Reynard: A real Firefox web browser for iOS 13 or later

https://github.com/minh-ton/reynard-browser

by AbuAssar • 7 days ago

170 55 7 days ago

github.com

wolvoleo11• 7 days ago

The biggest question imo is why does Mozilla not do this

majima• 7 days ago

i think it's because it will not pass AppStore review

nar001• 7 days ago

If you want to have a browser with a different engine you need a whole different developer account org, you need to maintain two different code bases and you need to very specifically set everything up to pass all of Apple's tests, which are incredibly onerous in time and work, so it doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do so for such a small market share (hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them)

05• 7 days ago

hell Google doesn't either, and they're a lot bigger than them

It’s more likely that Google is trying to boycott EU initiatives to the extent it can since giving them any support would only turn the public opinion more favorable towards more US tech regulation, and that’s very much against Google’s own interests.

cognitiveinline2• 7 days ago

Long read, but it exactly explains why: https://open-web-advocacy.org/apple-dma-review/

touwer• 7 days ago

Thx!

wolvoleo11• 6 days ago

Thank you!

jeroenhd5• 7 days ago

One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.

Creating a separate app would work, but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone).

Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.

Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store (which is what the Github repo linked is doing), which is an amount paid per user that downloads an app outside of the app store. Epic has promised to cover that cost (out of spite, probably) for one of the major alternative stores, but if they go back on their promises you're suddenly paying Apple so people can use your free app on the phones they bought.

There are also other issues (Apple's arbitrary testing requirements, for one); Apple has once again succeeded in implementing the law in such a way that it's impossible to exercise your rights. Until the next big Apple lawsuit about this, I don't expect browser companies to bother with a non-Safari overlay.

ghusto3• 7 days ago

Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. I've been defending Mozilla for years, but enough's enough.

but all existing Firefox users would have to download a second Firefox browser app, probably sync their accounts if they want to keep their data, and then remove the old one manually. You'd end with a Google Meet/Microsoft Teams situation (where one app is labeled "new" and it confuses the hell out of everyone)

You're making it sound like a problem, but those actions are trivial. You tell someone who's dying for a non-webkit browser on iOS "well okay, but you know you'll have to download another browser! And even sign-in again!". You really think they care?

Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.

They absolutely can, because they're free to install development builds, which is what they should be testing anyway. Regardless, if development starts migrating slowly to the EU, that's a natural consequence.

Then there's the (what I can only presume to be illegal) Apple Tax you need to pay to distribute an app outside of the app store

This is the only real issue, but even then I'd say Mozilla should take the money they're spending on their current nonsense and spend it here instead. "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all". Really? Prove it. Furthermore, if we role over on this because of the obviously anticompetitive malicious complience Apple is showing, they win. This is the first step to getting them to remove that fee.

realusername• 7 days ago

One reason is that Apple does not permit regional binaries, so you cannot use the same listing in the EU/Japan/Brazil/whatever other place may force Apple to act sociable and the rest of the world.

Well, sounds like the next lawsuit waiting to happen then if the regulations can't be applied because of that

zeratax• 7 days ago

Would they actually need to distribute this app outside of the appstore?

wolvoleo11• 7 days ago

Hmm it worked for Microsoft and other companies have also done a switch as you pointed out (I remember facebook splitting off messenger and later putting it back).

Furthermore, developers cannot actually use the released app they've made if they're in the US, where a lot of Firefox devs are.

Yeah that's a bit insane.

fsuts• 6 days ago

On android Mozilla already have Firefox and Firefox focus and Firefox nightly

So having two versions on iOS would be fine, and as apps can be limited to only show up in some regions wouldn’t be confusing as many would just see one

mpaco• 7 days ago

There has been some work on porting Gecko to iOS, but there doesn't seem to have been any progress in over a year: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1834907

ghusto3• 7 days ago

I'm tired of defending Mozilla here, so I have to say that working on their web browser is not a priority for them. In fact, it seems like they're interested in everything _but_ working on Firefox.

lmorchard3• 6 days ago

The Firefox repo gets 100-300 changesets per day, up to 1000 commits per week. Around 100-150 contributors land those in any given week. That's activity comparable to Linux or Chromium. And, the release schedule is accelerating from a four-week cadence to a two-week cadence this fall.

Just because other efforts and initiatives are flasher or noisier doesn't mean Firefox isn't the main priority.

inigyou• 7 days ago

Maybe they don't have the legal budget to sue Apple.

dadoum• 6 days ago

This is based on Firefox's own iOS work, but their target is BrowserEngineKit, not making a web browser destined to jailbroken/TrollStore devices on older firmwares.

dotdi• 7 days ago

A bit of context: Apple is being forced by different jurisdictions (EU, UK, Japan) to allow third-party browser engines. In all other regions it's still not allowed to use them.

