content same on any device, any OS got lynched by an angry mob, and now the same crowd is proposing something similar to the thing they just killed? By Aran Balkan of all people, who should now better? Way to go web!
Comment: 7
The only thing I would like all browsers to do, is to force an update to latest versions. That way we can keep developing with the latest tools and not have to create many fall back options.