this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
913 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37724 readers
488 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They'd still be restricted to the Webkit rendering engine though, right?
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.
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.
If you can sideload an app there's nothing Apple can do to stop you from shipping a new rendering engine.
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.
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.
I don't think they allow JIT in their App Store apps either.