[HN Gopher] Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for sec...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple's claim is that it bans other browsers for security
Author : mtomweb
Score : 368 points
Date : 2022-06-27 14:00 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| strofcon wrote:
| Tl;dr - "Profitable company makes reasonable decision to stay
| profitable."
|
| I don't really understand why the walled garden seems to still
| surprise so many people.
| saurik wrote:
| Just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean it is
| necessarily legal or ethical; meanwhile, Apple refuses to admit
| that "tl;dr" in public--quite likely because they appreciate
| the practice might not be legal and certainly isn't ethical--
| and so are attempting to instead claim it is _justified_ , and
| so it is important to refuse to allow Apple employees that cop
| out and instead call them out for what we know to be the actual
| truth here.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's not surprising; it's frustrating.
| amelius wrote:
| So they are saying that they can't make a secure sandbox?
|
| Why is running other applications somehow secure?
| hnov wrote:
| I think iOS makes use of NX bits such that for your vanilla
| app, the executable pages aren't writable and writable pages
| aren't executable. Historically, this resulted in WebViews not
| having JS JIT which severely impacted performance. Apple later
| came out with WKWebView which underneath the covers runs the
| browser engine as a standalone process which is able to write
| executable memory and thus able to JIT JS.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Yeah thats the part that always bugs me and makes me lean
| toward it being a disingenuous reason. Like... thats the entire
| point of your sandbox. It doesn't matter if you run program A
| or program B, from the system's perspective the risk is the
| same.
| TheDong wrote:
| If an attacker has a way to escape the browser javascript
| sandbox on webkit and also has an iOS app sandbox exploit, that
| right now will pwn any iOS user who clicks a malicious link.
|
| If I can run firefox instead, and that javascript sandbox
| exploit was already patched in firefox, the iOS app sandbox
| escape won't do them any good. They can't get through the
| earlier layer to exploit it.
|
| The claims being made here is that the first layer, the browser
| exploit, is easier with safari/webkit, and the second layer,
| the iOS sandbox escape, is identical. Even if it only changes
| one layer of security, that is still a meaningful change and is
| more secure.
|
| There are additional factors too.
|
| Right now, if you have a webkit vuln, but no iOS sandbox
| escape, you can still steal cookies from other sites, browser
| history, exfiltrate passwords, etc. The browser engine is a
| valuable target on its own, even ignoring the rest of the
| system.
| xrisk wrote:
| 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.
| brundolf wrote:
| Not all code pulled in after app publishing; it's very common
| to push at least JS code to an app after the user's installed
| it, without going through the App Store
|
| But I think they draw the line at _native_ (read: unsafe)
| code, which, is not totally unreasonable
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Its always been a sort of wink-wink agreement, never
| allowing exceptions as far as I'm aware. Its much more
| common to do post-release updates of JS than native, but I
| think every native dev has done some form of dynamic code
| at some point. In one app we did, we ended up disabling the
| dynamic update but still ran a handrolled VM with
| dynamically interpreted code files which we baked into the
| app. Its all manually reviewed in the end, so no guarantees
| they would even catch it anyways.
| brundolf wrote:
| 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 engine has to JIT
| in order to perform the way people expect; the app
| developer takes responsibility for generating unsafe
| native code, which has the potential to wreak all kinds
| of havoc on the user 's system in a way that dynamically-
| updated JS code for example can't
|
| It would be interesting to try and submit a fully-custom
| browser with a non-JIT JS interpreter to the App Store. I
| bet they'd allow it; just, nobody would use it because it
| would be slow as mud
| JamesSwift wrote:
| 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 say a handrolled VM, I mean that
| the VM knows how to interpret dynamic things into native
| things. This is a lot more powerful in Objective-C since
| it uses message passing anyways so you could
| theoretically build a full app in some JSON payload. So
| sure your native code is static, but thats because its
| just 1 function called 'eval'. This is still possible in
| Swift but requires more explicitness since it doesn't
| have the same dynamicism built in.
|
| It doesn't have to be entire apps that are custom though.
| Most app devs use it for things like customer-editable
| content. Think of things like the ability to update home
| screen layouts, or tab layouts/behavior. Depending on how
| much baked-in customization you build this can be
| extremely robust.
| avianlyric wrote:
| 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.
| criddell wrote:
| There are development environments that run on the device.
| For example, Pyto[1] is for developing and running Python
| code.
|
| [1]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/pyto-python-3/id1436650069
| MBCook wrote:
| But that's probably a regular interpreter, not a JIT.
| judge2020 wrote:
| That doesn't use JIT. In theory a browser like Chrome
| doesn't have to either, but then Apple might be lambasted
| since presumably JIT is required to be competitive against
| Safari in terms of performance.
| bogwog wrote:
| I suspect that has more to do with preventing an App Store
| competitor than security. Apps are completely sandboxed on
| iOS, and there's no way in hell Apple is auditing every app
| on the store in any meaningful way.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > A testing tool called Mercury runs through static and
| dynamic analysis processes, with the tool allowing Apple to
| see inside apps to check for hidden code or abuse, and
| there are other review tools that Apple has nicknamed
| "Magellan" and "Columbus." After automated testing, apps
| receive human oversight.
|
| > Dynamic testing includes everything from battery usage to
| file system access and privacy requests to access device
| hardware like the camera and microphone, while static
| analysis checks app size, entitlements, in-app purchases,
| keywords, descriptions, and more.
|
| > In 2015, Apple discussed acquiring SourceDNA, a company
| that made a tool to allow companies to see the code inside
| apps. Apple did end up purchasing the company and using its
| engineers to design a new tool for app oversight.
|
| https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-rejected-
| approxim...
| usrn wrote:
| 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.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Maybe there are random deep inspections, but yea usually
| it's just some poor soul poking the UI and scanning some
| superficial analysis.
| avianlyric wrote:
| 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.
| mtomweb wrote:
| They allow Wechat and Alipay to pull in code after publishing
| (See Mini-Apps). Regardless there's no evidence that Safari
| would do a better job at protecting user's security than
| Firefox or Chrome/Edge.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Based on this video[0], it looks like "mini-apps" are just
| webviews, as everything is either .js, .css, or .wxml
| (html). Thus, anything that integrates with WeChat or
| system APIs is going through some API within the wechat
| binary itself which allows Apple's static analysis to
| inspect the API usage during App Store review.
|
| 0: https://youtu.be/cOm9XKga7l0
| mtomweb wrote:
| Ish. There's bridges to native functions and there are a
| lot of functions.
|
| For example you can write a mini-app that connects to
| bluetooth. It's essentially loading dynamic code that
| bridges to native code.
| paulmd wrote:
| So your point is... that bluetooth is accessible via
| browser api? Yes, that's true, Bluefy is a whole browser
| built around that API, for example.
