UPDATE: Embedded Browser vs. Native Browser

Earlier today we released a massive study comparing the performance of iPhone and Android’s Browsers. Our study showed Android’s browser to be 52% faster than iPhone’s. The study stirred a lot of chatter online, as this is a topic close to the heart of many.

To perform the measurements, we made use of purposefully written apps that used each platform’s Embedded Browser (as stated in the initial report). Embedded browsers are software components available to mobile apps to invoke the browser, and are the only ways both platforms allow users to interact with a browser. It’s important to emphasize – we used each platform’s embedded browser, not our own browser.

Embedded browsers are expected to behave, for the most part, the same as the regular browser. However, Apple is now stating that their embedded browser, called UIWebView, does not share the same optimizations MobileSafari does. In a quote given to CNET, Apple stated that

“… they only tested their own proprietary app, which uses an embedded Web viewer that doesn’t actually take advantage of Safari’s Web performance optimizations”.

The CNET article goes on to state

“It’s not just JavaScript, though. Safari on iOS 4.3 also has multithreaded, asynchronous page-loading and some HTML5 caching”

Implying the gap between the native browser and the embedded browser is even greater.

To the extent of our knowledge, this is the first time Apple has openly made such a statement. Given the information that various optimizations are not included in the embedded browser, it’s quite possible the iPhone page loads could be faster. We stand behind the statement that Android’s embedded browser is faster than iPhone’s. We hope Apple will help us enable those optimizations and repeat the measurement. Until then, for all we know the missing optimizations may not make a big impact.

Apple’s official response was that Apple

“regards the tests as flawed because Blaze used its own proprietary application that doesn’t take advantage of Apple Safari browser’s Web-performance optimization”

Stated by Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman for the Cupertino, California-based company.

Lastly, Kerris also noted that

“Despite this fundamental testing flaw they still only found an average of a second difference in loading Web pages”.

We see this is a bad interpretation of our results. First and foremost, our tests were run over networks and conditions more favorable than the average user browsing on his mobile device. Second, on many sites the gap was greater in absolute terms (for example, on wsj.com we saw a 5-10 second gap). The median gap was only one second, thanks in part to the great network conditions.

Posted on March 17th, 2011
  • Chrbal

    People see up to 3x performance difference between Mobile Safari and the embedded UIWebView, and you still say “Until then, for all we know the missing optimizations may not make a big impact.”?!

    Other browsers on the app store (iCab, Atomic, etc.) use UIWebView but add all kinds of additional value and caching. By creating an app with that component you in fact did create your own crappy browser app.

    Google this to see how long this has been known by developers: UIWebView caching

    How about this article:

    • Guypo

      The caching differences don’t matter for this study, since all the measurements were done using a cleared cache.

      • http://myblog.rsynnott.com/ Robert Synnott

        It’s possible that they did anyway. It’s not unknown for badly-written Javascript to repeatedly load the same cacheable resource (usually more Javascript). You can see this happening on Firebug. With a cache, the badly-written app gets away with it. Without a cache (third-party browser implementors on iOS would normally add their own, but I assume Blaze wasn’t even aware it was missing), that behaviour becomes more problematic.

  • Anonymous

    “Our study showed Android’s browser to be 52% faster than iPhone’s.”
    Full of lies, you are not using iPhone´s Browser. You are using the embedded browser of iOS. Why are you in denial? It does not make sense.

    Just repeat the test using Safari, easy as that until you are not comparing browsers

    • Elfenstar

      Errm isnt that a bit of an oxymoron? If you’re using the embedded browser of iOS, which is the OS of the iPhone, wouldn’t you be using the iPhones browser?

      • Anonymous

        No, “the iPhone’s browser” does NOT mean an app built using Apple’s embeddable browser tool. There’s not a person on the planet who believes that. If the embeddable browser WERE the actual browser, then you wouldn’t need Safari, would you?

        • http://twitter.com/cristi_trohin Cristian Trohin

          Um, so what you’re saying here is that the embeddable browser does not have the same core as Safari, then rendering speeds and the rendering itself is different. Right? So, if say I write a webpage that works on MobileSafari, I should not expect that webpage to work with an embedded browser(not having the same core) too right? Does that make any sense to you?

          • Anonymous

            You have a great future in dishonest lawyering, if judges will allow you to put false words into others’ mouths.

            I said no such thing, and all the actual information here says just the opposite, too.

            Just a few days ago, Apple rolled out a new version of Safari. It had a new javascript engine, and has different caching and other optimizations for user web browsing. For whatever reasons, they did NOT put several of the new features into the rendering engine that third-party apps use.

            From my perspective outside of Apple’s secretive walls, likely reasons are (1) security, (2) unwillingness to risk breaking the third-party apps without giving them a beta version, (3) the fact that third party apps may have VERY different caching and javascript processing needs and (4) they just haven’t had time. There may be more reasons, and several of these might apply. Or none.

            NOBODY has suggested that the embedded browser displays pages differently except for speed. Except you, who ignores the Blaze findings and all other actual information.

            Cheap shots galore. Try citing any evidence if you wish to contribute value.

          • Indifferentguy

            They did test using the Iphone’s browser, and it failed at being faster than the Android’s browser. While I agree with your point about Apple likely not wanting to break third party apps, doesn’t really matter, embedded or not it’s still the Iphone’s browser and it is able to be benchmarked. It was developed and is maintained by Apple, and is installed on the Iphone; therefore is the Iphone’s browser.

            Although their title headline may have been a bit misleading, as the mass populace will relate “Iphone’s browser -> Safari”, the results are still valid. Blaze isn’t denying they tested the iOS embedded browser, regardless… Apple’s was still slower. Take the findings for what they are and stop being butt-hurt when there is something negative to be said about Apple.

            The Apple paradigm is a cult following cleverly developed using strategic marketing and carefully thought out markup optimized product roll-out.

            Apple Guy: “I believe it’s best and I’ll defend it to the death”
            Indifferent Guy: “Why?”
            Apple Guy: “Because Steve Jobs says so!”
            Indifferent Guy: “Ah… but isn’t the newer version coming out in 2 months?”
            Apple Guy: “Yes, and it will be the best!”
            Indifferent Guy: “What makes it better?”
            Apple Guy: “Steve Jobs says so, and it has a camera.”

          • Steven Fisher

            The iPhone’s primary web browser is Safari.

            Blaze did not use Safari.

            Ergo, Blaze did not test the iPhone’s primary web browser.

