91–100 of 927 posts
I’m guessing that Apple will start hindering web apps because the new mouse support in iPadOS is going to be such a boon to web apps. Because of sandboxing, web apps are the only cross-platform apps that can run in their full versions on iPadOS. I wrote a quick summary of the situation[0]. Therefore, since native apps are more of a platform differentiator than web apps, moving forward we can expect Apple to start sys…
I would be OK with 7 days being the default with a permission model where I can grant a website longer storage time. Actually, I'd be even happier if any form of offline storage required explicit user permission anyway.
> Actually, I'd be even happier if any form of offline storage required explicit user permission anyway. Even offline storage that is only used locally? Say a game with savegames that has doesn't use online connection to play it. Another example: a password manager.
But as soon as you allow it any access to network resources then carrying state becomes a liability.
Safari already was lagging behind Chrome, Chrome forks and Firefox in a lot of feature adoption. This will only make it more of a "new Internet Explorer", a browser that sites recommend you NOT to use.
Are we absolutely sure they don't just mean the localstorage containers that aren't part of the current domain? In the same way they are clearing cookies from a different domain, and not the ones that belong to the current domain. EDIT: Clarification from a Webkit dev https://twitter.com/alexcroox/status/1242559843354972161
Basically, the ad tech/tracker folks were using first-party site storage to store identifiers, which is what Apple's trying to protect against.
I’m guessing that Apple will start hindering web apps because the new mouse support in iPadOS is going to be such a boon to web apps. Because of sandboxing, web apps are the only cross-platform apps that can run in their full versions on iPadOS. I wrote a quick summary of the situation[0]. Therefore, since native apps are more of a platform differentiator than web apps, moving forward we can expect Apple to start sys…
I really appreciate this link. I would have never seen this otherwise. It's kind of a disappointment for us on the enterprise side. Our main offering is an offline app where people are disconnected from the internet for weeks and we use localStorage to validate who they are. It's a bit vague about how this affects apps that don't use safari. Nevertheless, we might have to start to really think about the user experien…
Have you considered porting to a native application?
If tracking companies cannot use cookies they can use JS and local storage instead. Then they can keep tracking people for long periods.
So, in the escalating war Apple alters local storage so that non-use for more than 7 days doesn't keep data along. It becomes less valuable for use with tracking.
The trade-off is that offline web apps become less capable and some use cases go away (e.g., completely offline).
Which trade-off is better for whom and in general? I've not thought to know. But, the trade-off is worth pondering. Whether we agree with Apple or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not saying that it is OK to delete all your files. I am saying it has always been like that in the case of a browser's local storage. As I said, that use case was out of the window long before. From the start, as far as I know. No browser has ever given you any definite promise on whether your local storage data will be kept. That's also true for IndexedDB. So you need a mechanism to restore that data, be it clo…
I disagree. The IndexedDB was introduced as a permanent way to store data (which is not deleted after closing a website). As it is the only available standard for permanent storeage, I think it should be deleted only if the user asks to delete it (the same way you delete any other file in your computer). Of course, browsers are free to do whatever they want. But the user can (and will) switch to the software, which d…
Better title: Apple restricts tracking by limiting browser storage, which hurts my particular app. Browsers need to be severely limited due to them running arbitrary code from the web. Doesn't matter if it's an offline web app. If you want more access, make a native app (with or without web technologies).
> Apple restricts tracking by limiting browser storage But the argument that this will protect privacy in the first place seems really weak. Before this change in Apple's policy, an app could store my config data on my PC. After this change, they'd need to have me log in and send the config data to their servers. That seems like I've lost privacy, not gained it.
You'd have to log in. That's a hurdle that involves implicit consent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no such thing as an "unobtrusive" prompt.
Some browsers show an icon in the address bar when an app is requesting/can make use of an optional permission or feature. Clicking the icon allows you do grant the extra permission (i.e. allow cookies, enable, camera, etc.) but otherwise no additional prompt is shown. I think this is an excellent example of such an unobtrusive prompt and is how ALL such features should be implemented. Sites should get almost no perm…
When the site tells them to "active X permission" without telling them how to (for their specific browser version), most will leave instead.
When the site gives super detailed, up-to-date instructions on how to activate the feature, a very large percentage of users will still leave instead.
When the feature is so useful that many sites go through all thouse troubles and it's common enough for users to encounter this that they'll follow through, most will do so for every site that tells them to and entices them with "ACTIVATE X TO RECEIVE YOUR $10,000 PRIZE, LUCKY WINNER!!!".