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetoo...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/bluefy-web-ble-
| browser/id14928...
|
| So what? Apple has never required review of every web
| page you load with safari, regardless of which browser
| APIs they use... the browser is the browser. That is the
| farthest Apple goes on "dynamic content" but yes, it is
| potentially a pretty wide net given the various APIs and
| extensions. But from Apple's perspective it is also a
| _defined_ boundary.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| In practice this is complete bullshit, most apps pull some
| code in some way or another.
| alexklarjr wrote:
| MBCook wrote:
| 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 fear we may get a pyrrhic victory if these
| groups/governments keep pushing.
|
| No, I don't know a good solution. But I don't think letting
| Chrome totally own the web is a good outcome.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > I'm going to ignore the security angle
|
| That's the whole purpose of this post. Instead you want to fear
| monger and deflect from a sore subject for Apple.
| MBCook wrote:
| Their argument (which others have pointed out flaws with) is
| Safari is a security issue so Apple needs to open up.
|
| I'm saying _even if they're right about security_ (which I
| doubt) the fallout will be so much worse we shouldn't do it.
|
| This is not something you can look at in a vacuum. There are
| serious ramifications to their suggestion and they need to be
| realized.
| adamius wrote:
| Why does Apple get to choose how its competitor gets to
| compete?
|
| We give microsoft plenty of flak for anti-competitive behavior.
| It deserves it too. Its not hard to see why.
|
| But so does Apple.
|
| Now why can't I install my silly joke app? Oh that's right
| Apple won't let me install my joke app on my devices or friends
| for more than a week or so _for reasons._ Even though it can be
| easily tracked to me, its signed etc.
|
| Why is that? Control.
|
| Why can't I have a linux vm chugging away on ipados? Apple says
| no. Why? Control.
|
| If Apple wants to exert this much control then it really needs
| to accept liability. So those security defects? Where's the
| service level agreement to time limit those glaring holes?
|
| Its therefore unacceptable for Apple to be slow to fix an issue
| when its competitor could have already fixed it. Oh wait, there
| are no competitors on ios since no one is allowed to compete.
| You must use webkit. How is that not anti-competitive?
| veilrap wrote:
| No one is forced to use Apple products at all. Choosing an
| Apple product over non-apple products is a choice. There is
| extensive competition with Apple products. Choosing to buy an
| iPad, and being upset that they can't install linux on it,
| failed to do any product research before buying the product.
|
| Many people, myself included, choose to use Apple products in
| part BECAUSE of how those products work and function, today.
| I don't want to install additional browsers, app stores, or
| other crap on my phone, I just want it to work well, out of
| the box with reasonably high security. For my needs Apple
| products provide that today.
|
| If Apple's products don't fit your needs, the solution is
| trivial - don't buy Apple products.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Apple's products don't fit your needs, the solution is
| trivial - don't buy Apple products.
|
| If you don't want to install alternative app stores or
| browsers, then you should simply choose to not install
| them.
|
| With the new digital markets act being passed in the EU,
| everyone will be able to install whatever app store or
| browser that they want.
|
| And you can't complain because you should listen to your
| own advice by not installing those other app stores or
| browsers.
| Narretz wrote:
| On the other hand, actual browser choice for iOS will force
| Apple into improving Safari at a faster rate. This is good
| competition.
| mvid wrote:
| If quality of competition truly mattered, then IE wouldn't
| have had to be stopped with legislation
| idle_zealot wrote:
| IE wasn't stopped with legislation. It continued to be
| bundled with Windows. It was eventually dethroned by
| Chrome.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| One could argue the successful legal action against IE
| bundling stopped Microsoft from further entrenching it in
| Windows. With Edge in Windows 10/11 you can see the kind
| of nudges that Microsoft probably wanted to add all
| along.
| izacus wrote:
| And now this topic is full of people defending this exact
| entrenchment by dictat from Apple.
| veilrap wrote:
| It's not the same, because Safari is already a minority
| in the market compared to the Chrome behemoth.
| batty_alex wrote:
| > IE wasn't stopped with legislation
|
| Yes it was. You're ignoring all the other things
| proprietary about IE and only considering the OS bundle
| one. JScript, VBScript, and ActiveX were the real
| problem. There we so many proprietary extensions to IE
| that were not even remotely supported elsewhere. Hell, C#
| even came out of the hell that was Microsoft's JVM, J++,
| and J# thanks to those trials
| jpgvm wrote:
| I don't think the IE comparison is apt.
|
| IE shipped on (almost) every machine, had a ton of lock in
| features like ActiveX, etc. MS actively abused their monopoly
| position to make it so preventing default installation of
| Netscape by OEMs, incentivising ISVs to ensure web based
| enterprise products shipped with "Works best in Internet
| Explorer" etc. Netscape lost market share to IE not because it
| lost users but because while the userbase was massively
| expanding they were buying Wintel boxes that shipped with IE on
| them so they never learnt that Netscape existed.
|
| Chrome is something users install because it's their preferred
| choice. We can argue as to why it's their preferred choice but
| the point remains that users actively download and install
| Chrome - usually as one of the first things they do when they
| purchase a new computer.
|
| That to me puts things on an entirely different level. To
| compete reasonably with Chrome you need to compete for users
| directly. You could argue that Google abuses it's monopoly
| position to market Chrome and that would probably be a valid
| argument but again, it doesn't change the active decision users
| are making.
|
| If anything Safari (especially on iOS) is more like IE. In that
| it serves Apple more than it serves users. Apple wants PWAs to
| remain gimped, by simply dragging their feet or refusing to
| implement certain web standards/proposals they effectively gimp
| PWAs. This forces apps to be written for their platform which
| in turn is where they generate the vast majority of their
| scalable growth/profit.
| sitkack wrote:
| This is a pedantic and uncharitable take.
| dang wrote:
| Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive (or name-
| calling) comments to HN. If you want to say specifically
| what you think is correct or incorrect, that would of
| course be great.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| GrabbinD33ze69 wrote:
| Pretending that just cause chrome doesn't come installed with
| the android open src project, means it isn't a "default" for
| android is silly; yes, google play services isn't required
| for android, but an overwhelming majority of android users
| will see chrome as the default for the OS. You claim they are
| making a choice, but for the average user it doesn't seem
| like much of a choice. It's easier for most android apps just
| to use chrome as an "in app browser", while the users have
| the option to use a different browser, most won't.
| freedomben wrote:
| Indeed. can you imagine if Microsoft had made it so that IE
| was the only browser you were allowed to install on Windows
| so you couldn't install Netscape even if you wanted to?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| This would have been fine if Windows wasn't 95+% of desktop
| computer market share at the time. The regulatory argument
| was that Microsoft was abusing their desktop OS monopoly to
| give themselves an unfair advantage in another market
| (browsers).
|
| By contrast iOS is ~50% of mobile OS market share (in the
| US, I think it's less elsewhere). Hardly a monopoly. If
| using a different mobile browser is important to you,
| there's a competing, popular mobile OS that can provide
| that.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Hardly a monopoly
|
| The specific term here would be duopoly.
|
| And a duopoly still has a large ability to engage in
| anti-competitive practices that harm the market.
|
| 50% of a market is with the realm where you can cause
| significant harm to competition.
