Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Home Screen Advantage

infrequently.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#191

Post by latexr »

93po wrote: post #178
latexr wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari does support extensions. And it has built-in Reader mode. And it needs none of that for this case since the website loads perfectly fine with no zigzagging required. What Apple is doing sucks, for sure, but let’s not lose sight of reality and make stuff up or misinform people.

Show me how to get ublock origin on safari in iOS. You can’t, and this is basically the top extension anyone wants, and so your blanket statement is also misinforming

I didn’t say it supports all extensions from all browsers. Thanks to manifest v3 uBlock Origin will also not be viable on what is by far the most popular browser. Will you also say Google Chrome doesn’t support extensions then?

It’s not like Safari can’t do ad blocking. It can, and solutions like 1Blocker are quite capable. It can even block at the system level, which is more than uBlock Origin in the browser does.

Either way, none of this is relevant to your first comment. Extensions aren’t even necessary for the original complaint. Please don’t move the goalposts.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#192

Post by charcircuit »

themoonisachees wrote: post #132
charcircuit wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, getting root permissions should not be possible. Having a concept of a super user which can do whatever they want is bad for security and doesn't follow the principle of least privilege. There are better ways for an OS to offer functionality than requiring such a dangerous concept to exist. The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far…

The entire web runs linux successfully and securely. Suggesting that Linux is insecure is mad, especially given the attack surface.

Considering there are websites that get bruteforced into that have a weak root password setup over ssh that is not true. Considering in the past there have been LPE exploits to get root it is relevant that root exists. Even without a LPE if you make a malicous NPM dependency which you have someone install on their server you can make it so that the next time the user issues sudo it steals the root password and runs malware as root. These things are bad for security. If you are not hearing about Linux users being hacked, or exploits that could have had their harm minimized, that is ignorance from you.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#193

Post by charcircuit »

rezonant wrote: post #114
charcircuit wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, getting root permissions should not be possible. Having a concept of a super user which can do whatever they want is bad for security and doesn't follow the principle of least privilege. There are better ways for an OS to offer functionality than requiring such a dangerous concept to exist. The fact that desktop and server Linux distros still have a root account, have sudo, or said binaries is evidence of how far…

MacOS also has sudo.

and iOS, a newer OS where Apple could easily redo their security model while ignoring legacy baggage does not have sudo.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#194

Post by throwawa14223 »

m1el wrote: post #52
throwawa14223 wrote: post #45

Maybe I don’t get it? I look at the list of features Apple is removing and they all seem like things I wouldn’t want a web browser to have to begin with.

Not a browser, but a PWA. It's a web page, which you can "install" as an "app". Features like storage, background tasks and notifications are important for many applications, for example a messenger. These were available, and there is a market for those, but Apple has decided to kill that market.

That makes a ton more sense thank you.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#195

Post by reactordev »

rezonant wrote: post #134
reactordev wrote: post #11

[flagged]

What exactly isn't happening yet?

1) While I agree there should be alternative stores on devices, entire portions of the DMA are unenforceable and plain english. A few of these were pointed out in the article but weren't followed up.

2) Apple can not deeply integrate into other browsers like it has with Webkit/Safari on iOS - The argument that they can just do the same integrations with all the other browsers to provide PWAs is fallacy and indicative of someone who doesn't know what that engineering effort is. They built the integration because they built both sides of the bridge to make it happen.

3) Are Apple being bullies? Yeah, for sure. But it's their device, their platform, and if the EU really wants to have a DMA, they need to create their own Apple, plain and simple. Apple should be barred from the EU if they can't comply with EU laws. But the EU laws need to be written in a way that holds weight and is enforceable. "Must provide alternative after 6 months of first service" isn't enforceable. If the decision is "Launch this but do it twice" or "Never launch this at all", never launch is going to win. And so, you all will never launch.

