Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by MasterYoda » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #250

m-p-3 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do :) And I think it is good and you could also use addons (like uBo) which is great. More should use it on mobile.

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

#272

Post by graftak » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:03 PM UTC

spideymans wrote: post #73

simiones wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the advertisers' cookie banners. The EU doesn't mandate cookie banners at all. It's the website's choice whether to pester users about having them accept targetting cookies. 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.

>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…

The opt-out action has be to be equally easy and discoverable as the opt-in, which is never implemented this way and only just started to get enforced.

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

#273

Post by tambourine_man » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

A few random thoughts:

• There's a place for closed platforms if open ones are a reasonable choice. A closed platform must not be the only choice available to the customer, but it should be allowed to exist given a healthy market. It's hard to argue that iOS is a monopoly, and if so, than a browser engine and JS interpreter with access to the open web is a very powerful thing that the owner of the platform may deem too powerful for its own good.

• Chrome's dominance of the Web is very scary. Not as scary as IE's, since it's open source, but still, it's such a huge beast that it's almost proprietary through complexity. I don't know if there's an easy solution out of this.

• The time it takes Apple to patch security flaws is not the main issue here and should not be the core argument. What if Apple steps up its game and gets really good at this? The issue is the strategic decision Apple is making and the discussion should be if a company that powerful should be allowed to make such decisions and impose them to the user.

• Apple could avoid this discussion by giving the user a one time only toggle switch to sideload any binary. It should be buried under many menus and preceded by lots of scary dialog boxes. It could even void battery warranty or something. Maybe keep a constant orange menu bar as a reminder that you are on your own and can't blame Apple for anything.

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

#274

Post by kennywinker » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

jpgvm wrote: post #37

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…

I don't think the IE comparison is apt. IE shipped on (almost) every machine, had a ton of lock in features like ActiveX, etc. MS actively abused their monopoly position to make it so preventing default installation of Netscape by OEMs, incentivising ISVs to ensure web based enterprise products shipped with "Works best in Internet Explorer" etc. Netscape lost market share to IE not because it lost users but because w…

If you use firefox or safari, you routinely encounter sites that don't work without chrome.

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

#275

Post by nemothekid » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:07 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #206

nemothekid wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace Apple with Microsoft and you get your answer. Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee success? Replace Apple with any company; do you think Google lacked the motivation and engineering skills to build a social network? Ignoring much of the fact how Google would leverage it's existing properties to make sure you couldn't open a single web page without being nagged about installing Chrome; it would t…

> Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee success? So then your answer is that Apple's browser is significantly worse than competitors, and that users wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for Apples anti-competitive behavior? > But to pretend this is about the "browser diversity > Just say you want Chrome I think most open web supporters would be a lot happier if Apple even simply allowed Fi…

>So then your answer is that Apple's browser is significantly worse than competitors, and that users wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for Apples anti-competitive behavior?

Yes. I hope it's exceedingly clear that I don't think Safari is God's gift to mankind.

>Are you saying that all someone would have to do is argue for allowing just Firefox

Yes. In fact they could be upfront and just say "just allow Chrome because I like developing for Chrome." But that's not what happens; it's "Apple is stifling competition because I want to use Netscape Navigator", when in actuality it's just developers that want to target a single platform, or Google who wants protect itself from Apple's power.

Maybe OWA is the exception here, but what I've found is the people making the most visible noise about this are connected to Google in some way. Consider this HN post from a couple days ago [1], where the author in his six-part series about browser choice, neglects to ever mention Chrome's dominance. Unsurprising that he was also a platform strategist at Google. You're telling me the guy who's job it is to make sure Google is an entrenched as possible doesn't like Apple's position on Safari? What a surprise. Then he tells you "don't worry about Chrome, this is about open standards!" - sounds underhanded to me.

At the very least, the cohort of users on Safari who can't switch prevents Google from just outright breaking some sites like Gmail and YouTube on every browser except Chrome.

[1] https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...

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

#276

Post by anonymousab » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:09 PM UTC

slenk wrote: post #264

marricks wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, supporting Firefox is good for the whole...how do you not understand that?

If you do something that benefits Firefox, but has an outsized benefit for Firefox' competitors (or rather, anti-Firefox hegemony) and the net effect is overall worse for Firefox, then that thing that benefited Firefox was not good.

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

#277

Post by Pakdef » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:10 PM UTC

freediver wrote: post #140

@dang The title is misleading. Apple is not banning other browsers (there are over 100+ browsers on iOS). Apple is restricting iOS browsers to using the WebKit rendering engine which is an entirely different matter. Edit: Apple is also not claiming what the title suggests (source would be needed), the author of the tweet seems to just interpret it this way.

Apple can block any web feature that they don't like, regardless of "browser"...

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

#278

Post by icedchai » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

Melatonic wrote: post #197

jpgvm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the IE comparison is apt. IE shipped on (almost) every machine, had a ton of lock in features like ActiveX, etc. MS actively abused their monopoly position to make it so preventing default installation of Netscape by OEMs, incentivising ISVs to ensure web based enterprise products shipped with "Works best in Internet Explorer" etc. Netscape lost market share to IE not because it lost users but because w…

Lets face it - IE always just sucked. A lot. Whereas Chrome does not. Here on HN we might rail on it mainly for ideological reasons but the user experience is pretty solid. This is coming from a Firefox user.

Do you remember the early 2000's? IE was your only choice for a decent browser. Netscape was bordering obsolescence (bad CSS support, generally unstable, slow rendering.) Even Apple was shipping it on the Mac! It wasn't until the 2.0 release of Firefox in 2006 that there was finally a decent alternative.

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

#279

Post by hinkley » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

tambourine_man wrote: post #273

A few random thoughts: • There's a place for closed platforms if open ones are a reasonable choice. A closed platform must not be the only choice available to the customer, but it should be allowed to exist given a healthy market. It's hard to argue that iOS is a monopoly, and if so, than a browser engine and JS interpreter with access to the open web is a very powerful thing that the owner of the platform may deem t…

Apple gets the battery performance they do by being very opinionated about who gets to chew on the CPU. Safari is equally opinionated, but third party browsers aren't. I don't like that Firefox on iOS is a shadow of what it is on other platforms, but at least academically I understand why it is the way it is.

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

#280

Post by petmon » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 6:12 PM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #215

AlexandrB wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's the way it has to be. What? Why? I assure you that's not how Google thought of it when they were facing off against Firefox and IE. They were putting Chrome installers in every SourceForge download and telling you to install Chrome when you searched Google. Why should their competitors lie down and let Chrome roll over them?

Did the Chrome installers install themselves? Besides, if users were already using other browsers, installing Chrome wouldn't have affected their existing browser's functionality. It was their choice to try out the new browser, and they could always go back to their old browser if they so desired.

Yes Chrome installers install themselves. Chrome is bundled with installers for unrelated products, and you have to deliberately uncheck it to not install it. Example:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antivirus/comments/on99mk/avg_antiv...