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| This logic doesn't work with just two competitors
| globally. What if choosing my browser isn't the only
| thing important to me?
|
| If governments give corporations with such overwhelming
| market dominance completely free rein then developers are
| nothing more than sharecroppers and consumers are going
| to pay the price either financially, in terms of privacy
| or through limited choice.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| Apple makes 100% of the OS options available to iDevices,
| and 100% of all devices that run iOS.
|
| They also control 100% of the OSes that run iOS
| applications, and allow iOS purchases to be redeemed.
|
| That sounds a lot like a monopoly to me.
| warning26 wrote:
| People always say "oh you can just switch mobile OSes" as
| if that's as simple as walking into a Target instead of a
| Walmart.
|
| Ecosystems exist. Throw away your phone and every piece
| of software you've ever bought for it just so you can
| install a particular app? Ridiculous.
| silvestrov wrote:
| Also: It was bad for Microsoft if browsers became too good as
| the Windows OS then could too easily be replaced by cheaper
| platforms. So Microsoft wanted to keep browsers back as much
| as possible.
|
| It's good for Google when Chrome is good. So Google has a
| great incitament to improve Chrome. The only drawbacks would
| be proprietary functionality others can't use.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| The other drawback is that Google is an advertising company
| that has an incentive to track users across the web. In a
| Chrome monopoly how easy would it be to avoid being
| tracked? Especially by Google. Recently, Chrome was the
| only major browser to adopt Google's FLoC[1]. If Chrome was
| even more dominant would it have mattered if
| Edge/Safari/Firefox didn't adopt this tracking technology?
|
| [1] https://www.howtogeek.com/724441/what-is-googles-floc-
| and-ho...
| IX-103 wrote:
| Google is an advertising company, but that's not the main
| reason for their privacy sandbox and it's ad-friendly
| features. Google _needs_ the open web to survive as a
| search provider. If everything turns into a paywall or
| cookie /privacy wall then Google can't index that
| content. They already can't see the content on Facebook
| and Twitter.
|
| Google makes most of their money from search ads -- I've
| heard upwards of 80% -- and search ads supposedly don't
| even use targeting information.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > The only drawbacks would be proprietary functionality
| others can't use.
|
| And what proprietary functionality is that? Chromium exists
| and does all the same things.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Lets face it - IE always just sucked. A lot. Whereas Chrome
| does not. Here on HN we might rail on it mainly for
| ideological reasons but the user experience is pretty solid.
| This is coming from a Firefox user.
| icedchai wrote:
| Do you remember the early 2000's? IE was your only choice
| for a decent browser. Netscape was bordering obsolescence
| (bad CSS support, generally unstable, slow rendering.) Even
| Apple was shipping it on the Mac! It wasn't until the 2.0
| release of Firefox in 2006 that there was finally a decent
| alternative.
| larusso wrote:
| I started using Firefox in the 0. versions mainly because
| someone wrote an extension to have tabs with websites in
| one window. That was it for me and I use Firefox ever
| since. I managed to survive the memory bloat phase. I was
| super happy when the quantum version was released and
| Firefox was suddenly on par again with chrome. At least
| for a short moment. I'm an iOS user because I try to keep
| google out of my live (need to get rid of YouTube
| though). I also use the Firefox app but only since iOS
| supports the feature to set a different default browser
| app. Before that it was useless to use a different
| browser app when any link from other apps always open
| Safari.
| toast0 wrote:
| IE 4 and 6 were decent to good compared to competitors when
| released (although, IIRC, neither had ftp support?). What
| sucked was that they stagnated at that point in time while
| also becoming dominant. IE 5 for mac was well regarded, but
| I don't have personal memories.
|
| None of the future IEs were very good though, IMHO.
| MBCook wrote:
| That's my memory. I remember IE being a great browser.
|
| It's only what MS let happen later that turned IE into
| the pariah it is today.
| saratogacx wrote:
| At the time you didn't need to ship ftp with IE. You
| could load up an FTP site by opening up an FTP address in
| explorer. You didn't get the familiar html-netscape-like
| interface but you could navigate an FTP site like it was
| just a network folder.
| cute_boi wrote:
| Chrome is installed by default in android. The choice won't
| be preferred choice if website starts to put message like
| "Works best with Google Chrome".
| googlryas wrote:
| No it isn't - that is a choice made by phone vendors to
| include it, but they are perfectly free to ship their
| phones with firefox, or opera, or no browser at all.
|
| The android OS has no knowledge of chrome and it doesn't
| get any special handling or abilities like iOS/Safari.
| pdpi wrote:
| The Android OS has no knowledge of Chrome, but AIUI the
| licencing for Play Services basically forces you into
| installing it
| lkramer wrote:
| I am unable to uninstall Chrome from my Android phone.
| That seems pretty special.
| jcranberry wrote:
| Samsung by default has their own chromium based browser
| as the default.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Websites already have to do that, because Safari still
| lacks a number of web technologies that get picked up
| faster on Chrome and Firefox.
| jeromegv wrote:
| But they can't on mobile. Which is now a bigger part of
| the web.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| They can on Android.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Sure they can.
|
| "The Reddit experience isn't complete in your browser.
| Please download the official app to continue:"
| kennywinker wrote:
| If you use firefox or safari, you routinely encounter sites
| that don't work without chrome.
| depressedpanda wrote:
| I keep hearing people say this, but it's not my experience
| at all. I have no idea what kind of web sites they're
| visiting.
