Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 329 posts

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#291

Post by danShumway »

mrtksn wrote: post #289
danShumway wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, if you go to any website on mobile, you get a big popup telling you to install a native app. What would be different? Getting asked to enable a browser feature is not more annoying than getting asked to exit the app and install a brand new native app with worse sandboxing and privacy. It's at most the same level of annoying.

There's some barrier of entry(buy an account and create documents describing your app) to have a mobile app, with PWA it will be removed and you will have every single website trying to make you "install" their web app, just like every single website is trying to take your e-mail address or make you create an account. The app experience is almost always better because you always have more screen real estate, higher p…

What barrier of entry? We've already had notifications on the web for 6 years, and the experience isn't what you describe. It's far more common for me to run into a website asking me to install a native app than it is for me to see websites asking to display notifications. Nobody wants to be forced to install a native app to order a pizza or check their bank balance. It's better if we can do those things on a website without installing an entire application.

> The app experience is almost always better

Strong disagree. Even on iOS native apps are more invasive and have fewer privacy controls than a website does. That's why all of these websites want you to install apps. Facebook isn't asking you to install their app because it'll be a better experience for you, they're asking you to install their app because then they can request contact permissions.

> 0) [...] 1) [...] 2) [...] etc...

This is just nonsense. You're arguing that configuring a browser to default-deny permission prompts is a worse experience than getting badgered to install a completely separate application every single time you visit Reddit.

And to your point on advertising, this is a good reason to have an app environment that supports competent adblocking. Neither Safari nor iOS provides APIs to do that for websites or for native apps.

This all kind of boils down to, you have an environment with less sandboxing, less privacy, less granular permissions, and a longer install process (visit a site, switch apps, download and install a new app, switch apps again, then uninstall and clean up when you're done); but it's OK because the process of building an app is so cumbersome that a lot of businesses won't bother? This may not be the persuasive argument you think it is.

I mean, you can tell me all you want that notification prompts are worse than the current system of websites constantly asking to exit the website and install a new thing that gives them native file access to my phone, but... I browse the mobile web. I know what the mobile web is like from day-to-day experience, notification prompts are not the reason that the mobile Reddit website is annoying to use.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#292

Post by heavyset_go »

Anktionaer wrote: post #192
heavyset_go wrote: post #17

> (Conversely, if Safari refuses to implement some alleged 'feature', it becomes much less useful even if Chrome does implement it.) The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps. I recently worked on a heal…

I don't get that, why not just not support safari if they intentionally make it difficult?

Because we don't think it's fair that sick people can't access the care they need because they have the wrong phone or tablet.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#293

Post by egeozcan »

melq wrote: post #282
ralusek wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I said "I don't want bears to be able to maul me in my sleep," and someone said "here's an option you can check which prevents that from ever happening," please explain to me how that failed to solve my problem.

OP didn't say "I want to prevent chrome from sending notifications". If he did, then sure, having an option toggle would solve his problem. But that's not what he said. He said he doesn't want chrome to be able to push notifications to his phone. Having an option to disable that feature means it is has to be possible in the first place. Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but to me the distinction matters.

Then it should be said "I don't want Chrome pushing notifications on anyone's phone, ever".

If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)

I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Firefox. For example ebay-kleinanzeigen. Why should I install an app for that purpose?

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#294

Post by melq »

egeozcan wrote: post #293
melq wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP didn't say "I want to prevent chrome from sending notifications". If he did, then sure, having an option toggle would solve his problem. But that's not what he said. He said he doesn't want chrome to be able to push notifications to his phone. Having an option to disable that feature means it is has to be possible in the first place. Maybe I am being overly pedantic, but to me the distinction matters.

Then it should be said "I don't want Chrome pushing notifications on anyone's phone, ever". If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :) I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Fire…

I hope I'm not coming off as contentious, and I know I'm sort of beating a dead horse here, but I really feel like this distinction matters, so bear with me:

>Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :)

Yes, it is able to send notifications. It won't (or shouldn't, at least) but it is still capable of sending notifications.

