Hope that doesn't kill ungoogled-chromium
Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
11–20 of 165 posts
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#12Next step: The browser must not be anything but Chrome.
Please stop spreading FUD on HN.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#13Will iOS mail app still work?
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#14What does this mean for IMAP?
Nothing. IMAP doesn't use the web signin form that these changes apply to.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#15This has nothing to do with security and everything to do with banning tools like youtube-dl, wget and others; from the post: > The browser must identify itself clearly in the User-Agent. The browser must not try to impersonate another browser like Chrome or Firefox. > The browser must not provide automation features. This includes scripts that automate keystrokes or clicks, especially to perform automatic sign-ins.…
If you'd bothered to read a little more before knee-jerking a reaction comment, you'd know this is only for the authentication flow.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#16This presumably means they are banning Chrome Lite?
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#17Next step: The browser must not be anything but Chrome.
They need non-Chrome browsers to exist, to avoid accusations of a monopoly. Chromium is arguably a strategy around this, where you can have a bunch of browsers using the same (Google controlled) infrastructure.
Safari is an exception, since Apple won't accept giving that up in their products.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#18Anti-trust action can't come fast enough.
They just got some friends elected. Wouldn't count too much on the DOJ being impolite with big tech the next 4 years.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#19What does this mean for IMAP?
Not much. If you're not using app passwords and your client wants to authenticate using Google auth (e.g. Thunderbird), it has to open the user's browser and setup the oauth flows instead of embedding the browser directly in the app.
Re: Guidance to developers affected by effort to block less secure browsers, apps
#20Next step: The browser must not be anything but Chrome.
>Next step: The browser must not be anything but Chrome.
It seems like that'd be difficult without somehow dealing with Apple first, maybe by getting the government to force them to allow Chrome. Which could happen. Some of the "antitrust" stuff getting tossed around is already starting to get exploited by entities like advertisers, and not just big ones like Facebook, there were those EU ones recently. Like all power, Apple's focusing of its user's collective power can be used not just for bad stuff but for very good stuff as well. But that nuance doesn't seem to be present in a lot of the last year's discussions, and of course lobbyists will use the opportunity if they can.
Without that though or another big disruptive shift Apple misses, can even Google afford to give up on the entire iOS market? Even the Mac market perhaps, if Apple really wanted to push back against Google there they've certainly got the potential capability.
Restricting to just Chrome/Safari(Apple webkit) would still be really bad though. Even if they still allow Firefox, that would further formalize just 3 browsers with minimal further experimentation still possible. That'd be a real shame.