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| It reminds me of what Apple did with iBooks: they weren't
| trying to do the right thing, they did it the wrong way, but if
| they had been successful, it would have been better for the
| market as a whole. The DoJ correctly went after Apple and
| eventually won, but they also should have looked at Amazon for
| using what were basically dumping-level prices to secure the
| market for themselves.
|
| Apple is in the wrong to tie Safari to iOS and block the
| installation of other browsers. They're wrong to do it for the
| sake of keeping control of the OS. They're right to do it,
| because that's the only thing that's keeping Chrome from a
| near-monopoly of the browser space.
| canuckintime wrote:
| > It reminds me of what Apple did with iBooks: they weren't
| trying to do the right thing, they did it the wrong way, but
| if they had been successful, it would have been better for
| the market as a whole... Amazon for using what were basically
| dumping-level prices
|
| Apple was successful in that regard though; the contracts
| they made with Big 5 remained intact and Apple didn't have to
| compete with Amazon on price. Apple's strategy was not better
| for the market as a whole because Apple never cared about the
| market as a whole. Due to Apple's anti-competitive behaviour
| we are still stuck with a Publishing industry decades behind
| on digital
| xfalcox wrote:
| Apple could be asked to provide a single alternative browser,
| like allowing a real Gecko-powered Firefox to solve both
| issues?
| albatross13 wrote:
| My computer, my choice.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| People do not seem to understand how important it is to Google
| they they achieve full control of the browser end of the WWW.
|
| The blog post at the top of this thread talks about CVEs and
| other measures of resistance to 3rd party bad actors. It does
| not engage with the concept of Google themselves as a bad
| actor.
|
| With full control of the rendering engine on all platforms,
| Google can stop engaging with standards bodies. Web rendering
| standards will become simply what Google says they are, even if
| it is to their benefit. Imagine AMP but on steroids. When
| Safari stops rendering mobile sites correctly, there will be
| lots of helpful friends and family (and ads) telling folks to
| "just switch to Chrome, it's a better browser anyway."
|
| Google could also ship their own root certificate list and take
| control of Web PKI. Imagine Symantec but entirely at Google's
| option. Play ball or get security warnings. This would allow an
| end run around the democratization afforded by Let's Encrypt,
| for example. Controlling 90% of the client end of TLS confers
| just as much power as controlling the CA end.
|
| Google also has no incentive to make Chrome secure or
| performant on iOS devices; they run the competing mobile OS
| platform. If Chrome/Blink is forced into iOS, it won't be long
| before complaints crop up and we start seeing "Android runs
| Chrome better than iPhone" ads.
|
| The fundamental fight is not about browsers, it is about
| defining the platform: "commoditizing your complement." Google
| wants Chrome to be the platform, and commoditize the computer.
| This will let Google centralize profits to itself. This is why
| Android is free (as long as you ship Google's services too).
|
| They will spend as much as they must to achieve this. It is
| existential.
|
| Lots of folks in this thread talking about Firefox. In this
| context, Firefox is a strategic front-end for Google. Google is
| essentially paying for Firefox to continue existing, so that
| people will use Firefox as an ideological cudgel against Apple.
|
| Also seeing some comments about antitrust. So the plan is to
| get the government to step in to quash the competition that
| exists, wait for all the predictable bad things to happen, and
| then get the government to step in again to re-establish
| competition.
|
| Does anyone actually think this is a good idea? Or is
| "antitrust" just a convenient way to dismiss legitimate fears
| and objections.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Self-own to spite Google. Apple should protect users by
| competing, not by guarding their monopoly power. Everybody
| loves Apple now, wait until they inevitably miss earnings and
| you're locked in their prison. It's a turnkey malevolent
| dictatorship.
| MBCook wrote:
| "The guy with the one tank should compete fairly with the
| entire military force of a continent. If they're in the
| right they will win."
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| False analogy.
|
| Apple's market cap is ~$2,300,000,000,000 and it's not a
| war.
| amelius wrote:
| > The fundamental fight is not about browsers, it is about
| defining the platform
|
| The fundamental fight is always about eyeballs. Apple is
| holding the better cards because control over hardware gives
| you control over software which gives you control over
| eyeballs.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| Yeah I have a really hard time believing https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/ is not actually google but it is certainly
| aiming towards Google's benefit and, ironically, the end of
| any chance of an "open" web
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I also think that Apple is doing a good thing here. Since I
| don't use any Apple devices, I also don't have any trouble with
| it personally :) (I'm doing my part by using Firefox.)
| Arnavion wrote:
| Same. As another Firefox user and Apple non-user, I'm
| grateful to Safari for keeping web devs in check so that
| their shit runs on Firefox.
| mtomweb wrote:
| Safari still has around 60% on MacoS and all the normal users
| believe that there is browser competition now. At best it's
| speculation, but we can compare that to the very real harms of
| Apple's browser ban.
|
| We've written about the harms in detail here: https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Com...
| MBCook wrote:
| It may be 60% on MacOS but that's a very tiny market. Overall
| Chrome is quite dominant.
|
| Numbers I found say on desktop Chrome is at 70%. Include the
| 7.75% for Edge (because it's basically Chrome) and that's
| almost 80%. FF at least exists and is similar to Safari.
|
| On mobile it's at 65%. Safari is the only other browser above
| 5%.
|
| Chrome is dangerously close to total monopoly.
| agust wrote:
| The size of macOS market is not relevant for the point
| being made here. What matters is that macOS is very similar
| to iOS in that it is owned by Apple, Safari is available on
| it, and comes pre-installed. The only difference is that on
| macOS browser competition is not banned by Apple. Yet,
| Safari still has around 60% market share on macOS.
|
| So there is a good chance that even if competition where
| allowed on iOS, Safari, which currently has more than 90%
| market share, would at the very least not fall down below
| 60%, preventing Chrome from becoming dominant. It is even
| more likely because most users on iOS actually believe they
| can install the real Chrome, so nothing will change in
| their eyes.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > The size of macOS market is not relevant for the point
| being made here.
|
| I disagree. There are already plenty of sites that are
| broken on macOS Safari because it's a niche platform. The
| only saving grace is that websites still have to support
| iOS Safari. If vendors were able to say "we only support
| Chrome" on iOS as well, I think that 60% macOS Safari
| marketshare would drop rapidly due to necessity.
| innocenat wrote:
| If you want website to not be broken on Safari, the
| solution is to give developer without a Mac the ability
| to test on Safari. I wouldn't be able to fix my site if
| it's broken on Mac Safari if I don't have a Mac.
| danShumway wrote:
| Can't upvote this enough.
|
| I support an Open web, I test my websites on Firefox and
| Chrome, I even occasionally do Edge testing, and I
| develop my websites often primarily in Firefox. But I'm
| not buying an iPhone or a laptop just to test websites,
| so I don't test in Safari.
|
| Every other browser has a way to emulate in Linux, I can
| even download free VMs from Microsoft to test IE11 in
| Windows (and Edge now runs in Linux). If Apple isn't
| willing to make its operating system available to me to
| test on then I don't see why I should feel obligated to
| test on it.
|
| And given that there is some Mac-specific behavior for
| Safari/Firefox that I've run into (differences in how
| blur works), and I generally can't assume that all of my
| stuff is going to work perfectly, I'm either going to
| fall back on progressive enhancement or (in the case of a
| complicated webapp) I'm going to tell users that Safari
| is unsupported and they're continuing at their own risk.
|
| I'd love to support Safari. All Apple has to do is give
| me a way to.
| TheTon wrote:
| Do you test in Epiphany? That's what the WebKit project
| recommends you do.
