So they are saying that they can't make a secure sandbox? Why is running other applications somehow secure?
fwiw: the App Store also prohibits JITed code or in general code pulled in after app publishing. I guess the idea is that (at least in theory) that Apple sees all code that an app runs.
Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
81–90 of 593 posts
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, you are happy to have Apple provide no user choice, because you fear a future where there is no user choice?
No; my problem is when people are using the "open web" as a bludgeon to get Apple to allow Chrome on iOS. If you want Chrome on iOS, just say that. To pretend that there is open future of browser diversity once Chrome is allowed on iOS is underhanded.
OWA members have actually been actively reporting WebKit bugs and interacting with the Safari team to help prioritise features and bug fixes on Twitter and elsewhere, showing the goal is to improve the overall web experience on iOS, not allow Chrome to become dominant. Here is one of their detailed bug report: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/interop-2022/issues/84.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#83I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
No; my problem is when people are using the "open web" as a bludgeon to get Apple to allow Chrome on iOS. If you want Chrome on iOS, just say that. To pretend that there is open future of browser diversity once Chrome is allowed on iOS is underhanded.
OP here. That's actually incorrect. We started OWA with a group of primarily Safari first developers, in that iOS Safari is our primary target platform. We've had over a decade of major issues from rendering bugs, to lack of functionality to our apps breaking for months at a time waiting for a patch. The severe underfunding of Safari/webkit coupled with a ban on competition meant that it was never going to be viable…
There is no competition. There is only Chrome.
This is what I was talking about. There will only be one result to opening iOS and it scares me.
FF/Opera are too small. Edge is small and really just Chrome anyway. If we had a healthy browser market I’d be fine. But we don’t.
Apple is, for the wrong reason, the only thing keeping us from total Chrome dominance.
I want one of these “just open iOS” calls to include the consequences of what they’re calling for and how they plan to deal with it.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#85I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…
It's not Apple's choice to make on whether or not Chrome becomes a browser monopoly - fighting anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness is not a solution. The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath. That's the way it has to be.
The aftermath could be the complete death of the open web. Unwinding that may be nearly impossible.
There needs to be a plan in place before Pandora’s box is opened.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#86IIRC, every video game console that ships with webkit has been jailbroken due to vulnerabilities in webkit. Off the top of my head at least, I know the following have been exploited that way: * PS4 * PS Vita * 3DS/New 3DS * Wii U * Wii Also maybe PS3/PSP and likely also PS5 will get the webkit exploit treatment at some point.
The jailbreakme app wasn’t exploit on WebKit. It was iOS native pdf rendering Library. WebKit was used to deliver the exploit.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#87I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…
It's not Apple's choice to make on whether or not Chrome becomes a browser monopoly - fighting anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness is not a solution. The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath. That's the way it has to be.
If the regulator does not step in they are choosing the status quo which by itself also is a deliberate choice. Inaction is always also a form of action.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The most natural implementation of the EU directive would be to have a place in User Settings where users can go and enable targeted advertising if they want it. And why would we assume that these companies would follow the "most natural implementation"? The very predictable response of the industry to the EU directive was to make the cookie banners as annoying as invasive as possible, such that users would consent…
> I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though. Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used. This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once
I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the current regulations. However I can’t help but feel that the “loopholes” in the current regulations were intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate friends to exploit.
Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#89Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if chrome did have 90%+ market share maybe we would finally see some antitrust regulation against Google's monopoly (ideally splitting chrome off from Google). Although there is no guarantee that would happen.
This. If Chrome reaches certifiable monopoly levels, it becomes easier to use anti-monopolistic instruments to force them to unbundle browser-making from other activities - which is really how things should be.
That’s kind of the point I was trying to make.
You need to do that stuff before, or at the same time as, opening iOS. Otherwise we’ll just have a disaster.