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

#391

Post by depressedpanda » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 8:41 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #305

Jcowell wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One would say it would be disastrous to open a platform first and then take on Chrome because 1) Firefox cannot compete against Google endless resources m. Google will win, not a matter of it but will. 2) The time it takes to decouple chrome from google will be too long. It may just kill Firefox before any action can really be done.

Yeah I don't see why this math is so hard. If you force Apple to open up iOS then Chrome just takes it over and Safari will take such a hit that Apple will probably have to kill it. Then Google will own 99% of the portal to the web. I think I'm arguing with a bunch of Libertarians though who think that an unregulated market is some kind of magic sauce that will conjure up a Chrome competitor out of thin air, and not…

Why are you so certain that Apple will have to kill Safari if Chrome and other browsers are allowed on iOS?

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

#392

Post by smoldesu » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 8:52 PM UTC

viktorcode wrote: post #383

gunapologist99 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is using anti-competitive methods but its far far away from market domination. Apple Safari has, literally, 100% marketshare across the entire iPhone market. Its App Store also has 100% marketshare and enforces the Safari marketshare. I have an iPhone 13 Pro Max. I love the hardware, but I'd love to install other browsers; why can't I? I'd also love to run real PWA's or run WebRTC without major issues. Why sh…

Your "marketshare" definition is bogus. I could claim that Firefox has 100% marketshare of PlayStation consoles. There's no such market as devices of a single manufacturer.

...which is equally ridiculous. If Sony is actively preventing Playstation owners from installing other browsers with their control over app distribution, then that too should be considered malicious and just further indicates how necessary sweeping legislation like this is.

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

#393

Post by smoldesu » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #279

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.

If Safari is truly objectively better than other browsers, then it should have no problem competing with the likes of Chrome and Firefox. They can even keep pre-installing it too, as long as they give people the choice of other browsers then I'm happy.

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

#394

Post by barkerja » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 8:56 PM UTC

jacooper wrote: post #220

nicce wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Safari is the new IE, there is a difference between a monopoly while still being able to use a competing product (like chrome in other platfroms), and forcing Safari(WebKit) while hindering the web because of Apples interests.(2-3) Ehm. Chrome is the new IE. Apple is using anti-competitive methods but its far far away from market domination. Microsoft is doing even more, by pushing so much Edge-only stuff. On iOS A…

IEs biggest problem isn't market domination, its hindering the entire web, and pushing proprietary stuff. Safari is one of the worst browsers in terms of compatibility, like PWAs and notifications, they are unsupported on purpose to push developer to develop apps and give apple a cut. And when they do adopt new technologies, they are often super late like webp. Please die WebKit.

These features were actually recently added. See https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-16-preview/features/

Web push notifications

Adds support for opt‑in notifications on iOS. Coming in 2023.

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

#395

Post by lamontcg » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 8:56 PM UTC

depressedpanda wrote: post #391

lamontcg wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't see why this math is so hard. If you force Apple to open up iOS then Chrome just takes it over and Safari will take such a hit that Apple will probably have to kill it. Then Google will own 99% of the portal to the web. I think I'm arguing with a bunch of Libertarians though who think that an unregulated market is some kind of magic sauce that will conjure up a Chrome competitor out of thin air, and not…

Why are you so certain that Apple will have to kill Safari if Chrome and other browsers are allowed on iOS?

Because Chrome will instantly start to out compete it. And once Safari is pushed down below 25% share on iOS then sites will feel more and more free to avoid testing on Safari and push users towards just using Chrome. Not having two different engines to have to test against means that even more the web becomes something that works on Chromium by default and is totally broken on Gecko. That makes FF even worse, and Google will totally control Chromium and the engine that browsers like Edge and Brave work on top of and will be able to dictate (in the "dictator" sense of that word) what the engine does (and while they might be somewhat responsive to Microsoft, they won't be to Brave). And we already won the battle to keep Windows from tying the browser to the O/S on windows and watched while we lost the war and Google completely took the engine over. Cracking open iOS is going to let Google take over that platform as well, it isn't going to make life any better for Gecko or any other alternative engine.

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

#396

Post by fuu_dev » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 9:02 PM UTC

The iphone is over a decade old and safari should have been established as the default choice for users by now. Still the majority of comments points out that a open platform will lead to users switching away from safari. I think its not a legit concern if a product fails to meet the users requirements in that time period.

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

#397

Post by SalimoS » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

fuu_dev wrote: post #396

The iphone is over a decade old and safari should have been established as the default choice for users by now. Still the majority of comments points out that a open platform will lead to users switching away from safari. I think its not a legit concern if a product fails to meet the users requirements in that time period.

I know it’s pessimistic but the moment google search add a banner for chrome with a shitty UX (like now clicking the text field search box will bring it full screen and suggestions the rest of the screen) so any change in the chrome version will push all the users to it

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

#398

Post by avianlyric » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 9:05 PM UTC

JamesSwift wrote: post #243

brundolf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Preventing the execution of locally generated native code is a significant part of the iOS sandbox. It allows Apple to statically analysis binaries uploaded to the App Store and potential detect and prevent malicious instructions. Then they just need to harden the OS APIs, safe in the knowledge that you an app can’t execute arbitrary CPU instructions, and potentially escape kernel control. Allowing a JITed web browser on iOS means handing over the right mark arbitrary lumps of memory as executable, which substantially increases the available attack surface.

Having said that, I strongly suspect concerns around arbitrary code escaping kernel control only applies to older iPhone running substantially less sophisticated SoC than you find in a modern iPhone. Certainly any Apple SoC during the M1 era, and a good few generations before, have all the modern accoutrements needed to allow arbitrary code execution, while ensuring the kernel can always intercede and halt execution or block dangerous calls. If they didn’t have these abilities, then there’s no way an M1 Mac could efficiently run a VM, or be considered a secure platform by modern standards.

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

#399

Post by avianlyric » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 9:11 PM UTC

usrn wrote: post #81

xrisk wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doesn't see any of the code. They pay someone to poke at the GUI for ~15 minutes with an HTTP proxy running. That's it. If you want an app store where people see code use f-droid.

They don’t need to. They’re perfectly capable to statically analysing an app binary and looking for calls to APIs app aren’t allowed to use, or containing CPU instructions that are potentially dangerous.

We know this because when dev submit apps that call private APIs they get very quick rejection. But hiding private API call behind obfuscated blobs of dynamic code can get you through app review, provided you don’t expose the functionality in your UI.

Additionally the modern App Store deployment process involves uploading you app in an intermediate format, only partially compiled, so apple can dynamically recompile your app to target new CPUs, and optimism your app to use new hardware without intervention by the dev.

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

#400

Post by fuu_dev » Mon, Jun 27, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

SalimoS wrote: post #397

fuu_dev wrote: post #396

The iphone is over a decade old and safari should have been established as the default choice for users by now. Still the majority of comments points out that a open platform will lead to users switching away from safari. I think its not a legit concern if a product fails to meet the users requirements in that time period.

I know it’s pessimistic but the moment google search add a banner for chrome with a shitty UX (like now clicking the text field search box will bring it full screen and suggestions the rest of the screen) so any change in the chrome version will push all the users to it

This also dismisses that apple controls the platform and hardware what means it can easily and does use this position to their advantage.