| depressedpanda wrote:
| I test in Epiphany, and have resolved some Safari bugs
| that way.
|
| Unfortunately that's not enough, for two reasons:
|
| 1. Safari is the only browser that is still tied to OS
| release versions, the WebKit version used by Epiphany is
| rarely the same, so results will likely differ
|
| 2. Epiphany has no mobile emulation mode. (E.g., I had to
| work around around an annoying input zoom bug in
| Safari/iOS by blindly applying the least stupid solution
| I found searching the net)
| MatthiasPortzel wrote:
| Apple provides Linux builds of WebKit.
|
| => https://WebKit.org/downloads
| AlexandrB wrote:
| That's a good point and probably a major strategic error
| on Apple's part.
|
| However in the IE era, even though Netscape/Firefox was
| free for everyone to test on, many large companies made
| their sites for "IE Only" because it's easier and
| cheaper. What I worry about is that, even if Safari kept
| up with web standards and was mostly compatible in terms
| of the basics, sites would start requiring APIs that only
| Chrome _wants_ to support (e.g. FLoC). This would give
| Google a lot of leverage to push its own technologies on
| users (Amp also comes to mind).
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Using that logic of Edge being counted as Chrome, why dont
| we consider 100% of the iOS browser market to be Safari?
| MBCook wrote:
| Chrome was forked from WebKit but had been it's own
| engine for a very long time at this point. They share
| ancestry but are pretty different.
|
| Edge is literally built off a relatively recent version
| of Chromium. It's not a separate engine.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Every iOS browser today runs on Apple Webkit. No
| exceptions. Thats an apple rule.
| MBCook wrote:
| Sorry. I didn't notice you were talking about iOS only.
|
| I would hope mobile browser share numbers already take
| this into account, though I don't know.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| I think they pretty clearly dont since iOS is definitely
| more than 5% of the mobile market.
| mtomweb wrote:
| MacOS is the only market Safari actually competes in and
| has the same advantage by being the default.
|
| I would actually expect the most likely outcome is Apple
| would fight hard to build a better browser to stem any
| losses to other browsers. They'll have at least 2 years to
| do it, so they can catch up in that time with enough
| investment.
| spideymans wrote:
| Recall how Google gimped Windows Phone support on the
| web, presumably to advantage their own platform and web
| services. My fear is that they'd do the same to Safari on
| iOS. They could break support on iOS, to force users to
| Chrome, where they can better track and monetize their
| users.
| smoldesu wrote:
| They definitely have the capital to make it happen. Every
| time I boot up Safari after a MacOS update, I'm
| consistently wowed by how little of their revenue
| actually goes in to making a comfortable, feature-
| complete browser. It's almost like you're using a
| different, nerfed internet with Safari, but maybe that's
| just me being angry that uBlock Origin doesn't work
| anymore.
| robertoandred wrote:
| There are plenty of ad blockers for Safari, not sure what
| nerfed experience you're referring to.
| danShumway wrote:
| This has been debated to death, but there are no ad
| blockers on Safari that will work as well as uBlock
| Origin, because Safari doesn't have all of the APIs/hooks
| exposed that would be necessary to implement uBlock
| Origin's more advanced features.
|
| It's the same problem that developers were talking about
| with Chrome's Manifest V3 -- to the point where popular
| adblockers for Safari like Adguard actually run outside
| of the browser so that they're not quite as limited as
| they otherwise would be by Safari's apis.
| raydev wrote:
| > There are plenty of ad blockers for Safari
|
| And none of them work as well as uBlock Origin on Chrome.
|
| Trust me, I tried. I even paid money to try a few
| extensions out on Safari in the hopes I would get a
| better experience, but even that doesn't work.
| smoldesu wrote:
| And which of those ad blockers are Open Source?
| noisem4ker wrote:
| The nerfed experience of addons only specifying a
| significantly limited list of blocking rules, giving up
| being able to autonomously allow or deny each request
| with arbitrary parameters, surrogate scripts (replacing
| the original, tracking ones with privacy-friendly
| reimplementations) and cosmetically alter the webpage
| (e.g. fixing the layout with missing ads).
|
| Partial source: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-
| Safari/issues/158
| cma wrote:
| Maybe Safari mobile would have to make a better UI with
| more competition, and could then keep more users.
| adfjalkfja wrote:
| Love that I can't use chromecast on any other browser. And how
| they make youtube ads much much tougher to get away from when
| you do use it
| dekhn wrote:
| Chrome runs on all 3 major platforms. Safari does not. I think
| I'll side with Chrome and its dominance, because I don't want
| to be stuck on Mac.
| jacooper wrote:
| Meh, at best Safari is the New IE it doesnt support many
| feature in purpise to serve Apple priorties and hinder the web.
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/23/opinion_column/
| [deleted]
| m-p-3 wrote:
| 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 fronts isn't going to
| reverse the trend either.
| tshaddox wrote:
| > 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.
| afiori wrote:
| Also since Firefox for android removed one of its
| distinctive features a few years ago; once you could set it
| to ask how to open a link (send to another device, share,
| copy to clipboard, open normally) when an app tried to
| start a browser; now you can no longer do that.
|
| I use different browsers for different things so I want to
| chose how to open external app links.
|
| I would install a shim browser that does just that if I
| knew of one.
| commoner wrote:
| URL Checker is the shim browser you're looking for:
|
| https://github.com/TrianguloY/UrlChecker
|
| It also integrates ClearURLs functionality
| (https://gitlab.com/KevinRoebert/ClearUrls) to let you
| remove tracking from links before sending it to the
| browser or app. This feature is optional.
| jakub_g wrote:
| According to stats from GitHub, 12% of their traffic is
| from Firefox. 3x more than Safari.
|
| https://github.blog/2022-06-10-how-we-think-about-browsers/
|
| Of course this is just part of the story. In every country
| it's different. In some EU countries Firefox is up to 20%.
| In UK it's almost non-existent. Local markets shape the
| browser support. If a few major websites are too lazy to
| support a browser properly, users will leave, and then
| others can say "there are no users, so we can stop
| supporting!".
| acdha wrote:
| It's more traffic than Safari, but Firefox also runs on
| platforms like Windows or Linux and has
| disproportionately large mindshare among open source
| developers. Give how much higher that number was 10 years
| ago, I think this counts in support of the original
| point: Google has poured a ton of effort into promoting
| Chrome and "accidentally"[1] offering a worse experience
| for other browsers in their site and nobody other than
| Apple seems to have been successful at resisting this.
|
| 1. Whether this is an overt policy or simply choosing to
| skimp on testing, it's a choice.
| techdragon wrote:
| GitHub visitors are definitely not a representative
| sample of the web browsing public.
