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

71–80 of 593 posts

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

#71

Post by simiones »

JamesSwift wrote: post #23
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…

Why would they hit 90%? I assume the way this would play out is that most people would stick with the stock browser because they don't even know/care about alternatives. The people that do care would likely install the same browser they use on desktop. I don't think Chrome owns 90% of desktop market share.

According to this site [0], Chromium-based browsers' market share on desktop is ~79% today (Chrome, Edge, and Opera), with ~9% for Safari and 7% for FF.

[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...

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

#72

Post by bogwog »

aaomidi wrote: post #40
bogwog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially since Google is forcing some users on iOS to install the Youtube app as the default 2FA method instead of offering SMS.

SMS 2FA is broken. You have a bunch of other options including security keys, TOTP, and existing device verification flow.

I completely agree, I'm just saying that using the Youtube app makes it convenient for Google were they to try and push iOS users towards Chrome (e.g. by showing a banner every time you open the app).

I doubt most users are using a dedicated third-party authenticator.

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

#73

Post by spideymans »

simiones wrote: post #64
spideymans wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences. Just look at how the EU's cookie banners have eroded the UX of the open web as an example.

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 to tracking out of apathy. No, it's not what the EU intended to happen, but it was a consequence. Which brings me back to my original point: often times idealic and well-intentioned measure have negative consequences.

In hindsight, perhaps the EU should've legislated that the UX for the tracking content cannot be unreasonably annoying. I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.

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

#74

Post by mtomweb »

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.

OP here. That's actually incorrect.

We started OWA with a group of primarily Safari first developers, in that iOS Safari is our primary target platform. We've had over a decade of major issues from rendering bugs, to lack of functionality to our apps breaking for months at a time waiting for a patch. The severe underfunding of Safari/webkit coupled with a ban on competition meant that it was never going to be viable to ship Web Apps to iOS. So the question is, how do you convince the worlds richest company to invest a extra few hundred million/year into their own browser?

The answer is competition. Competition provides Apple a deep incentive to produce a capable, feature risk browser at risk of losing users to the other vendors. Each 1% of Safari users is worth 150m/year in google search revenue, a number so large it would make even Apple take notice.

As web developers we see the value in having browser engine competition, many of us lived through the IE6 era and know the risks of the monopolistic competitive behavior like we're seeing from Apple (Side-point: At no point did Microsoft ever ban the competition).

The status-quo where Safari/Webkit was both stifling the Web and Web Apps and providing no competitive pressure on Chrome/Edge/Firefox + the severe underinvestment from Apple meant that a regulatory solution was needed.

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

#76

Post by mccr8 »

bogwog wrote: post #29

IIRC, every video game console that ships with webkit has been jailbroken due to vulnerabilities in webkit. Off the top of my head at least, I know the following have been exploited that way: * PS4 * PS Vita * 3DS/New 3DS * Wii U * Wii Also maybe PS3/PSP and likely also PS5 will get the webkit exploit treatment at some point.

Are the versions of WebKit that ship on those consoles patched regularly and kept up to date? Probably not, so I don't think it is too relevant to how secure Safari is. There have been plenty of zero days for Chrome, but that doesn't mean it is somehow the least secure browser.

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

#77

Post by jacooper »

Apple claiming security as a reason for monopoly, how classic.

The EU's digital markets act bans the only Safari lock on IOS, so this is gone whether apple likes it or not. (1 - sorry couldn't find a better source)

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)

1. https://www.fudzilla.com/news/54763-apple-loses-out-in-the-d...

2.https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/23/opinion_column/

3.https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/14/telegram_safari/

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

#78

Post by JCWasmx86 »

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…

> I don't know how I'd go about codifying that into law though.

Simply make the DNT-Header a legally binding thing. If the user sends it, it means that only technically necessary cookies can be used.

This would require no UX from the side of the website, thus defeating all dark patterns at once

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

#79

Post by AlexandrB »

lucasyvas wrote: post #69
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…

It's not Apple's choice to make on whether or not Chrome becomes a browser monopoly - fighting anti-competitiveness with anti-competitiveness is not a solution. The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to deal with the aftermath. That's the way it has to be.

> 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?

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

#80

Post by xfalcox »

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…

Apple could be asked to provide a single alternative browser, like allowing a real Gecko-powered Firefox to solve both issues?
Post reply on HN