4) I get that having an app icon is all the rage but is it really that bad to just bookmark things? If you all want to avoid the Apple tax, provide a store that apple can present to the EU that allows for Apache Cordova PWA. I think the onus for this is on the EU. Not Apple. If there is such a store-front already (that's not used by pirates) I'm sure Apple would work with them to integrate for the EU market. A company shouldn't have to provide their own components to adhere to compliance requirements when their original offering was/is already accepted. If you want an alternative, go build one.

5) The article uses a lot of strong emotional language and straw-man arguments. Is it a bad move by Apple to remove PWA Home Dock capabilities? Yes. But what alternative could there be when they are forced to also provide that for 3rd-party browsers that they don't have the same integration with (because they didn't write the browser, the code, and integrating the same security controls could take years). The entire DMA is unrealistic, unenforceable, and would be unconstitutional in the US. It's not a companies job to provide alternative markets, fair or otherwise. It's the EU's. Built it. Force Apple to use it. That's how you win.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#196

Post by fillipvt »

JimDabell wrote: post #143
the_gipsy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to not understand the difference between income and profit.

I do, but unless you think Apple’s hundreds of billions in hardware revenue is some kind of loss leader, it’s irrelevant. Apple are a hardware company. It’s bizarre that you are trying to argue otherwise. They make more money from selling consumer hardware than practically every other company in the world.

aren't profit margins the main drivers for the decisions leading to this post to begin with? if revenue was all they cared about, I don't think what's happening would come to fruition

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#197

Post by 93po »

latexr wrote: post #191
93po wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me how to get ublock origin on safari in iOS. You can’t, and this is basically the top extension anyone wants, and so your blanket statement is also misinforming

I didn’t say it supports all extensions from all browsers. Thanks to manifest v3 uBlock Origin will also not be viable on what is by far the most popular browser. Will you also say Google Chrome doesn’t support extensions then? It’s not like Safari can’t do ad blocking. It can, and solutions like 1Blocker are quite capable. It can even block at the system level, which is more than uBlock Origin in the browser does. E…

Saying iOS safari can do extensions is like saying North Korea is a democracy, and me pointing out that it really isn’t is not moving the goal posts

And yes I agree with your example, I would no longer say chrome does extensions as a blanket statement. I’d say it has restricted extension functionality.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#198

Post by kevincox »

sebstefan wrote: post #79
aragilar wrote: post #24

Not an IPhone user: but honesty I'd rather have things open an actual browser tab, as then I can interact with it via all my standard extensions (e.g. adblockers), rather than be opened in a webview. Also, given how often you need to change phones (given build quality), if I have important data and you're a web app, I rather the server be the source of truth, and the phone a cache (so I don't loose data when the phon…

With Firefox Mobile on Android, you can confiure webviews to open as Firefox webviews as well, and my extensions seem to be running because I don't see ads there. They're still webviews of course, you don't get the tabs, bookmarks etc. Just webviews with extension support.

There used to be an option to redirect the Custom Tabs API to just open a regular Firefox tab. I loved that option as it replaced a reduced functionality API with the full thing. Too bad it got lost in the great fenix rewrite.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#199

Post by layer8 »

joshstrange wrote: post #161
meibo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people on this site have either worked for Apple before or hold Apple stock. Regulation is directly reaching into their pockets. Also obvious by how this post is already on 14th place after 2 hours, with more than 200 votes. (Edit: now 31, 3 hours in)

> Most of the people on this site have either worked for Apple before or hold Apple stock Is this supposed to be a joke? _Most_, so over 50% of the people on HN work/worked for Apple or hold Apple stock? That’s absurd.

And even if you hold Apple stock, that’s no reason to agree with their policies.

Re: Home Screen Advantage

#200

Post by pantulis »

pantulis wrote: post #96
Xelbair wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you aren't aware that EU courts judge on intent, not letter of the law.

I did not mean to say that Apple will get away with this, it's just that I don't expect the EU to be exactly fast in its response. As the FA says, it will take its sweet time and by then Apple will have reinforced their dominant position. Of course Apple and their legal teams already know that.

Well that happened really fast

https://www.ft.com/content/d2f7328c-5851-4f16-8f8d-93f0098b6...

Post reply on HN