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

491–500 of 593 posts

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

#491

Post by freediver »

mtomweb wrote: post #234
thewebcount wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox, Edge and Chrome have all been banned on iOS. No they haven't! You can download each one here: [0], [1], [2]. They have been forbidden from using their own rendering engines. But they can still add all the chrome they want to the UI and do all their usual tracking like they do on the desktop. [0] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browser/... [1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/microsoft-edge…

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/16...

And this would be completely wrong. These browsers differ so much in respecting user privacy, stance towards trackers, telemetry, using native controls and integration with native iOS services.

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

#492

Post by irae »

ibigb wrote: post #344

My TV appliance does not support other browsers; must every appliance be open and support multiple competing browsers? Is there some rational boundary where the appliance can be shipped and just work as it was designed, and not have to support everybody's choice of software? If there exist too many limitations without work arounds, why buy it?

I like your point and I smiled while reading it. I don't think this regulation is good either. But not for this particular reason.

The iPhone is a general purpose smartphone, and your TV is not. The "smart" part of the smartphone makes it useful without Safari. See apps that integrate with health devices or simpler uses like offline Google Maps. Neither are functioning as a "phone" but instead as a general use computer.

With the exception of the iPhone, no other general computing device is currently enforcing a single browser.

(And the "smart" in the "smart tv" does not get even close, as their apps can do almost nothing in comparison.)

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

#493

Post by m-p-3 »

Spivak wrote: post #455
MBCook wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Safari. I tried to use it. Garbage. As far as I’ve ever been able to tell it only existed to help people test the fake “apps” and their sites without buying an iPhone. As real apps were allowed and the iPhone became more popular (so devs had them for testing sites) that need went away. And so did Safari.

It’s wild to have such huge differences in experience, I bought my iPhone because I borrowed my friends and was shocked at how fast Safari was compared to mobile Chrome.

There were some limitations for third-party browsers on iOS that made them slower than Safari in the past, notably that they couldn't use the Nitro JavaScript Engine.

https://9to5mac.com/2014/06/03/ios-8-webkit-changes-finally-...

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

#494

Post by EMIRELADERO »

irae wrote: post #486
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you believe that the physical owner of a device should be entitled to complete control of the code that is executed in it? This goes beyond business models.

So you will be satisfied if Apple provides you with the option to replace iOS by whatever OS you can put there? Apple bundles the three levels (hardware, OS and Apps) and sells you the hardware. But Safari is tied to iOS and not to the hardware itself. So would you argue about an option to replace iOS instead of installing other browsers on iOS itself?

Yes, if I could have the ability to exert the same level of control over the hardware as Apple (including things such as the Secure Enclave) then it would be the ideal way.

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

#495

Post by freediver »

JamesSwift wrote: post #262
freediver wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. It is not semantic at all. Difference between a browser and a web rendering engine is huge. I am in a business of building a browser and although we get rendering engine for free, three years later and thousands of dev hours later, our browser is still in beta and half finished. [1] Building a general purpose web browser is one of the most challanging software development projects. This may not b…

Thats not the argument though, and its a bit of a difficult argument for Kagi specifically because it appears to be based on webkit I believe? The argument is: lets assume Kagi uses a non-webkit engine and is finished and live on desktop today. How much work would it be to now run against webkit? What is your feature set if you assume you are not able to modify the engine in any way?

We have a desktop WebKit browser and the amount of work needed for iOS browser is astonishing. So much that we didn’t even start working on the iPad version yet after three years. macOS, iOS and iPadOS are like three different operating systems with completely different UI/UX paradigms.

But we are not a good example. Take Firefox or Chrome on iOS, teams with hundreds of engineers. They are terrible mobile browsers. They feel completely out of place on an iPhone. Not because WebKit is bad, but because building a good, native, iOS browser is incredibly hard.

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

#496

Post by m-p-3 »

nemothekid wrote: post #56
bad_good_guy wrote: post #50

Earlier 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.

On the other end, the competition (namely Firefox) can't flourish either if all it can do is to be a skin with some sync features on top of Safari.

All Apple achieve with this is to slow down the inevitable, especially if the smaller players can't catch up because of it.

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

#497

Post by dwaite »

depressedpanda wrote: post #481
dwaite wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the parent's point was that they won't know it is _Chrome_ that is destroying their battery, just that their phone can't make it through half the day without a charge.

Android provides users with an easy way to check which apps and services are draining battery life. Doesn't iOS have similar functionality?

There is indeed a way for technical users to troubleshoot battery usage, although this does not necessarily help even technical users when the app turns out to be important.

iOS tends to make it significantly harder for applications to justify background processing, so I myself tend to find battery statistics less useful - you have apps which have a more voracious appetite than others, but typically only when you are actively gaining value from them.

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

#498

Post by lern_too_spel »

tshaddox wrote: post #173
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…

> On the other hand, this denies me from using an actual Mozilla Firefox web browser on iOS. At the same time, most desktop computer users are able to use Firefox and we can see how often they choose to do so.

Much more often than they choose to do so on iOS.

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

#499

Post by lern_too_spel »

kryptozinc wrote: post #411
echelon wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the world you're describing, the future of technology is owned by Apple and Google forever. They got there first, and they'll forever be the victors. They can tax it. They can starve the entire landscape of innovation capital and prevent other companies from ever growing large. They set the rules, and they have enough human and financial capital to keep the game going forever. That's not good for capitalism, the f…

> Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're describing a setting. Can you turn off all of these in Chrome?

I can turn it off on Android and MacOS. I would imagine iOS has a similar setting to MacOS for letting an app use Bluetooth.

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

#500

Post by yellowapple »

the_third_wave wrote: post #289
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 one is using Firefox on mobile I am No one, we are legion. Have been using FF on mobile since it became viable, many years ago. I just like my ads blocked and my data mine, that's why.

Right? Mobile web browsing is enough of a shitshow without ads cluttering everything; browsing on a phone without uBlock Origin sounds absolutely horrific.
Post reply on HN