| jenny91 wrote:
| Absolutely. Including the 2% from Python scripts :P
| threeseed wrote:
| I actually can't believe they posted it with a straight
| face.
|
| Should we be looking for 4chan or Reddit stats as well.
| commoner wrote:
| A competitor having a minority market share is not a
| justification for suppressing competition. The suppression
| (Apple preventing Mozilla from implementing features on
| Firefox for iOS that are available on Firefox for non-iOS
| platforms) is part of the reason Firefox has an even lower
| market share on iOS.
| vnkr wrote:
| I don't use FF on desktop partly because I don't use it on
| mobile and so can't sync open tabs, bookmarks, etc.
| fartcannon wrote:
| You can use Firefox on both desktop and mobile and sync
| it all. At least if your mobile is Android or Linux. And
| you can use ublock origin, too!
| briffle wrote:
| you can sync your bookmarks and tabs with the IOS version
| of firefox too, but no extensions.
| vnkr wrote:
| Yes, but FF on iOS sucks precisely for the reason stated
| in the article.
| echelon wrote:
| > most desktop computer users are able to use Firefox
|
| Desktop-using software engineers can write software for
| desktop users in a ton of different ways. There's so much
| freedom and there exist multiple mechanisms and platforms
| to deploy your code.
|
| Desktop-using software engineers are not free to choose how
| to deploy software to mobile audiences. They've got to go
| through Apple to reach 50+% of the US market. Apple sets
| unreasonable rules.
|
| Unfortunately, Americans spend most of their time computing
| with mobile devices now. We've been forced into this
| situation.
|
| Both Apple and Google have made our industry worse and more
| locked down than Microsoft in the 90's and 00's, and they
| both deserve to the the target of smartphone and browser
| antitrust lawsuits.
| briandear wrote:
| > Apple sets unreasonable rules.
|
| How? As a user I'm able to do the things I want with
| reasonable guarantees of privacy and security. Most
| developers that release iOS software seem to be doing ok
| with those "unreasonable" rules. And the user benefits.
| If I wanted Android, I would have bought Android. I
| bought Apple specifically because I see value as a user
| to those unreasonable rules.
| mtomweb wrote:
| As a user the harms are invisible to you. If you'd like
| to find out how it harms consumers, businesses,
| developers and the web, please read our regulatory
| submission "Bringing Competition to Walled Gardens":
|
| https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20Bringing%20Com...
| labcomputer wrote:
| > As a user the harms are invisible to you.
|
| Why would you post a document refuting your own point?
|
| I explicitly _do. not. want._ my web browser to have
| access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen
| orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do
| not want website notifications.
|
| I don't know how to be more explicit. Those are things
| _developers_ want. Those are not things _users_ want. And
| no amount of gaslighting about invisible harms is going
| to convince us that what you want is what we want.
| echelon wrote:
| 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 free market,
| entrepreneurs, or innovation. In the ten years since
| smartphones came about, we've seen a contraction of other
| forms of computing. A contraction in the number of
| smartphone manufacturers, too! The world is worse for it.
|
| This type of duopolistic advantage also creates a system
| where Apple and Google can grow close to governments and
| become a surveillance and control apparatus. That's
| scarier than anything a developer could do to slight you.
|
| The status quo is great for Apple and Google
| shareholders, but bad for those trying to innovate and
| those wanting personal freedom and privacy.
|
| Almost all of computing connects to these two companies
| now, and that's a fragility that benefits these two
| giants to the rest of our detriment.
|
| > I explicitly do. not. want. my web browser to have
| access to the bluetooth and NFC APIs. Nor the screen
| orientation lock and full screen APIs. I absolutely do
| not want website notifications.
|
| Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're
| describing a setting.
| kryptozinc wrote:
| > Easy enough to turn all of these things off. You're
| describing a setting.
|
| Can you turn off all of these in Chrome?
| elashri wrote:
| Isn't the main argument is the user choice? if I as a
| user chose what the comment you are replying said, then
| what is the problem?
| mtomweb wrote:
| Yes users should be free to choose whatever browser they
| want and the gatekeeper shouldn't be allowed to interfere
| with that.
| elashri wrote:
| That is not my point. I mean the point is that many
| people who chose to own IOS did that because of privacy
| and security it provides as the current apple ecosystem.
| It is like choosing a private school with a restrict
| rules and code of conduct over another private school
| with more open rules (options) since you pay for your
| phone anyway.
| scratcheee wrote:
| >Most developers that release iOS software seem to be
| doing ok with those "unreasonable" rules.
|
| Surely given survivorship bias that means very little
| though?
|
| If you did a survey today of living people you'd discover
| a 0% death rate, clearly humans are immortal.
| worik wrote:
| Apple/iOS is _not_ the only mobile platform.
| afiori wrote:
| A duopoly has 90% of the problems of a monopoly.
| echelon wrote:
| Apple and Google are 99% of the smartphone market.
| Together they set an unreasonable set of rules for mobile
| application development and distribution. They control
| search, advertising, and web technology, and there's
| little control individuals or other companies - even big
| ones - can exert against them.
|
| They both need to be stripped of their extraordinary
| powers so that user freedom and proper capitalistic
| competition can be restored.
|
| It's likely that any regulatory action taken against
| Apple and Google will force the companies to innovate
| more and become healthier themselves.
| NonNefarious wrote:
| I detest many policies of both those companies, but
| neither company was created by the government. Are they
| not the result of "capitalistic competition?" Motorola
| and Blackberry shat the bed year after year, allowing the
| current situation to develop. Even while being called out
| on their incompetence by customers.
|
| The companies who should be punished for anti-competitive
| behavior are the telecom companies. Not only do they
| restrict what devices can be activated on their networks,
| but they force Android users to wait months, years, or
| forever for them to dribble out a garbage-laden,
| proprietary version of the OS for every specific model of
| phone, one at a time.
|
| And then there's the idiotic locking of phones; it's not
| just that it should be illegal, but it's also backward:
| U.S. phone companies lock the phones of people who are
| UNDER CONTRACT. Talk about stupid. These people are
| contractually obligated to keep paying, so who cares if
| they take their phones to another network? That's a net
| win for the phone company, since they're paying for NO
| service!
| threeseed wrote:
| > Apple and Google are 99% of the smartphone market
|
| Apple and Android are.
|
| But Android is far more diverse than just Google's
| distribution.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Apple owns their platform and not you. They aren't forcing
| you to choose it as a platform or telling you that you can't
| buy an Android phone in order to use Firefox.
| kristiandupont wrote:
| In my opinion, the free market argument falls flat when
| we're speaking of a duopoly. The existence of _one_
| competitor whose policies are at least as bad or worse is
| not really choice.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| In fact Apple doesn't even bother supporting Firefox on some
| sites. Case in point https://business.apple.com
| depressedpanda wrote:
| That's honestly the first site I can remember visiting
| where Firefox mobile doesn't work.