          • http://twitter.com/cristi_trohin Cristian Trohin

            Well, thank you for your “kind” words Walt. From a programmer’s point of view, the embeddable web browser API should not change in any way if the component itself receives an upgrade. At most, there could be some deprecated API calls, that would in no way break third party apps, so there goes your (2) argument down the drain. If Safari is faster than the embedded browser, IT HAS A DIFFERENT ENGINE. Get that trough you skull. As cache is concerned, the test Blaze conducted was focused on first time page loading, so the cache had no role there, so argument (3) follows (2). As for argument (4)… It takes more time to separate and maintain two different engines than it takes one, so… you know… (4) goes away too.
            That leaves only argument (1). If that were to be true, it would mean that one of the two engines are flawed, and have known security issues, so why would they release it in the first place? They wouldn’t.

          • Anonymous

            Cristian, this would be fine logic for some people, but it fails one crucial test: it was obviously NOT the logic used by Apple. As I said 3 weeks ago, I could guess at some reasons, but I do not know the actual reasons.

            So while you think my reasoning is flawed, it apparently has a better congruence with the actual facts than some elements of your reasoning. I invite you to propose a better explanation instead of a worse one.

            And my real gripe goes untouched: Blaze, making assumptions that apparently were not correct, no matter how ardently they believed them, have allowed misreporting to stand. I have NOT seen any of the sites that reported the original “findings” report that Blaze had, based on faulty assumptions, not tested what they said, and so have retracted the original claim.

            “No father, I did NOT cut down that Cherry Tree. Must’ve been those Adams kids or maybe the Jeffersons.”

        • Anonymous

          Sorry about the late reply mate. What I meant was that since iOS comes with both Safari and a browser that is embeddable. Thus technically, both are iOS browsers so the article isn’t factually wrong 😛

          Personally I don’t really care about it, since regardless of which browser (embedded, safari, or androids stock browser), they’re all quick enough that our user experience is fine. Not to mention that I’ve noticed the hold up usually is with network speeds. Just making a point about why I think the article is right.

  • Scott B

    You screwed up, just admit it.

    Not good for a new startup, you get what you deserve, and until you do the test correctly it has tarnished your reputation you are working so hard to establish.

  • ccginc

    Your 15 minutes of fame will be up pretty soon. Next time test the browser instead of the embedded uiWebView control. You did prove one thing however, the incompetence of your company. I don’t think your going to be selling too many of your services with a study like that.

    • Anonymous

      Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

    • http://nextparadigms.com Lucian Armasu

      I’d say it’s Apple’s fault for not updating the embedded browser, too, and being quite about it. I don’t think it was crazy of them to assume such a thing.

      • http://www.precursor.org/ CleverBoy

        No one cares about the relative performance of the Webview control. It’s something to be paranoid about if you’re making ANY assumptions about benchmarks. Imagine saying Firefox was slower than IE, because the embedded Gecko Webview controller performed slower than the embedded IE controller on the desktop. It’s as far from scientific as you can get.

      • Anonymous

        They did assume anything, they misrepresented their study. Improving the embedded browser is a different issue and perhaps a legitimate one, but this “company” chose to misrepresent what they found. I don’t think you’d find Anandtech doing this kind of clickbait.

        • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

          Man read it again.Kerris is the one to blame. “We see this is a bad interpretation of our results….”

      • http://myblog.rsynnott.com/ Robert Synnott

        it’s natural that the web view would not have caching; the web view is often used for HTML generated by the application, and caching should be left up to the developer. That the web view doesn’t have proper caching is pretty clear from the docs. It’s somewhat surprising that the web view doesn’t have asynchronous multi-threaded loading, but it’s likely so that it can all run in the view thread and avoid conflicting with the third party’s threading model. It’s obvious that the web view would not have JIT; I think it’s pretty well-known that normal iOS apps are prevented from running unsigned code, and having JIT would require that to be changed, introducing a variety of exciting security issues.

      • Anonymous

        Right. I’d even bet you $10 that Apple PURPOSELY enhanced Safari a week ago just to give dingdongs like Blaze the opportunity to look stupid for assuming they were testing real-world conditions.

        So they should’ve held back the speedups in Safari until they could make them available in a secure, well-documented fashion to all developers. That’d be how Android handles upgrades? Let the carriers sit on upgrades for a few months or years to be sure they’re compatible and safe?

    • http://ObamaPacman.com ObamaPacman

      Exactly, delusional fandroid is delusional.

      • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

        fandroid is delusional, or there a categories of people called apple fanboy?

    • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

      totally unrelated. your post says nothing about what is written above. you’ re just frustrated with your iphone.

    • http://twitter.com/cristi_trohin Cristian Trohin

      In a normal, sane case, there is only one browser engine that should be accessed by both MobileSafari as well as any other third party application. The fact that there are differences between the MobileSafari rendering speeds and third party apps using the web browser component, only shows how “well” Apple optimizes it’s code and components. There are basically two browser engines in iOS, one for Safari and another for third party. This is Antennagate all over. Apple screws up, and finds someone else to blame.

    • Rodd

      why are you so angry at the articles author. You should be mad at Apple. While Apple admit that their embedded browser is slower than Safari, what they don’t say it’s why. This is the question you should be asking Apple. Why would they hobble the embedded browser?

      As well are all well aware, Apple has a history of benchmarking when it suits them, but also making it hard for others to benchmark their own software. It’s not hard to imagine that Apple wants to be able to cry unfair, but doesn’t want to be compared in a fair way.

      All that Apple doesn’t isn’t always great, so get over the Apple is better than everyone else and start asking how they could improve. It might just work in your favour.

  • Anonymous


  • http://twitter.com/Kevniv Kevin N


  • http://twitter.com/Kevniv Kevin N

    Why do people get so pissed?

    • Anonymous

      Because their study is just as wrong as it can get.

    • Trinlala

      This happens because of the way the original report presented itself. It presented itself as an undeniable finding (from the original article: “We can now give a definitive answer to the question: which browser is really faster, from a user’s point of view?”) without clearly stating upfront that they are using the embedded browser and not the actual iOS Safari browser.

      If Blaze had clearly stated upfront that the results are based on the embedded web browser, then they probably wouldn’t be receiving such backlash. On the other hand, they also wouldn’t be receiving so many views for their original article because the report would not use words like “definitive” and merely temper its findings to say the results are true only when comparing to the embedded Safari browser and not the actual iOS Safari browser that most iOS users would be using.

      So, shame on Blaze.

      And hopefully this is a lesson they will learn well that they cannot create unfounded notoriety about Apple without strong backlash if their report is a smidgen fudged or unclear about the premise.

  • http://twitter.com/Oletros Oletros

    To those talking about using Safari, apart of acknowledging that UIwebview is severy flawed, what makes Safari faster at loading pages?