Apple has been maliciously compliant, putting up roadblocks to testing and distribution. For example, the existing Firefox iOS app cannot be simply updated to use Gecko/Servo; it needs to be a new app.

As far as I know, none of the major browser vendors have released apps with their own engines on iOS. I suppose maintaining two (or more) different codebases for US, EU, etc. is not very attractive.

BoppreH• 7 days ago

The other requirements are also pretty vague and give Apple full discretion to remove browsers they don't like:

https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...

Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
Adopt the latest security mitigations (for example, Pointer Authentication Codes) that remove classes of vulnerabilities or make it much harder to develop an exploit chain;

These allow Apple to take a security-maximalist approach and block alternative browsers that don't include the most performance-killing mitigations possible.

I don't think these points are bad per-se, but within the context of malicious compliance that Apple has already displayed, I'd be scared to invest money on alternative browser for iOS.

glandium• 7 days ago

For instance, rust doesn't support PAC yet https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/73628. Support for PAC wasn't even in upstream LLVM for a while (it now is, but lld still doesn't support it).

ComputerGuru2• 6 days ago

Why do I have a sneaky feeling Safari for iOS isn’t fully written in a fully memory safe language?

cognitiveinline2• 7 days ago

Wonderful. I also learnt about TrollStore today - https://github.com/opa334/TrollStore.

Glad the apple ecosystem is being opened up (albeit unwillingly) by hackers.

user3939382• 7 days ago

16.7.x (excluding 16.7 RC) and 17.0.1+ will NEVER be supported (unless a third CoreTrust bug is discovered, which is unlikely).

I am 100% over the walled garden, lock out, right to disrepair bullshit. If we had a government instead of a quasi-fascist kleptocracy billion+ dollar corps wouldn’t have the power to do this.

zb3• 7 days ago

Did it have to be notarized by Apple or there's a way to use that browser engine extension without it?

rubnogueira• 7 days ago

This is great and long overdue for outdated devices!

Those devices are forced to use an ancient Safari version of WebKit which includes tons of vulnerabilities that are not patched anymore, and same time doesn't support modern ECMAScript functionalities.

With a modern browser engine, those old devices can be used for valid browser usage.

ComputerGuru2• 6 days ago

This is great

Absolutely spectacular, indeed…

and long overdue for outdated devices!

I would pause here and reflect. There is zero chance this performs better (speed, latency, memory, battery life, etc) than Safari on iPhones since the latter has been heavily optimized over the decades for this exact use case. Older devices not even getting iOS updates are likely the devices that will work worst with this software in its current form.

Of course if Apple had allowed third party browser engines from the start, it would likely be a much more even playing field!

lmorchard3• 6 days ago

Yeah, this is a real thing: Mozilla doesn't have a team dedicated optimizing Gecko-based Firefox for iOS just in case it can be shipped someday. That Firefox can be built and will run on iOS doesn't mean it will immediately be a great browser there - there are some things you just don't know to optimize until you've gotten the thing into a lot of users' hands over a decent span of time.

hexagonwin• 5 days ago

it's already working really well on my iOS 13 iPhone SE. the safari on this version struggles to render any 'modern' website these days, this browser works perfectly and I can even use uBlock Origin with it.

rock_artist• 7 days ago

I wonder if there's simple way in the EU or markets that allow non-appstore to install this without TrollStore or something that needs to re-certificate each time.

fl0id• 7 days ago

TrollStore is just for old devices. On devices which natively support alternative stores, enabling something like altstore the first time is annoying (because apple makes it so) but after that it's not a problem and doesn't need to recertificate afaik.

potato-peeler• 7 days ago

Will this be released to the App Store?

Shank• 6 days ago

So close to something you could install in Japan via AltStore:

One or more apps in source "Reynard Browser" are missing a marketplaceID. This most likely means they are not notarized, which is not supported by this version of AltStore.

I'm really looking to a successful version of a Gecko browser that can be installed with just AltStore via the Japanese law.

gattilorenz• 6 days ago

Can’t you use notarized AltStore to install AltStore original, and from there install Firefox? I did that earlier today in EU.

I just wish they had a different name now for AltStore Original… telling them apart from the icon is basically impossible

NoMoreNicksLeft• 6 days ago

Can I load this with Sideloadly?

Reynard: A real Firefox web browser for iOS 13 or later

Related Stories