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

Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 593 posts

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#111

Post by cptskippy »

cowtools wrote: post #70
nemothekid wrote: post #56

Earlier 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.

I want Firefox on iOS, and I want Tor Browser on iOS, and I want Lynx on iOS, and I want wget on iOS, and I want youtube-dl on iOS, and I want to run whatever the hell I damn well please on iOS. Underhanded? It's pretty clear that your stated goals don't align with your real goals here. Edit: I have a hard time putting into words why your arguments seem so deceptive to me. It is like whataboutism: the arguments you a…

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#112

Post by titusjohnson »

lucasyvas wrote: post #95
MBCook wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath 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.

The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though. We just can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may be for future generations to solve. Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

> Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know?

History.

> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability

Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#113

Post by JCWasmx86 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #110
JCWasmx86 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I admire your stance on the internet being open I disagree. Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the competition. But you missed one point: You assume all players will play fair in the competition. If all browser engines would be allowed over night, what would happen: Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube videos stutter/have lower…

> There was even a precedent for something similar: [1] No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.

Maybe precedent was an unfair word - I apologize - but it shows, how Google can/could use the power of having one of the most used websites in order to influence the choice of the browser.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#114

Post by mturilin »

toyg wrote: post #63
thayne wrote: post #22

Earlier 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.

I think this won’t work because Chrome doesn’t have independent business model. Also, if Chrome is removed from Google they could create another alternative based on Chromium since it’s open source.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#115

Post by nailer »

cptskippy wrote: post #111
cowtools wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want Firefox on iOS, and I want Tor Browser on iOS, and I want Lynx on iOS, and I want wget on iOS, and I want youtube-dl on iOS, and I want to run whatever the hell I damn well please on iOS. Underhanded? It's pretty clear that your stated goals don't align with your real goals here. Edit: I have a hard time putting into words why your arguments seem so deceptive to me. It is like whataboutism: the arguments you a…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#116

Post by lucasyvas »

titusjohnson wrote: post #112
lucasyvas wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though. We just can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may be for future generations to solve. Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

> Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? History. > If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.

Man, I use Firefox for Christ sake. You don't have to be anti open web to know letting anti-competitive behaviour run rampant is even worse than having the open web that we have today.

Your perspective is as insane to me as mine is to you. Don't let a corporation make decisions about your computing freedom for you.

Anti-competitive behaviour from both sides is why we're in this situation (Apple/Safari/Chrome) to begin with.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#117

Post by mtomweb »

JCWasmx86 wrote: post #107
mtomweb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source was the DMA final text: https://twitter.com/OpenWebAdvocacy/status/15271019882567229... Also many have now spoken up against it: ### Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Apple’s restrictions on third-party browsers, and the limitations it puts on Safari/WebKit (its own browser tools) have hobbled “web apps,” which run seamlessly inside a browser. This means that app makers can’t deliver a single, browser-based…

> proprietary WebKit That is not true. WebKit is opensource, there are other browsers that use it (GNOME Web), it is used in a lot of other applications, like GNOME Builder, Devhelp.

It doesn't matter if WebKit is open source or not (in the context of the topic) because only Apple can make modifications to the WebView on iOS. Adding or removing functionality, fixing bugs is entirely under Apple's control.

On iOS third party browsers: ● Can't pick their own browser engine ● Can't pick which version of Webkit they wish to us ● Can't turn browser engine features on or off using flags ● Can't add entirely new browser engine features ● Can't edit browser engine features ● Can't entirely remove browser engine features ● Don't even get all the features of Webkit that iOS provides Safari ● Get a more restricted version of Webkit than the one iOS provides Safari Safari and the WebView that browsers use do not get the same level of access) ● Use a version of Webkit provided that is tied to iOS system updates as opposed to packaged with the third party browser

On Android third party browsers: ● Can use their own browser engine ● Can pick which version of Blink they wish to use (if they are using Blink at all) ● Can turn browser engine features on/off using flags ● Can add entirely new features to Blink ● Can edit existing features in Blink ● Can completely remove features from Blink ● Don’t have to use Blink at all

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#118

Post by AlexandrB »

lucasyvas wrote: post #95
MBCook wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath 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.

The death of the open web as we currently know it could lead to an even better successor over time though. We just can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may be for future generations to solve. Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

> If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced by something else.

These are all systems and projects created and run by human minds. Nothing is "inevitable" and nothing "deserves" to die. These are just outcomes of choices by users, vendors, and regulators. I think many people here are advocating for choices that would keep some kind of competition to Chrome alive. You seem to be advocating for the opposite. That's not necessarily wrong or bad, but Chrome becoming a total monopoly is not "inevitable" either.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#119

Post by m-p-3 »

MBCook wrote: post #14

I’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…

On the other hand, this denies me from using an actual Mozilla Firefox web browser on iOS.

Imposing an artificial limit on iOS isn't how the web will move forward.

> Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web.

I don't see Apple making any effort to diversify the browser ecosystem by making their browser available on other operating systems, so their inaction on other fronts isn't going to reverse the trend either.

Re: Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security

#120

Post by robertoandred »

smoldesu wrote: post #57
mtomweb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS is the only market Safari actually competes in and has the same advantage by being the default. I would actually expect the most likely outcome is Apple would fight hard to build a better browser to stem any losses to other browsers. They'll have at least 2 years to do it, so they can catch up in that time with enough investment.

They definitely have the capital to make it happen. Every time I boot up Safari after a MacOS update, I'm consistently wowed by how little of their revenue actually goes in to making a comfortable, feature-complete browser. It's almost like you're using a different, nerfed internet with Safari, but maybe that's just me being angry that uBlock Origin doesn't work anymore.

There are plenty of ad blockers for Safari, not sure what nerfed experience you're referring to.
Post reply on HN