    • VirginMary

      What it so much faster is that it compiles ECMA-Script to native ARM machine code. But, in order to execute that code the memory that contains the compiled code needs to be marked as “execute” for the CPU. This would capability would not be safe to provide to some random app because it could relatively easily be used to elevate an app’s permissions that’s why for now it is restricted to Safari where Apple has complete control over the entire source code. If we’re lucky we’ll see them figure out how to enable the same optimisation for all apps using UIWebView without compromising security.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WCOKGPP7KMEOCUF6MJO6XLIHN4 Anonymous

        Apple to fanbois: “We’re too lazy to make our development tools and APIs as powerful as others, but we know you’ll buy anything we say and tell the world we’re still #1.”

        The “if we’re lucky” is hysterical — why not DEMAND they deliver a secure product that’s up to date?

        You guys will buy anything Apple sells.

        • Anonymous

          You sound angry? Why do you care what people choose to purchase with their own money?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WCOKGPP7KMEOCUF6MJO6XLIHN4 Anonymous

            I could care less what you buy with your money. I am curious though why you feel it necessary to defend the company you gave your money to? What has Apple ever done for you? Apple fanbois are seriously the most idiotic people I’ve ever ran across.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not sure you deserve a reply. I don’t normally reply to people that use ad hominems to belittle other people.

          • Russ

            Why? While I’m sure Apple wants to make a profit, I get the feeling they also want to build great products that people love to use. This seems to be a more distant goal for most companies.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            They force you down their path, regardless of whether you lik it or not. Once in their ecosystem you are stuck. If they cared for you, they wouldn’t try and be the only content provider you have access to.

          • Anonymous

            I think Apple’s “way” is pretty well documented. Consumers make an informed choice. Obviously, your screaming to tear down the company is a personal situation you’ll have to work out on your own. In the meantime, learn to live and let live and enjoy your life. No one likes a pushy person that wants to tell others how to live, what to buy and what is good for them.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            What a strange comment.

            Mass consumers are as informed as the marketing companies push out. I’m replying to an article to do with technology. I do not see any screaming going on, just a request to read the article before jumping right in with a response (which many people seem to be doing).

            “Learn to live and let live and enjoy your life.”

            Pardon? Thats such a silly comment.. I’m not quite sure how to answer it. It certainly has nothing to do with this article, nor my comment.

            “No one likes a pushy person that wants to tell others how to live, what to buy and what is good for them.”

            Are you referring to me? Or Apple. If Apple, then yes I fully agree with you.

          • Anonymous

            “Learn to live and let live and enjoy your life.”

            Pardon? Thats such a silly comment.. I’m not quite sure how to answer it. It certainly has nothing to do with this article, nor my comment.”

            You could learn to live with people that don’t think or purchase like you do and yes you are right, your comment stated the opposite and thus why I made that comment, live and let live. How old are you? 16, 17?

          • Anonymous

            Wait, some people prefer to pay Apple $1.29 instead of chasing all over some gawdawful collection of torrented garbage? That’s force? You do not understand English.

            Apple offers products and services, you buy ’em if you like. I’ve had an iPod since the first month they were out — stopped carrying two huge wallets of CDs with me on my frequent travels where I like to listen to my music, fancy that — and have bought maybe a dozen songs from Apple; almost all my 120 GBs of music was ripped from FM stations’ internet broadcasts or from my CDs.

            You got one thing right: Apple does NOT care for you. They offer you a very well-made product at a price that lets them make a profit and doesn’t worry if you’re a saint or a child rapist. Are you proposing that they ask for your ideological purity score before you can join up, as with The Clan of Windroid?

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            “Wait, some people prefer to pay Apple $1.29 instead of chasing all over some gawdawful collection of torrented garbage? That’s force? You do not understand English. ”

            Who torrents? Me. Are you spying on me, or making false judgements…

            “Apple offers products and services, you buy ’em if you like.”

            Apple is forcing the competition out of the app store, so you can buy whatever you like, as long as it’s through apple, which by definition, is not anything you like.

            Thanks for letting me know you rip your own CD’s, although it brings nothing to your argument whatsoever it was good to know.

            “Are you proposing that they ask for your ideological purity score before you can join up, as with The Clan of Windroid?”

            Apple are going out of their way to force you to buy content through them. They are forcing other content providers out of their market. You think a lack of competition is good for you, the consumer?

            If so, then there is simply no hope for you.

          • Anonymous

            Ripping CDs is proof that people use Apple’s products with zero lock-in, so there is none of your overheated “force” to use Apple products — whether music, players, phones or anything else.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            Apologies, I should have clarified for you.

            *digital lock-in

          • Anonymous

            I’ll tell you what Apple has done for me: it made it possible for me, in 2008, to have a powerful yet compact internet phone in my pocket. It made it possible, in 2001, to dump the wallets of CDs that filled my briefcases for my heavy business travel. It made it possible, in 1988 or so, to publish a quality newsletter to my customers that was ugly beforehand. And it made it possible, in 1985, to do scientific graphs on a desktop computer.

            There WERE predecessor products from other companies, and some companies have later developed fine alternatives to the early Apple products. And every single Apple software program I’ve ever used cut out some feature that you could get in Office or wherever. But I have a long history of getting fine quality products from Apple; they delight, entertain and inform me, in exchange for a few tens of thousands of dollars over 25 years.

            You may not like high-capacity mobile music players that are automatically backed up, updated with new podcasts or new CDs when you get ’em. Fine. Etc with all the other products. But Apple makes many millions of people feel better about going about their lives.

            Hope you’re enjoying YOUR day, too!

        • Brett

          Cleaned those trojans off your Android yet? I think anyone who works in the Valley, including Google, would call the Apple engineers anything but lazy. Unless you’re a programmer, you can stuff it. Apple engineers are cranking out huge leaps forward at a breakneck pace, to deny it is shear idiocy. Apple is in the spotlight, not Google, and any security vulnerability that gets into the wild would be shouted from the mountain tops by trolls like you. Apple will not make anything available to developers until they are certain it cannot be exploited.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            “Cleaned those trojans off your Android yet?”

            Good one.

          • Klamath12

            “Cleaned those trojans off your Android yet?”

            I don’t need to. I’m smart enough to be careful not to let those things into my phone.

          • Anonymous

            This is a documented fact: Android users do NOT purchase nearly as many apps as iPhone users, so not surprising that you are careful.

            But share your secret: how do you manage to tell in advance that popular titles with good ratings carry Trojans? What distinguishes you from the quarter million of other users, other than you just don’t use what should be one of the best features of a smartphone?

        • Anonymous

          Yeah, Apple is DEAD WRONG to improve browsing for 95% of all the page views from the iPhone before providing suitable controls and documentation to 3rd parties so they can get the other 5% a couple of percent faster.

          You’d think Apple puts its customers first or something crazy like that.

    • Anonymous

      Who sez UIWebView is flawed? It merely doesn’t incorporate all the features of Safari.

      -2 Troll.