|
| It was blocked in Chrome too until I toggled desktop mode
| on.
|
| What are they doing, blocking based on the user agent
| string? How mediocre. They're clearly not doing feature
| detection.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Yes the weird thing is that on mobile it actually
| mentions Firefox as a supported browser, it just says you
| must have the latest version. Which I do but it still
| won't work.
|
| On desktop it doesn't even list Firefox as an option at
| all.. It's pretty annoying for me because I use that
| portal a lot for work and I use FF on everything. Safari
| is not an option for me because I use Mac, FreeBSD,
| Windows, Linux, Android all mixed and I need the sync.
|
| And yeah I think they're just blocking the agent. I
| haven't tried bypassing it. I kinda was afraid something
| would go wrong (I don't want to wipe 10.000 iPhones from
| the portal instead of 1 - lol)
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _On the other hand, this denies me from using an actual
| Mozilla Firefox web browser on iOS._
|
| It denies you from using Gecko. You can use an actual Mozilla
| Firefox web browser on iOS.
| Someone wrote:
| If you're going to nitpick, you can run Gecko on iOS. I see
| two ways that, according to the letter of Apple's rules,
| would be legal:
|
| - don't allow it to browse the web
| (https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines,
| section 2.5.6: _"Apps that browse the web must use the
| appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript"_ )
|
| - compile Gecko to JavaScript and run it in Safari.
|
| If you serve the compiled Gecko from a web server I don't
| see them stopping you from doing the second, but of course,
| it would just be Gecko, not FireFox, and performance
| 'might' be somewhat subpar.
| mtomweb wrote:
| The Mozillians don't think actual Firefox is available on
| iOS and neither should you.
|
| You can read Mozilla's submission about the
| #AppleBrowserBan here:
| https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NTIA-2022-0001-0131
| kevinmgranger wrote:
| "actual" Firefox absolutely means using their engine.
| briandear wrote:
| The average consumer doesn't know the difference nor
| care. They want to open webpages and have them work.
| gernb wrote:
| Plenty of webpages don't work in Safari because Safari
| doesn't ship the APIs that other browsers have been
| shipping for years.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Safari is my primary browser day in day out.
|
| The only pages that don't work in it are developed by
| people who believe that Chrome-only APIs are standard.
| twism wrote:
| web workers is an example of a standard api that only got
| implemented (partly) recently. they are more examples
| like ths
| dmitriid wrote:
| You mean Web Workers that were available in Safari since
| version 4?
|
| Or Shared Web Workers that were originally implemented in
| Safari version 5? No idea why they got removed to re-
| appear later, and I honestly can't care: I prefer
| browsers to be careful with standards than just rush
| forward.
|
| Why is it that these "examples" are never actual
| examples?
| postalrat wrote:
| Like web push. Supported in both chrome and firefox for
| ages. But apple not interested because it can replace
| apps with web pages.
| al_borland wrote:
| https://developer.apple.com/wwdc22/10098
| codedokode wrote:
| There is a difference. Gecko might implement features
| that would allow sites to work and look better in Firefox
| (for example, smoother scrolling, better animations, new
| CSS/HTML/JS features and so on). But Apple doesn't allow
| other browser engines, and Firefox cannot use this as an
| advantage to compete with Safari.
|
| Also, if Apple allowed other browser engines with better
| support for new features, then web developers might stop
| caring about supporting Safari. This might be another
| reason why Apple doesn't want other browsers on their
| devices.
| jedberg wrote:
| A semantic nitpick that is totally irrelevant. Most people
| on this website usually mean Gecko when they say they want
| to use Firefox.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| Let's not pretend all of HN is a hive mind. I for one
| thought that Firefox the browser had chosen not to be on
| IOS because to they couldn't use Gecko. This is new
| information to me.
|
| So no, using the proper names for things is not a
| semantic nitpick. The commentator didn't not try to
| invalidate the parent's point, just show the language
| issue.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Really? You mean people don't use Firefox because:
|
| - it protects what's important
|
| - you can "Personalize your experience with new
| colorways."
|
| - has Facebook Container
|
| - syncs across your devices
|
| Mozilla knows the actual engine isn't the deciding factor
| when trying to get people to change browsers.
|
| https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| The colorways were an antifeature to me (seriously what's
| the point of introducing a feature when you're already
| planning to drop it 2 months later) and I'm still waiting
| for real containers on mobile (the fb one is useless to
| me as I don't use Facebook) but the other features yeah
| they're great
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| You're on about regular Firefox, not iOS Firefox which is
| just a UI wrapped around a WebKit component.
| judge2020 wrote:
| All of those features are possible on iOS via webkit.
|
| Regarding mobile browsers specifically, their advantage
| over Safari here is blocking cryptominer scripts and
| autoplay videos: https://www.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/browsers/mobile/compar...
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| But that's not the point-we want gecko and we want it to
| be good!
| ginko wrote:
| Adblocking only works* on vanilla Safari. I haven't
| gotten it to work on Firefox for iOS.
|
| * For some degree of "works", ublock origin is way better
| anonymousab wrote:
| iOS as blocking isn't anywhere near as powerful as
| Firefox extensions, not what it will eventually need to
| be.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Right, so you can use a Firefox-themed safari, nothing
| "actual" about it. Coming from Firefox on Android to
| Firefox on iOS, I can assure you the experiences are in no
| way similar. The main reason I even use Firefox on iOS is
| for the sync integration. I honestly can't think of another
| thing that Firefox is able to do on iOS that makes it
| "Firefox" at all.
| beautifulfreak wrote:
| >I don't see Apple making any effort to diversify the browser
| ecosystem by making their browser available on other
| operating systems...
|
| What about Webkit?
| gime_tree_fiddy wrote:
| Not sure average individual can take webkit source and turn
| it into a browser.
|
| Forcing users to a prebuilt Webkit, that they cannot change
| is definitely not the same.
| toast0 wrote:
| Safari for Windows did exist (it was supremely terrible,
| IMHO). Apple says 5.1.7 was the last version of that; if
| versioning matches the Mac OS builds, that was from 10 years
| ago.
| MBCook wrote:
| 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.
| marricks wrote:
| 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
| mikedelago wrote:
| I use Firefox on Android, it works great.
|
| Desktop-based extensions integrate pretty seamlessly, which
| I love
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You are unfortunately part of the "no one" segment, that
| half a percent of mobile browser users internationally /
| across platforms - even less than Firefox's desktop share
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| You have to start somewhere
| marricks wrote:
| That's not where they're starting, that's where they've
| fallen to...
|
| They've grown from 0.5% to 0.85% over three years[1]. I
| don't see how they're going to increase beyond that.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/272664/market-
| share-held...
