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

241–250 of 593 posts

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

#241

Post by jensensbutton »

aquanext wrote: post #159

Fortunately, there's user choice in phones. So get an Android device if you want to run Google's stuff? I mean, security is one angle, but let's talk power and memory usage. You're asking for Apple to allow Chrome's engine (because their app is on the App Store today right now) -- the giant well-known resource hog routinely toasting MacBook Pro users' thighs -- onto their fanless hyper-performant devices. Setting asi…

Yes, that's what I want. It turns out a phone and a web browser are different products.

This isn't rocket science.

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

#242

Post by briffle »

fartcannon wrote: post #236
vnkr wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't use FF on desktop partly because I don't use it on mobile and so can't sync open tabs, bookmarks, etc.

You can use Firefox on both desktop and mobile and sync it all. At least if your mobile is Android or Linux. And you can use ublock origin, too!

you can sync your bookmarks and tabs with the IOS version of firefox too, but no extensions.

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

#243

Post by JamesSwift »

brundolf wrote: post #169
JamesSwift wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its always been a sort of wink-wink agreement, never allowing exceptions as far as I'm aware. Its much more common to do post-release updates of JS than native, but I think every native dev has done some form of dynamic code at some point. In one app we did, we ended up disabling the dynamic update but still ran a handrolled VM with dynamically interpreted code files which we baked into the app. Its all manually revi…

Interesting. I'll admit I don't have much first-hand knowledge of the process > but I think every native dev has done some form of dynamic code at some point This is a little ambiguous; theoretically a VM - even a custom one - would still be above-board because the native code is static. My understanding was that the main problem with third-party browsers is third-party JS engines, but only because any modern JS engi…

We should be clear here that "JIT"/VM vs sandboxed code are two different considerations. Regardless of how your code is interpreted/compiled/run, you still are operating within the app sandbox. So most arguments about safety etc are fairly useless. The only "valid" line of argument is more in the UX space. Apple isn't able to vet the userflows in the same way if you do a post-release update.

And to be clear when I say a handrolled VM, I mean that the VM knows how to interpret dynamic things into native things. This is a lot more powerful in Objective-C since it uses message passing anyways so you could theoretically build a full app in some JSON payload. So sure your native code is static, but thats because its just 1 function called 'eval'. This is still possible in Swift but requires more explicitness since it doesn't have the same dynamicism built in.

It doesn't have to be entire apps that are custom though. Most app devs use it for things like customer-editable content. Think of things like the ability to update home screen layouts, or tab layouts/behavior. Depending on how much baked-in customization you build this can be extremely robust.

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

#244

Post by nwienert »

mtomweb wrote: post #74
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.

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…

It’s disheartening - you have good intentions but almost everything you say is backwards.

Regulation on Apple only is the opposite of encouraging competition, it’s literally calling shots against the only fighter that’s pushing back on Chrome in a significant way - on market share, and maybe more importantly, on privacy and avoiding bloating web standards to further avoid total lock-in on V8.

Second, Apple has been accelerating greatly Safari development for years now and I worry your entire organization can’t admit it’s actually a great browser and has rapidly caught up in terms of correctness and features, and is now in fact leading in many ways. That it rejects some proposals isn’t inherently wrong, by the way, and the reasoning for many is just. I’m afraid if you admitted that, it’d pop a bubble in one of your core tenets, and given you made this mission driven thing with a single purpose, you’re sort of now forced into an intellectually dishonest place.

Because as a long time web develop myself who went from IE to Firefox to Chrome to Safari as my main browsers over the years, there’s simply *no doubt* that Safari as of a year or two ago started whooping Chromes ass. Like not even close, it feels like a different type of thing. It’s insanely fast, across so many dimensions, lighter, and I don’t get incompatibility almost ever anymore.

Your mission would achieve the opposite of what it wants - Apples platform isn’t a monopoly, Google's are. Google has a monopoly on Search, Browsers, and influence on the web. This would only strengthen the worse/stronger fighter. And it's all premised on a fundamentally unsound critique of Safari.

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

#246

Post by shreyshnaccount »

judge2020 wrote: post #223
giancarlostoro wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're on about regular Firefox, not iOS Firefox which is just a UI wrapped around a WebKit component.

All of those features are possible on iOS via webkit. Regarding mobile browsers specifically, their advantage over Safari here is blocking cryptominer scripts and autoplay videos: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/mobile/compar...

But that's not the point-we want gecko and we want it to be good!

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

#247

Post by codedokode »

briandear wrote: post #224
kevinmgranger wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"actual" Firefox absolutely means using their engine.

The average consumer doesn’t know the difference nor care. They want to open webpages and have them work.

There is a difference. Gecko might implement features that would allow sites to work and look better in Firefox (for example, smoother scrolling, better animations, new CSS/HTML/JS features and so on). But Apple doesn't allow other browser engines, and Firefox cannot use this as an advantage to compete with Safari.

Also, if Apple allowed other browser engines with better support for new features, then web developers might stop caring about supporting Safari. This might be another reason why Apple doesn't want other browsers on their devices.

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

#248

Post by ginko »

judge2020 wrote: post #223
giancarlostoro wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're on about regular Firefox, not iOS Firefox which is just a UI wrapped around a WebKit component.

All of those features are possible on iOS via webkit. Regarding mobile browsers specifically, their advantage over Safari here is blocking cryptominer scripts and autoplay videos: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browsers/mobile/compar...

Adblocking only works* on vanilla Safari. I haven't gotten it to work on Firefox for iOS.

* For some degree of "works", ublock origin is way better

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

#250

Post by marricks »

m-p-3 wrote: post #119
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 fro…

No one is using Firefox on mobile so it’s good for you, but not web on the whole.

Also while an independent entity having a larger presence is better than Apple at least Apple having a large market share makes Google need to consider what happens in safari before they do something particularly shady with web standards

Post reply on HN