  • Guypo

    This study used the best tools Apple offers. iPhone doesn’t allow developers to automate the native browser, and until recently the assumption was the embedded one is the same.

    There’s no such thing as a perfect measurement. When you release a study, the most you can do is be fully transparent about how we got the data – and we were. Hopefully Apple allows developers to enable all optimizations in the mobile browser, and we’ll be able to repeat the measurements.

    • JoeBlow

      Since you proceeded from a false assumption, your entire study is trash. See daringfireball as to the security reasons why the embedded control does not run as fast as mobile Safari

      • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

        show real info on why you KNOW the assumption is false. assume. this is waht you people do.

    • Anonymous

      “until recently the assumption was the embedded one is the same.”

      Is that because no one could perceive a difference?

      • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

        there obviously is a difference, as this report shows.

        The actual reason was because Apple did not convey this to people.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, Apple should warn people like Blaze when they’re about to claim they know what they’re doing.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            Think about what you are saying… Its perfectly reasonable to do the test in the manner they did.

          • Anonymous

            I have no complaints about the reasonableness of their test. It’s just that they misrepresented what they tested. And it was the bogus claim that made all the newspapers and websites, not the fact that they actually tested a version of the browser that NO user can invoke except by going thru some other program that may or not provide the critical speedup features. (It *appears* that the NYT reader, for example, probably uses the embedded browser, but their tactic of downloading a whole local database before displaying a single story makes it irrelevant whether the embedded browser caches requests and other issues that people here claim “ought” to have been in the embedded browser.)

            And as it works out, Blaze’s many assumptions of comparability were bad. They compounded their oversight by making vague claims that they actually confirmed their tests were relevant, which could not have been very careful, to say the least.

    • http://myblog.rsynnott.com/ Robert Synnott

      “until recently the assumption was the embedded one is the same. ”

      Nonsense. The caching difference is extremely well-known, as a quick Google search will show you.

  • JoeBlow

    Hey, are you the guys that helped Consumer Reports with their testing that found no significant speed differences between the iPad 2 and the original iPad? Ha ha.

  • Vi

    How can you even publish such junk? How can it get on Bloomberg, in an article written by somebody that does not have event the slightest idea of what (s)he is talking about? It always amazes me… Your test simply demonstrates that *your* app runs better on Android, if anything. Just admit you screwed up completely instead of defending an obviously flawed test methodology.

    • Anonymous

      They simply don’t have the guts! Shame on them! I guess bad fame is better than no fame.

    • Anonymous

      I dunno how many sites followed simple “journalistic standards” and quoted a second source whether the findings were consistent with reality. Of course, we don’t expect sites such as InfoWorld that are little better than $4/article content aggregators to do anything of the sort.

      While Ars took the bait hook, line & sinker, they at least got a quote in from a second analyst. Much better if they’d also connected 1+1 to an earlier quote from an article they’d done a day earlier noting that Apple has been very cautious about security of the speedup approach.

      So your point about the study being misleading junk (at best) stands. But your question ought to go to the “news” sites that regurgitated the Blaze PR piece without doing anything more than a simple re-type.

      PS: Blaze people, it WAS from your PR staff, right? You techies weren’t so totally dumb about making false claims, right? Right?

  • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

    Why are you jumping on these guys?

    Why don’t you jump on apple for optimising hteir own browser, and leaving other browsers on their platform at a purposeful disadvantage?

    Don’t you guys like choice? Don’t you like to choose which browser you use? Do you like to be forced to use one browser? It doesn’t matter if it is the best, the choice is not there anyway (its only the best because others are made worse by apple…)

    Honestly, I can’t understand you guys at all..

    • http://twitter.com/ChazClout ChazClout

      Leaving third party developers at a disadvantage like this is completely illogical and not in the best interest of the users.

      I can’t understand why some of these defenders are overlooking this fact. Without such stupid restrictions in the first place, Blaze would have gotten a more accurate result.

      • Brian

        Maybe if you have the slightest clue what the Nitro engine actually DOES, you’d understand why they wouldn’t just throw it in for any developer to use. It’s a security issue, and until perfected would be an absolutely insane thing to do. Try reading, it does wonders.

        • http://twitter.com/ChazClout ChazClout

          I take it you are on about the excellent post by Gruber yes?

          I know exactly what it does Brian and would theorise one of the biggest reasons these “security” concerns exist is Apple’s insistence on control over their platform.

          I really would have thought the extensive App vetting process that iOS users and developers have endured all these years would have alleviated any security fears you may have using your phones (it seems to be working so far eh? No malware on iOS!), but it seems you need even more restrictions and limits to save yourself from yourself and all the evildoers out there, trying to steal your data.

          It’s a real shame that people are willing and able to accept limits because of potential security flaws that “may” be exploited for the sake of security.

          • Briavael

            So on one hand you’re giving Apple props (“No malware on iOS!”) but you then chide them for being restrictive over “potential security flaws” – in the wild, potential security flaws become real exploits very quickly. Just ask Microsoft.

          • Anonymous

            @ChazClout, I don’t suppose you’re in the security group of your firm’s IT shop, because opening MORE holes to drive-by attacks is not exactly what security-conscious types clamor for.

            Anyway, it is off the point: Blaze claimed something that they hadn’t tested. Their homebrew browser COULD HAVE implemented several of the speedups that Safari does, but unsurprisingly, something you cobble together as a thin wrapper around a core technology is not the same as what Apple provides to its customers. They claimed they were testing “a version” of Safari, but there Safari was not part of their test at all.

            Blaze could complain that Apple made it harder to use a a one-week-old technology (one that has potential usability and security considerations, and is more complicated), but that wasn’t their bitch. They said they tested something that they actually hadn’t, and are surprised that people think they’re acting like a 6-year-old when they got caught.

        • Elfenstar

          Are you saying that the Safari browser is an insecure/secure browser?

          • Anonymous

            On the surface, a good troll. +1

            Oops, it’s transparent that the reason Apple implemented it ONLY in Safari was that it needed to be carefully controlled and one whole week after release, they hadn’t developed enough security around 3rd parties’ usage to do the same.

            -5. Better luck next time with trolling rather than contributing.

    • Chris

      Why do you assume a conspiracy theory? Of course optimizations are going to be used for Safari first (seeing how a vast majority uses it). And they may have left the updates out of the embedded browser for any number of reasons, including security, stability, or simply because they were rushed to push it out. If in a couple updates, they still leave the embedded browser hamstrung, then you might have an argument. But don’t jump to conclusions.

      • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

        Have you been paying attention to tech news with regards to apple recently…?

        I agree it could be any of those other reasons you mention, but I’m assuming the more likely reality right now.

