How does the browser compare to iPhone and s3 stock browsers?

[a5cent]

Google can run its platform anyway it likes, it DOES NOT depend on Windows Phone. But a lot of Windows Phone users do depend on Google services

With WP's almost irrelevant market share, Google can safely tell all it's WP users to "go screw themselves". Correct. It's arrogant, but it won't hurt them.

So tell me who is the loser in the end? It's the customer. <snipped> So would it kill Microsoft to do whatever needs to be done to make these websites open the same way they do in all other browsers?

You're still failing to grasp that Microsoft has no viable method of fixing this unfortunate situation:

The only thing Microsoft can do amounts to a smelly hack, which is to have IE fake it's identity, thereby tricking Google's web servers into serving up the same HTML they serve other browsers.

Android browsers do precisely that, as they identify themselves to web servers as "Safari". That isn't too bad though, as all those browsers share the same WebKit rendering engine. Since IE doesn't use WebKit, doing so amounts to a violation of some of the most basic internet standards. Although that approach might work in most cases, it wont always work. Microsoft would deservedly get hammered for IE's lack of standards compliance. It would also lead to problems down the road as emerging internet standards change and get finalized. This just isn't a reliable solution that lends itself to being deployed on a large scale.

Of course Microsoft could also replace their rendering engine with WebKit, thereby sacrificing their ability to control the pace of IE's adoption of emerging internet standards. The pain this would cause to corporations building their own intranet applications over the next decade would likely cause Microsoft's corporate customers to march on Redmond. It is Microsoft's job to shield their corporate customers from changing, non-finalized internet standards. That isn't possible without direct control over the rendering engine, which rules out the use of WebKit.

Both of those solutions suck. There are no other options. Microsoft is patiently informing website owners, one by one through traditional mail, how to correctly set up their web servers to fix the problem, and most end up doing so. Google and a few others just don't want to.

If you are gong to hold such strong notions as you currently do, you need to read up on how internet technology works. As it is now you are simply barking up the wrong tree.

 

[StevesBalls]

a5cent: While you are absolutely right in your arguments, at the end of the day the customer is all that matters. Joe Average does not, and should not care why two of the most visited sites on the internet don't work on his phone. It presents a problem for the WP platform and Microsoft. For the user it doesn't matter who's responsible, he just wants it to work. And since this is Microsoft's platform it's also their problem and they need to find a way how to fix it.

Blaming the competitor that he does not go out of his way to make his sites accessible to your competing platform? Good luck finding some sympathy for that...

Edit: Oh, and IE still lacks in HTML5 support compared to WebKit, that's just a fact.

 

[deuxani]

I don't think it's all Googles fault. I tried that User Agent Switcher (thanks tor landeel) and changed it to Android. While the Google homepage does look like on Android (instead of that hideous HTML 1.0 look we get right now), scrolling through images don't work (only clicking next, which already is a lot better, but still....) and going to Google Maps does show a map, but browsing through it won't go well.

I really think Microsoft is to blame in all this. If you also look at how Internet Explorer 10 on Windows 8 renders some pages differently than on any other browser (while Chrome and Firefox renders it the same way), the same is the case on Windows Phone. I see sites with for instance drop down menus as navigation not working, while on Android or iOS it works perfectly. And these are full sites, not some mobile sites, so it's not like the site doesn't recognize the browser. Yes, IE is fast, but I would rather have that all sites would render and work like on any other device.

 

[a5cent]

Blaming the competitor that he does not go out of his way to make his sites accessible to your competing platform? Good luck finding some sympathy for that

Out of their way? It's takes 10 minutes! Is that too much to ask of Google?

I agree with your take... consumers don't care and shouldn't have to, but we're on an enthusiast site here, were I hope more indepth explanations are appreciated. Anyway, I've explained why Microsoft can't fix the problem. You might not like it, but if you don't believe me the onus is on you to explain how they can. You can complain all day long that the mountain is in the wrong place. If you can't move it, you're wasting your breath.

Edit: Oh, and IE still lacks in HTML5 support compared to WebKit, that's just a fact.

Yes, and for reasons I've just explained it's deliberate. HTML5 is an incomplete standard that is still in flux.

Anyway, why am I always arguing with you?:wink:

 

[SZRimaging]

Chiming in here, as a web developer by trade....

As far as the browser goes, it is mostly there. Not sure, but on the previous version javascript touch events were not included, which really messed up programming for all phones. Other than that, it is really standards compliant, and as long as a developer does their job correctly, it works fine. In fact, of the sites I use, the only one that has had an issue and isn't Flash based (really people?) that had an issue was one I built (drop down menus/javascript bug).

Oh, and for the record, Black Berry is Webkit based (as of BBOS 10), so WP is the only non-Webkit phone OS with much market share. I see about 1% traffic, for the sites I work on, coming from WP. Of course, that was pre-WP8, haven't looked recently. And WP almost doubles the BB numbers...

