I’ve never understood why Apple doesn’t allow other browser engines on iOS. It seems a really ridiculous policy that doesn’t really benefit anyone.
Except Apple themselves...
Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
11–20 of 64 posts
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#12Apple's App Review guidelines used to say something along the lines of "If you have a problem, trashing us in the press never helps." I'm not trying to place judgment on Puffin, but this seems to be the wrong strategy. False negative App Store rejections are typically due to a misunderstanding than a nebulous "corporate greed" angle... or sometimes they were even (at least sort of) justified in the first place [0]. S…
From the Medium post:
Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: “Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.” Our server-side web browser is based on Chromium instead of Apple’s WebKit, therefore, Puffin is rejected.
We disputed and escalated but Apple insisted it has jurisdiction over our server-side technology.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#13Is it not possible there's just a security violation they need to sort out? Am unfamiliar with Puffin, but the post leaping straight to "it's a conspiracy!" without indicating what the stated rationale for rejection was appears a bit off. (I'd I'm normally first in line to attribute things to corporate greed)
Their medium article explains the reason apple rejected them. They use chromium on their servers to render pages. Apple wants them to use webkit.
If this is really the case it’s nonsense that an iOS policy would extend into your servers too.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#14Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#15Apple's App Review guidelines used to say something along the lines of "If you have a problem, trashing us in the press never helps." I'm not trying to place judgment on Puffin, but this seems to be the wrong strategy. False negative App Store rejections are typically due to a misunderstanding than a nebulous "corporate greed" angle... or sometimes they were even (at least sort of) justified in the first place [0]. S…
From the Medium post: Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: “Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.” Our server-side web browser is based on Chromium instead of Apple’s WebKit, therefore, Puffin is rejected. We disputed and escalated but Apple insisted it has jurisdiction over our server-side technology.
Seems like a pretty clear violation of the rules. Trying to find a loophole doesn't work, the rules aren't an Ethereum smart contract, they're actually subject to human judgement.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their medium article explains the reason apple rejected them. They use chromium on their servers to render pages. Apple wants them to use webkit.
If this is really the case it’s nonsense that an iOS policy would extend into your servers too.
The problem isnt that its serverside, its thats a different renderingengine, and therefor visually could/is rendering differently than safari/webkit.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#17for those who don't like to visit Facebook https://hackernoon.com/its-time-to-bringappletojustice-cf12c...
Hard to take the article seriously with this breathless and inaccurate lead:
“Take the “BatteryGate” for example. Apple secretly and deliberately reduces the performance of old phones in order to boost new phone sales in the name of extending the battery life. The company only revealed this after being caught red-handed.”
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#18This whole post is manipulative bullshit.
> Apple, concerned about the rising competition, decided to sabotage Puffin in order to protect the billions of dollars of search revenue from Google.
Settings → Safari → Search Engine → Yahoo/Bing/DuckDuckGo. There, look, no Google.
The next sentence:
> Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: "Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript."
Setting aside whether that is a good rule or not, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous claim.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#19for those who don't like to visit Facebook https://hackernoon.com/its-time-to-bringappletojustice-cf12c...
>Puffin is a victim of Apple’s abuse. Puffin is a server-based web browser where web browser sessions are executed on the cloud servers
You and me know to not use something like this for any kind of sensitive site. But the common iOS user doesn’t know this. Apple is protecting their users and their platform.
It’s 2018. making a web browser where all traffic goes through the browser makers server, being unencrypted and then reencrypted is not acceptable any more (I would argue it never was, but then, back in the days of 9600 bits/s it was more excusable)
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#20This whole post is manipulative bullshit. > Apple, concerned about the rising competition, decided to sabotage Puffin in order to protect the billions of dollars of search revenue from Google. Settings → Safari → Search Engine → Yahoo/Bing/DuckDuckGo. There, look, no Google. The next sentence: > Puffin releases were rejected citing app review guideline 2.5.6: "Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit…
Quite sincerely, they should just look into running WebKit server-side.
That said, in my experience if Apple has secretly decided they don't like you, they tend to move the goalposts on you in subsequent reviews, so migrating their systems to WebKit may not be time well spent.