        • Anonymous

          No, no you’re making a subjective choice to chose the reason that is most attractive to you, regardless of the facts which you don’t have to make a judgment.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            I am making the most obvious choice available to me with the facts and rumours available to me. I may be wrong, and I said as such above. But I don’t think I am.

          • Michael

            Again that means your likely to be wrong the way you want to be.

        • Anonymous

          Does it matter what the reasons are? Likely, we’ll never know, as Apple is usually totally silent about this sort of bogus study.

          The issue for me is that Blaze released a false claim and they CONTINUE to push the false claim that they were trying to test how mobile users truly use their phones, despite the fact that NO MOBILE user uses the Blaze CobbledTogether Quickie Browser. They didn’t test NetNewsWire or any other actual real-world browser and they CERTAINLY DIDN’T test what they said they did. How much do you want to extrapolate from such a flimsy base of BS?

    • myonlinelifenow

      I’d say the majority of people are jumping these guys because the facts they are stating are wrong. Plan and simple.

      Also when you bring up choice, people get to choose what handset they want to use. Free flowing (Open) Android or streamlined (closed) iPhone. If I chose the iPhone I’m prepared to use their “limited” browser.

  • Regor412

    If safari is soooooo much better, why isn’t it the embedded browser? Tell me that

    • Chris

      They did. Read more closely about what an embedded browser is.

    • Anonymous

      Easy: Safari is a complete app that has many different objectives than a browser that you’d embed as an adjunct into your app.

      Safari is FASTER than the embeddable browser but that doesn’t necessarily make it better for apps that need lots of memory or other controls.

      -2: Strawman argument / Troll. It has NOTHING to do with the fact that Blaze continues to claim they tested what “real world” users see. They tested their own app development expertise on two platforms.

      You’re not claiming that they have retracted or disavowed their original findings, are you? Did YOU see anything explicitly saying that they’ve admitted they misrepresented their study?

  • Anonymous

    I hope it merely an oversight, and not exploitation of the lack of Nitro engine in UIWebView to mislead people into thinking Android. By whom was this study commissioned?

  • Anonymous

    Just admitting you were wrong would help more thatn this. What you guys are doing is insane. There’s a huge gap in speed since 4.3’s Nitro addition. Simply put, I doubt you could replicate the same results you found. Instead of still stating that Android is faster (which is simply not true, since you can’t test it). You should have just dropped the conclusion. It’s just not correct. This is no study, this is a personal preference/opinion. This is embarrassing as it can get!

    • Anonymous

      Hey, @expandin, it MIGHT be true that Android is 50% faster.

      It’s just FALSE FALSE FALSE that Blaze tested “the true mobile browsing experience.” Unless I missed the news that the Blaze TrueMobile Browser (let alone ANY app that uses the embedded browser) captures 95% of iPhone users’ experience.

  • jfw

    Why aren’t more people asking why Apple couldn’t be bothered to improve the embedded browser?

    • Brian

      Why don’t you go read up on it. It’s for incredibly obvious security reasons.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WCOKGPP7KMEOCUF6MJO6XLIHN4 Anonymous

        No – it’s for incredibly stupid security reasons. Every other development API out there doesn’t have the problems Apple has — so you still have to ask: why is Apple gimping the ability of its developers to deliver a product that compares to its own — esp. when using the Apple provided API and development tools?

        • Brett

          Maybe “every other development API” exposes security vulnerabilities. Apple has yet to experience the kind of tojans and viruses experienced by Android. That is due in no small part not only to curation of content, but also curation of APIs. Until Apple can ensure that Nitro — which compiles JavaScript to native code on-the-fly — can be embedded in third party apps without exposing security holes, you won’t see it in the UIWebKit API.

          • http://twitter.com/Oletros Oletros

            What viruses? Because trojans for iOS has been deployed on the App Store.

            You know that Safari Mobile has been hacked on every pwn2own contest, don’t you?

            Gruber’s argument is only another of his blind Apple defenses, is bullshit.

          • Doggy

            Apple hacked? Impossible:

            Apple ITunes account security compromised


          • Anonymous

            Um, that was a hack made possible through a Windows vulnerability, not an iTunes vulnerability.

          • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

            What about the pwn2own iphone hack?

    • Anonymous

      Cuz they’re too stoopid?

      Nope, must be because it’s a ridiculous question: Apple should be castigated for releasing a speedup that only helps 95% of its users? And doubly so for having it out for a WHOLE WEEK while still not making it seure for the other 5%?

      “Couldn’t be bothered.” You must not be anywhere close to the pressures of development of commercial software. Or else, shouldn’t be.

    • Waldo

      I can think of several reasons why the embedded browser has not been improved.

      1. Testing the optimizations in Safari before embedding.
      2. More optimizations are planned, and easier to push the optimizations into Safari first.
      3. much more difficult to incorporate into OS.
      4. optimizations may break existing apps, and outside developers need time to adjust their code.

  • Brian

    So basically, what you’re saying here is “Our test results were completely false but we’re going to stand by them because it’s giving us a shitload of pageviews”.

    Did you run the tests with intentional bias or are you just stupid? It wasn’t exactly top secret that Apple only rolled out the Nitro engine in Safari… yet you used the embedded webview and try to claim it’s the same thing? I know that no one with any technical knowledge will take your BS remotely seriously, but it’s a shame that most of the public probably won’t know you’re lying to them for attention.

    Congrats, enjoy your 15 minutes.


    “We see this is a bad interpretation of our results. First and foremost, our tests were run over networks and conditions more favorable than the average user browsing on his mobile device. Second, on many sites the gap was greater in absolute terms (for example, on wsj.com we saw a 5-10 second gap). The median gap was only one second, thanks in part to the great network conditions.”

    I can’t even believe that this is serious. ARE you in fact being serious? If there were that many instances where iOS performed 5-10 seconds slower but the median gap was only 1 second, that means there were near equal amounts of tests where it performed the same and/or better… that’s kind of how medians work, it’s the middle. You can’t claim that on tons of sites your results were much higher and that somehow kept the median LOWER. Seriously… are you all completely incompetent or just THAT desperate? Now you’re trying to twist your already false results into something even more favorable to your cause? Jesus, that’s pathetic. Sounds like someone went to the Gizmodo school for attention-whoring websites.

    • http://nextparadigms.com Lucian Armasu

      Here’s a test for you. Try 10 random websites on your iPhone right now and tell me if they load in 3 seconds. It won’t be close, unless it’s a dumbed down mobile version of the site. So they are trying to say that it’s not just 1 second difference, but a 50% difference. So if a website loads in 2 seconds on Android, it will load in 3 on iPhone. If another one loads in 5s on Android it will load in 7.5 on iPhone. If another loads in 10 seconds on Android, it will load in 15 on iPhone. If it loads in 20 on Android, it will load in 30 on iPhone.