In the case of Google's mobile stuff, it is probably more than just a "switch". More than likely, they built their javascript to work with ONLY Webkit, so they probably would need to re-write their entire javascript library for cross-browser compatibility. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

 

[SZRimaging]

Edit: Oh, and IE still lacks in HTML5 support compared to WebKit, that's just a fact.

If you know MS's history, and particularly IE, you would know why this is a good thing. When the spec and how it is being handled changes almost weekly, MS has chosen to wait until things are mostly hammered out. Back in the IE5 days MS got bit for innovating and the W3C going a different way from how they built things after MS had already built them. Honestly, outside of experimental areas, I don't find IE10 lacking in HTML5 at this point.

 

[inteller]

Edit: Oh, and IE still lacks in HTML5 support compared to WebKit, that's just a fact.

no it doesn't it supports all the STABLE DRAFTS just fine. HTML5 is a clusterf-ck of competing drafts and the goofballs at the W3C are now realizing that and pushing a lot of the fringe drafts that you claim Webkit supports out into extensions of what will eventually become the HTML5 standard.

anyother problem that MS has pointed out is the "webkitifying" of the web where non standard CSS tags are taking preference over the standard non prefixed tags. That's creating a disjointed web that all the people crying for standards have been protesting against all along.

 

[StevesBalls]

Out of their way? It's takes 10 minutes! Is that too much to ask of Google?

I agree with your take... consumers don't care and shouldn't have to, but we're on an enthusiast site here, were I hope more indepth explanations are appreciated. Anyway, I've explained why Microsoft can't fix the problem. You might not like it, but if you don't believe me the onus is on you to explain how they can. You can complain all day long that the mountain is in the wrong place. If you can't move it, you're wasting your breath.

Yes, and for reasons I've just explained it's deliberate. HTML5 is an incomplete standard that is still in flux.

None of us has an indepth insight into everything that goes into the Gmail issue. I would almost bet (not again, I'll be out of beer soon ) that it's not just a simple 10 minute job and that there are some HTML5 specific functions used on the Gmail and Facebook sites that are simply not supported in Trident and hence would not just simply work without some development effort involved.

Anyway, why am I always arguing with you?:wink:

Not arguing, discussing!

Edit: SZRimaging beat me to it and also confirmed my suspicion...

 

[tomatoes11]

There are always ways if Microsoft really wanted to do it. Giving Google a discount on licensing fees to take 10 minutes of their time to flip on this switch would probably work. Or if not buying a decison making Google employee a new house to bring this issue to the top of the to do list would work if this industry is as corrupted as sports leagues are. We are talking about a company that forced the Xbox down our throats by throwing boat loads of money into it until it broke through. If they tried 100%, Microsoft can get them to do it if they really wanted to.

 

[inteller]

MS didn't have to force Xbox down our throats....in the end it was the better product.

 

[a5cent]

In the case of Google's mobile stuff, it is probably more than just a "switch". More than likely, they built their javascript to work with ONLY Webkit, so they probably would need to re-write their entire javascript library for cross-browser compatibility. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

Hey SZRimaging, thanks for chiming in. I assumed Google's services would work after flipping that "switch". I've just taken a quick look. As far as I can tell most services will work just fine, but at least Google Maps say you hit the nail on the head... webkit specific javascript.

Unfortunately, that just reinforces part of the argument I'm making, namely that Microsoft is taking the blame for things they have no control over, just as deuxani's reaction demonstrates. He/She isn't getting the expected experience from Google, then jumps to the false conclusion that Microsoft is to blame.

• Google is unwilling to flip that switch. At least for search no more is required.
• Google unnecessarily deviated from internet standards by releasing webkit specific javascript, preventing other browsers from enjoying the full experience. I say "unnecessarily", because other mapping services get by just fine without sacrificing standards compliance.

The IT community held Microsoft accountable for deviating from standards in the 1990's. I see no reason Google should be held to a lower standard today.

I agree with everyone that the situation sucks, but so far nobody has suggested a viable solution that Microsoft could implement on their own. Just assuming there is one won't make it so. I doubt Microsoft can "bribe" Google into flipping the switch and embracing internet standards as tomatoes11 suggests. Possibly we should just do away with the internet standard bodies and declare the WebKit implementation as the official standard?

:wink:

I don't think it's all Googles fault. I tried that User Agent Switcher (thanks tor landeel) and changed it to Android.

Hey deuxani, that is precisely what you shouldn't do! Identifying as Android will get you WebKit specific code! You need to identify yourself as any non-mobile and non-WebKit based browser, like PC based IE. I'm willing to bet you'll then be able to scroll through your images as you'd expect. It won't help you with Google Maps though, as you'll need a mobile based version of their website for that to work correctly.

