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.
Letting apps bundle their own browser engine guarantees that there will be unpatched security bugs.
Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#32This 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…
I think your first example is somewhat disingenuous.
The vast majority of people will never change their default settings on the vast majority of things. The ability to change something does not contradict the view that a company is engaging in that behavior, and persisting it, for money. E.g. Mozilla/Firefox recently swapping to Google as their default browser would be the same thing, even if they know it's likely somewhat antithetical to many of their users - they will profit from those who are too lazy, or too ill informed, to change it.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#33Apple'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.
Apple has always, since time immemorial, blocked apps that duplicated functionality of the core OS. Yes they make exceptions, but building a "better" web browser for iOS was a bad business choice, regardless of how long or well you skirted the rules.
You made your bed. Sleep in it.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#34I’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.
Letting apps bundle their own browser engine guarantees that there will be unpatched security bugs.
If you read the article, you'd know they do server side rendering. They're basically displaying images on your phone.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#35I’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.
But this isn't really another browser engine. They do server side rendering. They're just displaying images on your phone.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 an…
Especially when you read their privacy policy, realize they're a Chinese company, and see this: "However, be aware of the possibility of surveillance by intelligence agencies in your home country and our home country."
I wish this was higher up in the discussion. This is a very interesting point, not only when considering the Puffin browser, but considering this entire company. Their whole business model is to improve traditionally-local software by having data processed in the cloud. I have seen people affiliated with the company reply to other comments on this post but yours demands some sort of clarification. This company's real business is selling reports generated from the logs of its users' activity.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#37This 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…
I think your first example is somewhat disingenuous. The vast majority of people will never change their default settings on the vast majority of things. The ability to change something does not contradict the view that a company is engaging in that behavior, and persisting it, for money. E.g. Mozilla/Firefox recently swapping to Google as their default browser would be the same thing, even if they know it's likely s…
I get what you're saying, but your point is also self-defeating for your argument. I would posit that someone who goes out of their way to install Puffin for its benefits would also be aware enough of the ability to change search providers. I have difficulty envisioning the user interested enough to research alternative browsers that are not Safari/Chrome/Firefox who also is not aware of changing default search settings.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#38I’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.
Locking out other engines does a few things: - Ensures a minimum level of battery performance for users browsing the web. Chrome and Firefox for macOS are notoriously hard on your battery and iOS versions would likely have the same issue. - Reduces the number of vulnerabilities present on the platform. - In the event that a bad vuln does crop up, Apple can and will scramble out a WebKit patch to fix it, quickly prote…
People would just have an alternative choice.
All you say can be said for any other app on the app store.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#39Apple'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…
In a duopoly condition, telling companies who want to sell products that can only be sold in the markets of two companies, putting "don't take disputes with us to the press" is rather insidious. It might not help. But Apple already has so much leverage against app developers. Yes, individual app rejections are likely not due to Apple being evil. But Apple doesn't have to be evil, just capricious and unresponsive, to turn their dominant market position into bullying smaller developer shops.
Re: Apple rejects Puffin Browser on iOS
#40This 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…
I can see why they're concerned that they can't update the app, but they're playing in a walled garden and they knew that from the get-go.
I think this is a pretty weak complaint and it lacks any real substance.