      Are you starting to understand how this simple math works?

      • Anonymous

        It doesn’t really matter, they are not real world usage tests that measure how the average user uses the browser. I don’t know about you, but I personally have never used in the 4 years I’ve had a smartphone, an embedded browser and my usage puts me in the data hogging group of 5 gigs a month on average on my smartphone.

        • http://www.droid-den.com Rachid

          Its about choice mate, choice of browser. That choice is effective null if the default browser performs better due to a technical limitation being enforced upon the competition.

          • Anonymous

            I, for one, am pretty sure that I use the embedded browser in NetNewsWire. Great app.

            It hasn’t been upgraded in the last week to use the same speedups that Safari has? Too bad. I have the choice, it works great.

            Prolly in the NYTimes app. PBS NewsHour. Amazon. Many, many more. You know what? They all do what I want.

            There are all sorts of iOS apps that use the embedded browser. Probably more copies actually in use than what Android users use, if statistics are any clue: iOS users are on the web a LOT more than Android users, and some of that has to be cuz they do JUST FINE with the many fine apps available for special purposes.

            THAT’S choice, mate!

        • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

          they are tests. tests are optimal conditions to see how the thing goes.

          • Anonymous

            Yup. “Blaze Homebrew TrueMobile Browser works better on Android.”

            Or maybe, “Apple’s Safari Faster than Weekend Special Alternative Browser.”

            Maybe, even, “Apple Vindicated in its Old Claims that Multiple Browsers Confuse Users”

      • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

        man read the data. average. where were you educated?

      • Anonymous

        “ Here’s a test for you.”

        Got your pronouns wrong. Should be, “Here’s a test that Blaze claims to have run, but didn’t.”

        You go right ahead and publish those results; several people here think you could perhaps do it a bit more professionally than a recent study.

        By the way, that “50%” was 3 seconds versus 2. You go right ahead and claim that it was 15 versus 10.

        This story is so laughable, it’s almost as if Apple PR concocted it so Phandroids would get all hot and bothered and make themselves look like wannabe tech types who can’t be bothered to understand elementary software and mathematics. Go ask a good friend whether standing up for BS makes you look smarter or stupider.

    • Anonymous

      I think you are confused between mean and median…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WCOKGPP7KMEOCUF6MJO6XLIHN4 Anonymous

    Wow. I think it is utterly amazing that the fanbois are coming out on this issue like this. People, it’s pretty clear that Apple has a built in disadvantage for developers utilizing uiWebView. I think it’s also amazing that such ignorant people can speak when they have absolutely no idea of the assumptions developers made when creating their test. I think it’s also amazing that the fanbois seem to not care that Apple purposely either crippled their own uiWebView control or were too lazy to update it.

    It’s all just another example of just how little Apple actually cares about its customers.

    • Anonymous

      Anyone that accuses someone of being a fanbois is a fanbois.

      • fanboi :))

        YOu made a perfectly good point

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Bell/100001788867831 Mike Bell

      You don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. UIWebView can’t use NITRO’s JIT due to security issues and there’s no conspiracy to screw developers. Learn the facts before you put your tin foil hat on and spew paranoid nonsense.


  • Russ

    I’m as annoyed by the tone and poor attitude of these blog posts by blaze as anything else.

    First, you have the verbiage: “However, Apple is now stating…” You act like Apple is now stating something different than what it stated before. Did they state something to you earlier? A more civil mention would be: “Since we performed these tests, Apple has informed us…”

    And then guessing on a negative showing with a proper test: “Until then, for all we know the missing optimizations may not make a big impact.” For all you know, the tests could be completely reversed.

    Bottom line is, for the lion’s share of users, an Apples to Apples (no pun intended) test of the actual browser apps would be the correct process.

    Sorry that you wasted so much time time creating testing apps and running your tests. While the idea was admirable: Make the testing faster and more accurate, it turns out to not have been the best choice. Just admit it and rerun them using the browser apps.

  • DR

    Mmmmm…. In the original article, you said: “Manual verification showed that page load performance of the embedded browsers, when properly configured, is effectively identical to the stand-alone browsers.”

    Now it’s clear that either Apple is lying, or you lied to us as such “manual verification” would have revealed the flaw in the study. I guess we will soon find out who lied…

    • Anonymous

      Oh, give ’em an out: maybe they are claiming that they misconfigured their app with an embedded browser.

      Yeah, that squares the circle. Blaze was secretly admitting they are incompetent.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Bell/100001788867831 Mike Bell

    Way to lose credibility, guys…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=687568567 Mikael Fransson

    Embarrassing comparison of Apples and Potatoes…

    Why not rename your company to Blush?

  • Tahoedave360

    Oh just admit when you are wrong. Claiming ignorance is never becoming or believable.

  • Dc

    I think they can do the browser test with a web server on the same LAN trying to eliminate the network factor (though wifi is still a factor)

  • Dc

    which fortune 1000 web site can be loaded within 2-3 sec on a phone?
    I tried to load some pages using my PC and all results are over 3 sec

  • Anonymous

    “Until then, for all we know the missing optimizations may not make a big impact.”

    After making a flawed assumption, you choose to continue making yet more assumptions ?

    • Anonymous

      Hey Blaze guys, a little background reading for you.

      Try an article about “Occam’s Razor.” Sir William basically said the simplest explanation that’s consistent with the facts is the best. You, instead, are claiming that you know something you haven’t tested. That’s a tough sell.

      Another would be Sagan’s guideline: “exceptional claims require exceptional proof.” You must have anticipated what a splash this would make, but failed to ask a friend to stage a trial assault on your findings, and have merely analogies and suppositions in bold relief.

  • Egghuntpbs

    Seriously? You can’t just say “holy COW, we rrrreeally screwed up” and take your licks? Wow.

  • http://www.swift2.blogspot.com Swift2

    I don’t know why Apple didn’t update UIWebView at the same time; I suspect it has to do with security. With Safari, Apple controls the code. Giving people a way to control WebKit in their own apps means that you have to be a bit more conservative about what functions where. Perhaps Apple will allow access to the new UI eventually. Right now, UIWebView is just as fast as it was before the software update. Safari is faster.

    What I think is the important question, in what universe did you think this was an “Apples-to-apples” comparison?

  • Tom Gains

    Your flawed and biased testing methods are gaining more attention than the test itself. That is not good. Your website hits are from people like me who want to see who is responsible for this train wreck. The increased traffic is NOT from potential clients. You have egg on your face, and the media is jumping on it. The result is that you look like fools. What a mistake. I work in IT for a very large enterprise. My responsibilities include providing technical support for our online marketing assets including mobile. I have made a note in our vendor selection portal to NEVER consider using you company’s services. You have lost credibility and the word s spreading. Whoever made the decision in your company to release biased and flawed data simply to gain attention should be fired. You really look like clowns.