 

[SZRimaging]

Hey SZRimaging, thanks for chiming in. I assumed Google's services would work after flipping that "switch". I've just taken a quick look. As far as I can tell most services will work just fine, but at least Google Maps say you hit the nail on the head... webkit specific javascript.

Unfortunately, that just reinforces part of the argument I'm making, namely that Microsoft is taking the blame for things they have no control over, just as deuxani's reaction demonstrates. He/She isn't getting the expected experience from Google, then jumps to the false conclusion that Microsoft is to blame.

• Google is unwilling to flip that switch. At least for search no more is required.
• Google unnecessarily deviated from internet standards by releasing webkit specific java code, preventing other browsers from enjoying the full experience. I say "unnecessarily", because other mapping services get by just fine without sacrificing standards compliance.

The IT community held Microsoft accountable for deviating from standards in the 1990's. I see no reason Google should be held to a lower standard today.

I agree with everyone that the situation sucks, but so far nobody has suggested a viable solution that Microsoft could implement on their own. Just assuming there is one won't make it so. I doubt Microsoft can "bribe" Google into flipping the switch and embracing internet standards as tomatoes11 suggests. Possibly we should just do away with the internet standard bodies and declare the WebKit implementation as the official standard?

:wink:

First, just because it annoys me, Javascript and Java are not the same thing, no where close. Sorry, just annoys me.

I'm not sure there is anyone to "blame". Google is trying to make cutting edge technology, so they use cutting edge techniques. And, just like MS did back in the days of IE4 and IE5, sometimes they need to go invent their own stuff to make it work. Even if it doesn't end up being the standard, it helps advance what is possible.

That said, at what point does a company have a moral responsibility to stop innovating and support standards and different environments? It isn't a clear this person is right, that person is wrong issue. And sadly, it is an issue that the tech industry grapples with everyday.

 

[a5cent]

Blaming the competitor that he does not go out of his way to make his sites accessible to your competing platform? Good luck finding some sympathy for that...

Out of their way? It's takes 10 minutes! Is that too much to ask of Google?

None of us has an indepth insight into everything that goes into the Gmail issue. I would almost bet (not again, I'll be out of beer soon ) that it's not just a simple 10 minute job and that there are some HTML5 specific functions used on the Gmail and Facebook sites that are simply not supported in Trident and hence would not just simply work without some development effort involved.

Okay, I'll concede that point. Maybe 12 minutes instead of 10 :wink:

Honestly though, gmail's frontend is a simple application. There is no compelling argument to be made for the use of fancy HTML5 going beyond the stable drafts. If others can do it, so can Google. I see no reason for this unfortunate situation other than Google wanting it so.

 

[a5cent]

First, just because it annoys me, Javascript and Java are not the same thing, no where close. Sorry, just annoys me.

Oops, agree. Excuse my going back to correct that.

I'm not sure there is anyone to "blame". Google is trying to make cutting edge technology, so they use cutting edge techniques. And, just like MS did back in the days of IE4 and IE5, sometimes they need to go invent their own stuff to make it work. Even if it doesn't end up being the standard, it helps advance what is possible.

That said, at what point does a company have a moral responsibility to stop innovating and support standards and different environments? It isn't a clear this person is right, that person is wrong issue. And sadly, it is an issue that the tech industry grapples with everyday.

I guess this is where we differ, as I don't see anything I would call "cutting edge" in Google's web based frontends. Particularly not in Gmail. Can you be more specific? Google's backend services are a different story (lot's of advanced techniques being used there), but that isn't what we are discussing here. As I recognize nothing that goes beyond very basic HTML5 capabilities, I conclude it must be deliberate.

 

[dkp23]

slower than the others.

 

[Slai]

dkp23: How so? If I were to take a wild stab in the dark, Id say its as fast as my Chrome/Dolphin experience on the SGS3 when it comes to loading webpages, but that could be wrong.
Any stats on that?

 

[DaveGx]

MS didn't have to force Xbox down our throats....in the end it was the better product.

??? How do you compare the Xbox to mobile IE? And they clearly put alot of time and effort into the whole Xbox experience. I can't say the same for IE. Its not horrible but could use alot of improvement.
I wouldn't be so disappointed if they let devs give us browsers from scratch. At least then we could really get much more out of a browser.

 

[Slai]

Dave: I agree, they have Chrome for W8, deliver it to WP8 as well .

 

[dkp23]

from my experience, seems slower to load as others. Sometimes you have to refresh and refresh doesn't work that great, you end up having to stop and refresh instead of just refreshing as loading hangs.

I get the feeling IE10 even is more of a battery hog than the other browsers as well.

 

[StevesBalls]

Possibly we should just do away with the internet standard bodies and declare the WebKit implementation as the official standard?

:wink:

I think you meant this more as a joke but I honestly think that this is exactly what will mostly happen.

Oh and the mobile Gmail site uses swipe to refresh, for example. From what I understand, this is one of the things not yet supported in IE.