If I put my manual transmission car in first gear, it's never going to shift to second, but it still able shift to second.

Lets say I told you your showerhead has the capability to live stream your showers on youtube, but that feature has been toggled off. I'm sure you would understand if some people didn't want that to be possible in the first place, whether or not you agree with them.

> Why should I install an app for that purpose?

I'm not saying you should! I'm not arguing the merits of the original opinion, I'm simply saying there is a difference between whether an application can do something, and whether it will do something.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#295

Post by egeozcan »

melq wrote: post #294
egeozcan wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then it should be said "I don't want Chrome pushing notifications on anyone's phone, ever". If you want it for yourself, you can make it happen. If you change a setting that disables ALL notifications for Chrome in your Android phone, your condition is satisfied. Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :) I want selected websites to be pushing notifications to me through Fire…

I hope I'm not coming off as contentious, and I know I'm sort of beating a dead horse here, but I really feel like this distinction matters, so bear with me: >Chrome is not able to send notifications, unless the developers find a workaround :) Yes, it is able to send notifications. It won't (or shouldn't, at least) but it is still capable of sending notifications. If I put my manual transmission car in first gear, it…

If you turn off notifications for Chrome, it can't send notifications. If you rip off your transmission, your car can't switch to first gear.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#296

Post by sbuk »

littlestymaar wrote: post #266
sbuk wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got any evidence, tangible or otherwise, of (2)?

In French[1] (2014) linking to a Bloomberg link behind a paywall[2]. There's no evidence that they have done anything like this yet, but they at least considered it and their privacy policies allows it as soon as they decide it's worth it. And you wouldn't necessarily know it. Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can. [1…

So your first source (from 2014) is based on Withings working with AXA and is also speculation based on your second source, who's reporting it must be pointed out is of an extremely dubious nature (cf. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...) which has been debunked and vehemently refuted by all parties, including the very sources Bloomberg cite in the article.

Sorry, no. Did Apple consider it? Possibly, in fact it almost a certainty. More importantly, did the act on it? No. Nothing wrong with exploring options.

Let's not engage in slippery-slope hypotheses.

> Just because a company's marketing says they respect your privacy doesn't mean they do, especially when their privacy policy says they can.

You still haven't shown us where it says they can. I'll take your word for it...

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#297

Post by heavyset_go »

bluecalm wrote: post #123
heavyset_go wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try explaining to users that the feature they want and expect doesn't work for them because their particular browser doesn't support it, despite it working on every other browser and platform. The only solution I see is telling users to "use the app", which doesn't exist yet.

You tell them it doesn't work on iPhone because of Apple policy such and such and to go complain to Apple if they want the feature. If enough people do it then maybe things change. If developers continue caving and not letting users know there will be no pressure on Apple.

I agree on principle, but I'm not telling sick people that.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#298

Post by heavyset_go »

katbyte wrote: post #251
heavyset_go wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but the real result of that would have sick people punished for the wrong choice of phone.

Or you just send them a text?

We already do texts and emails[1]. Users wanted desktop and mobile notifications, as well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26520303

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#299

Post by Klwohu »

heavyset_go wrote: post #17

> (Conversely, if Safari refuses to implement some alleged 'feature', it becomes much less useful even if Chrome does implement it.) The fact that Apple refuses to implement basic features in mobile Safari that Firefox and Chrome have had for years now, and the fact that they refuse to allow other browser engines on iOS is the reason why we can't have nice things like progressive web apps. I recently worked on a heal…

Some "features" are harmful to the users and only exist for the convenience of Google and other data mining and spying companies.

Re: Safari is now probably the influential wild card browser for user privacy

#300

Post by bashinator »

asaddhamani wrote: post #77
heavyset_go wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This app helps sick patients navigate the healthcare system. Notifications were requested by users so that they don't need to continuously go back to the web app to see if there are any updates.

How about sending notifications over email?

I use apps like this to manage my health care. Email would be a significantly worse experience than notifications.
Post reply on HN