    • Waldo

      Really. I don’t buy that you are as skilled as you claim to be. Rash and foolish seems more likely.

      Those of us who have actually worked in the industry know full well that development is always error prone and that one of the key skills is identifying flaws in the handling of the often many scenarios that software must handle. If being flawless was the criterion for competence, then in IT or any area requiring substantial knowledge, all would be incompetent.

      I pity the enterprise you work for, and would suspect that the enterprise you work for is at a disadvantage over their competitors due to your employment there.

      • Elfenstar

        Agreed. He sounds like a spoilt child rather than a mature adult.

        • Waldo

          “We stand behind the statement that Android’s embedded browser is faster than iPhone’s”.

          What’s so hard to understand? Their quote above is what they are claiming and is consistent with what I wrote, and more importantly, consistent with their test. And their statement seems to be true, unless there is some unreported flaw in their test code.

          The embedded browser is NOT Safari in the Apple case, it is the browser API that Apple gives to apps to perform browser-like activities.

          As Apple said, they have not incorporated the optimization code in Safari into the OS. This is perfectly reasonable. Working out bugs in Safari before moving the code into the OS is smart. Embedding the code into the OS is a far more difficult task.

      • Anonymous

        So when you discover you made a bad boo-boo, you blame the user for holding it the wrong way? You claimed to test a scenario but never did, and claim that it probably didn’t matter even though that’s where you failed?

        I make mistakes and my boss hears about them within minutes of my discovering them. Sometimes before I know how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars are at stake. And I know that the ONE SURE way to get fired is to claim I didn’t really do it. (Haven’t been fired yet; I’ve been lucky that they were Bank Errors in Your Favor.)

        Yet trying to excuse their misrepresentations by mealy-mouthing Apple is exactly what you’d expect of an irresponsible six-year old who hadn’t internalized that George Washington story. Blaze continues to fail by not disavowing the initial claims that they tested “a version of Safari” to measure the “true mobile browsing experience.” Nuttin of the sort. A sorry mess.

    • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

      and for reason you cannot tell you cannot name your company. you are no one. you are hype people trying to sell stuff by the face value. bring on the data. numbers. then you should have your voice.

  • Hans Kuosmanen

    You might be able to utilize something like this to measure the user-perceived loading times to check the optimization effects:


    (I did not post this as an ad, but just to show that there are alternatives to manual measurement)

  • Q.

    Wow… I mean, okay, this company totally screwed up, you’re right about that.

    But it’s so funny to see so many of you defending Apple like it gave you birth : D

    Come on, why defending so hard a company that doesn’t give a shit about your little person ? Funny to see how people are crazy about Apple.

  • http://snafuracer.blogspot.com/ snafuracer

    Hahha, you simply can’t tell Apple they suck, because this is not good for selling their shiny devices. As for Android and Google overall, everyone knew the result prior to the test.

    • Anonymous

      @SNAFU racer said, “As for Android and Google…everyone knew the result prior to the test.”

      Yup, Android users don’t need to be confused by facts. They know they’re so superior in their technical genius that they don’t need to actually, you know, actually do quality technical work. So right after a bunch of stories about how the iPad2 trumps the Xoom in real-world tests, ONE story that makes a bunch of BS claims about iPhones jumps to the front pages because Team Android needs a little positive news.

      Is that what you’re saying?

      I personally would be ready to believe that iPhone is a bit slower at browsing than Android; take away the BS from Blaze and that might be what you’d find. This company just hasn’t done anything of the sort; it has shown that some people are so willing to believe ANYTHING bad about Apple that they don’t even read the technical details that the Apple defenders are apparently quite able to critique. Where’s the benefit of THAT?

  • Waldo

    The story is a good one. It highlighted the fact that the embedded browser uses a different engine than Safari, and corrected their results to indicate that the test was really embedded to embedded, not browser to browser. Still a good test, just not the one initially claimed.

    From what I can tell, there is now nothing flawed about the study, Apple’s complaint notwithstanding.

    That the Apple fanboys deem it otherwise is reprehensible and shows a significant lack of character.

    Ps: I’m a fanboy too. Oops, make that a fanman. I stopped being a child many decades ago, and have given up most of my childish ways. The rest of you guys should try it. Honest appraisal is a lot more interesting than maintaining ignorance.

    • Anonymous

      The story would be good if it took out its false claims, such as that they measured “the true mobile browsing experience” with a homebrew, cobbled-together browser that NOBODY on Planet Earth actually uses.

      There must be hundreds of apps that use the embedded browser. Go ahead and test the embedded NYTimes reader or NetNewsWire, which have their own caching etc. Or, maybe as Blaze claimed, test “the true mobile browsing experience” that 95% of web usage goes thru: Safari.

      • Anonymous

        Have you ever run a test on http://www.blaze.io/mobile/ ?

        Probably not… if you did you’d know that caching does work in their implementation…

        • Anonymous

          Darned if I can figure out how the mobile test they provide says ANYTHING about the accuracy and even honesty of their recent story.

          So help me: did they report on accessing that site thru the user version of the iPhone browser? If not, the fact that they’ve heard of caching is even more reason that they shouldn’t have assumed that the user browser would use the same approach that would be good for an embedded browser going against an on-phone database of HTML, as many of the apps I have, appear to do.

  • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

    Apple is all about media. not about tech specs. they do a shitty iphone, and expect people to buy it for hype. then when your money is gone but the truth is out there, you still want to be in the hype.

  • http://www.teknocrat.com Latest Tech

    interesting go android!

  • Info_acct

    Was this the first time you have ever done performance testing? pretty much everyone knows to remove layers (like using embedded browser controls) when you are testing – especially for performance – so you can remove possibilities for variables..

    way to embarrass yourselves…

  • Vasseur7

    You BLAZE published misleading claims. When I think of browsing on a smartphone I would expect to use the REAL browser that people use. Not an embedded viewer that app makers put in their apps. Now you have a credibility issue to overcome in the marketplace. I hope the headline grab was worth it.

    • http://twitter.com/clckwrk0 clckwrk

      again the real browser shit. grow up.

      • Anonymous

        yes, who uses Safari on iPhones. We all go thru custom apps.

  • Weywadt

    It takes only one biased stunt like yours to ruin your credibility. It will be a long time, if ever, before you will be able to regain it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Snarfus-Wellington/100002166819516 Snarfus Wellington

    Hey, why let reality and facts get in the way of some brand bashing (Apple, MS, or whomever)? It’s all about hits on website and less about reality in this day and age. Rock on Blaze. You got the traffic and that is really all that matters.

  • Vjperera

    Why doesn’t everyone just shut up and test android’s embedded against iphone’s safari? why the hell are apple girls so upset; if the embedded browser is slower…then it’s slower…let it go. If you think Safari is faster than android’s embedded, then go out there and test test test; stop crying about the results.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, why not test the iPhone versus a quad-core desktop while you’re at it? That’s a tradeoff that people make all the time, too? I’m sure people are concerned with whether a browser is faster or slower than a browser embedded in an app that might do something quite different.

      But AFTER the test, don’t claim that you tested something that you didn’t, and blame Apple for not warning you that you were making a fool of yourself.

  • Elfenstar

    I’m curious about one thing now. Does Android use an app-only vs user accessible browser like iOS, or does it do something more PC like where it launches the default browser?

  • Anonymous

    “Our goal was to measure the true mobile browsing experience…”

    Lots of truly mobile users go thru the Blaze Homemade TrueMobile Browser app, do they?

    You’ve continually backpedaled from your original, totally bogus claim, but the wordsmitthing of the headline doesn’t begin to clarify your transparently mistaken and therefore misleading conclusion that drew all the page views.

    Anybody with any self-respect would put up a big “WE GOOFED! WE DISAVOW/RETRACT OUR EARLIER REPORTS” announcement and make sure that all subsequent follow-ups start with a generous serving of humble pie.

  • NeverGoingToBeABlazeUser

    This is the reason why I will most likely *never* use Blaze products. They just proved themselves as NOT being the expert on development with webkit and the embedded browsing products. But, instead, they tried to get their 15 minutes of fame and blew it. If you try and speak intelligently on a subject, you might want to know a little bit about it first. If you had researched it, you would have seen that Apple *did* make those statements and it was a known fact that the embedded kit had not been updated. Here would have been an easy test for you to do before embarrassing yourselves and your company: Test your embedded browser against Safari’s browser. Oh wait, that wouldn’t have gotten you your 15 minutes would it? Lame move in my opinion.

    In fact, it still says this line in your false report: “Android’s Chrome beat iPhone’s Safari by loading 84% of the websites faster” that is completely false as you stated you ran this as an embedded browser test. Safari is NOT an embedded browser! You never tested Safari! Only Blaze! You guys are so ridiculous it’s not even funny.

  • Anonymous

    Here’s your complete first paragraph:

    “Earlier today we released a massive study comparing the performance of iPhone and Android’s Browsers. Our study showed Android’s browser to be 52% faster than iPhone’s. The study stirred a lot of chatter online, as this is a topic close to the heart of many.”

    Now, how many people think of the browser that YOU built as “iPhone’s browser?”

    You guys just don’t get this “honesty” thing, do you?

    • Salvia

      You obviously have not built anything for either Android or IOS… THEY DID NOT BUILD THE BROWSER.

      okay now you got that through your head let me explain it to you… On both Android and Iphone there is the standard browsers we all know and use….

      then for developers of all the apps you use, they provide what is known as an “Embedded” browser… This embedded browser is provided to make apps developers lives easy, so they can concentrate on building their app and not re-inventing the wheel.

      The Embedded browser on both IOS and Android was built by the respective company… Apple built their embedded browser… Google Built their embedded browser.

      It was Apple who was wrong in their statement not Blaze.

      So what have we learned from this? 

      1) Google Android does its optimization’s in both the Chrome browser and the embedded browser
      2) Apple only optimizes their safari browser so all of your “web” apps suck and are slower than androids LoL – this is most likely because apple wants to promote “native” apps only.
      3) Apple released a false statement accusing them of using a proprietary browser when in fact it was the embedded browser that Apple developed.
      4) The test was done with an apples to apples comparison… But Apple claims its not fair we should compare Apples to oranges LoL
      5) Apple should care more about making your apps fast like they do their own proprietary browser
      6) Google does care that not only the proprietary browser is fast but also the embedded browser used by apps developers is fast as well.
      7) You like to defend crappy app speed…. its okay you have a right to your opinion even if it is wrong

      flame on fan boy

  • Mattharader

    I switched from Iphone and other apple products long ago. I try and tell them my reason with proof in black and white. Its funny to see apple fanboys get bent out of shape when you prove their stuff is outdated before it was even released.

  • Jjaminson

    Let’s see if we can find a few words to describe Blaze Software…

    Bottom Feeders

    I could add more, but I think you get the point. If you are going to publish something as fact, get the facts straight. If you make an honest mistake, admit it and move on. Grow up guys. You blew it in a big way on so many levels. Disappointing.

    • Anonymous

      It’s Apple who blew it. They didn’t optimize their embedded browser. How were they supposed to know that?
      Usually one can expect the embedded browser to be the exact same as the normal browser. That’s true for Internet Explorer and Android’s browser.

  • http://www.blaze.io David Horne

    Blaze follow up post to iPhone vs. Android study. Lessons learned: http://www.blaze.io/business/android-vs-iphone-study-lessons-learned/

  • http://www.precursor.org/ CleverBoy

    You guys should just say, “we screwed up”. Instead, this post comes across as “we should NEVER trust you, because you’re more committed to saying how you weren’t wrong, than making sure people know how committed you are to accuracy”. I read this last week, and reading it again this week, it still reads like a poor response (at which point I save the page to my computer for future reference).

    If you knew there was even a 3% difference in the performance of the UIView and Safari, and/or that they utilized different technologies, why wouldn’t you make that clear very early in your report? Or more importantly, change your methodology to work in-browser. Writing a HTTP-Proxy script to measure the execution times and page loads of remote pages through various browsers seems like the way to go.

    Just insert code into the remote pages to send back the data you need while inside the main browsers. In a separate test, compare Android and iOS’s embedded views with their main applications. As you know, on iOS its a separate app, and iOS’s mobile browser is much more robust than Android’s mobile browser (at least according to statements at Google I/O last year, and even ongoing comparisons from the recent Honeycomb build), so it would be useful to look at that angle as well and break things down.

    I mean. Just putting it out there. Right is right. Wrong is something you back away from directly proportional to your integrity. And, its never too late to make it right. –Unless you have an agenda that’s not simply about good information… then, you hunker down and claim everyone is making too big a deal out of things.

  • http://twitter.com/Crusinelli Jill Polsinelli

    What does any of this have to do with the original search I typed into google to begin with?

    • Frank Jetz

      What did you search for? You didn’t say, so I am assuming you searched for “how to cook with a motorcycle chain”. In that case, this article sucks as a way of discussing that topic. Shame on the author for not having anticipated your needs for discussing how to cook with a motorcycle chain! Man! Some People!

  • tp

    This study really slapped the scientific method in the face.

    Your best option is to apologize.

  • Erin888

    Check out the CLIPCLOCK mobile app. The new social hub to discover and share the best video moments with your favorites!!!

    Here is the link: http://www.clipclock.com/download/5210