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I know, but if you don't believe it's the start of new
| growth there's no point even trying :)
|
| Today is the first day of the rest of your life :)
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| As the others, I use it too exclusively. It's a great
| mobile browser now.
| skerit wrote:
| I love Firefox for Android. It works great. It works even
| better than the desktop version :D
| aceazzameen wrote:
| I'm the opposite. I hate it, but I use it because of
| ublock origin. I'm of the opinion that all mobile
| browsers are awful. Because of the lack either privacy,
| security, or UX. Can't have them all. If I could, I'd
| continue to use Firefox for Android 68. It had a much
| better UX including a tablet mode. Now the most recent
| version's UX is full of slow ui animations, lack of
| features, customization, etc. At least it has privacy and
| security.
| slenk wrote:
| No, supporting Firefox is good for the whole...how do you
| not understand that?
| anonymousab wrote:
| If you do something that benefits Firefox, but has an
| outsized benefit for Firefox' competitors (or rather,
| anti-Firefox hegemony) and the net effect is overall
| worse for Firefox, then that thing that benefited Firefox
| was not good.
| mtomweb wrote:
| It's likely cost Firefox 100's of millions per year.
| That's net worse for firefox.
|
| Also Mozilla is fighting this as well, they wouldn't
| unless they thought it was in their interest.
| MasterYoda wrote:
| I do :) And I think it is good and you could also use
| addons (like uBo) which is great. More should use it on
| mobile.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| > 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.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| 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.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > 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?
| curt15 wrote:
| Did the Chrome installers install themselves? Besides, if
| users were already using other browsers, installing Chrome
| wouldn't have affected their existing browser's
| functionality. It was their choice to try out the new
| browser, and they could always go back to their old browser
| if they so desired.
| petmon wrote:
| Yes Chrome installers install themselves. Chrome is
| bundled with installers for unrelated products, and you
| have to deliberately uncheck it to not install it.
| Example:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/antivirus/comments/on99mk/avg_an
| tiv...
| kccqzy wrote:
| Apple was very similar in that regard as well. They were
| putting Safari installers in iTunes updates. People bought
| a new iPod and needed a new version of iTunes to sync with
| it? Magically they have now Safari installed.
|
| And they were pushing it at a time when Safari for Windows
| was slower than Internet Explorer.
| theturtletalks wrote:
| For one, people still had the decision to download Chrome
| even if it was advertised heavily. Apple forces Safari on
| all their iOS users since all the browsers have to use
| WebKit.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Apple forces Safari on all their iOS users..._
|
| Lots of people use non-Safari browsers on iOS (Chrome,
| Firefox, Edge, Opera, Brave, DuckDuckGo), and iOS lets
| you choose your default browser. I know _you_ know Safari
| <> WebKit, but 99.99% of users don't know or care about
| the plumbing.
| mtomweb wrote:
| All the real browsers have been banned. Ask any browser
| vendor. The rest are basically Safari skins.
| MBCook wrote:
| > The chips will fall as they will and we will all be left to
| deal with the aftermath
|
| The aftermath could be the complete death of the open web.
| Unwinding that may be nearly impossible.
|
| There needs to be a plan in place _before_ Pandora's box is
| opened.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| The death of the open web as we currently know it could
| lead to an even better successor over time though. We just
| can't know if the current hill is worth dying on - it may
| be for future generations to solve.
|
| Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can
| we know?
|
| If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is
| an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and be replaced
| by something else.
| entropicdrifter wrote:
| Short term, the death of the open web will likely mean
| many real-world human deaths, because censorship by
| oppressive regimes becomes far simpler the fewer options
| people have (or are aware of) for methods to access the
| open web.
|
| In my head the flowchart looks like this: Closed/censored
| web only -> People giving up hope/being caught trying to
| escape oppression -> increased human suffering and
| untimely death
|
| I'll agree with what you're saying about long-term
| consequences, but you could argue the same thing about
| the death of nations/states, couldn't you? And how many
| times in history have _nations_ collapsed without periods
| of wanton destruction and looting due to the power
| vacuum?
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > If the approach is so inherently flawed that this
| result is an inevitability, maybe it deserves to die and
| be replaced by something else.
|
| These are all systems and projects created and run by
| human minds. Nothing is "inevitable" and nothing
| "deserves" to die. These are just outcomes of choices by
| users, vendors, and regulators. I think many people here
| are advocating for choices that would keep _some_ kind of
| competition to Chrome alive. You seem to be advocating
| for the opposite. That 's not necessarily wrong or bad,
| but Chrome becoming a total monopoly is not "inevitable"
| either.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Anything COULD happen - I think it is pretty clear people
| here have an understanding of what would happen
| amelius wrote:
| > The death of the open web as we currently know it could
| lead to an even better successor over time though.
|
| I predict the App/Play Store duopoly will take over the
| web.
| [deleted]
| titusjohnson wrote:
| > Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How
| can we know?
|
| History.
|
| > If the approach is so inherently flawed that this
| result is an inevitability
|
| Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please
| stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| Man, I use Firefox for Christ sake. You don't have to be
| anti open web to know letting anti-competitive behaviour
| run rampant is even worse than having the open web that
| we have today.
|
| Your perspective is as insane to me as mine is to you.
| Don't let a corporation make decisions about your
| computing freedom for you.
|
| Anti-competitive behaviour from both sides is why we're
| in this situation (Apple/Safari/Chrome) to begin with.
| [deleted]
| MBCook wrote:
| Do you know why Safari and Chrome exist?
|
| Safari was created so Apple wouldn't be totally dependent
| on MS for a web browser. They've been in that situation
| many times before (and since). Apple is allergic to
| depending on someone else for something really important.
|
| Why does Chrome exist? Same reason. Google didn't want to
| depend on being at the whims of Microsoft. They wanted to
| ensure they would have a browser that would do what they
| needed.
|
| Both existed to open the internet _more_ from what was
| going on at the time.
|
| Now people want to kill one to let the other become
| triumphant.
|
| That's what makes no sense to me.
| depressedpanda wrote:
| What doesnt make sense to me are people thinking that
| Safari will die if Apple is forced to allow other
| browsers on iPhone.
|
| Don't underestimate the inertia of defaults. Safari will
| still be the default browser.
|
| A way more likely scenario is that Apple no longer will
| be able to drag their feet, holding the web back, but
| instead will actually have to keep Safari up to date and
| competetive with other browsers.
| escape_goat wrote:
| Libertarianism as an absolutist ideology that proscribes
| courses of action for moral reasons and literally requires
| helplessness and passivity from everyone is not, I believe,
| the original flavor.
| Joeri wrote:
| But letting the chips fall where they may is what led to the
| current situation, with a browser market heavily distorted
| and made anti-competitive by two tech giants. What people are
| asking for is a regulator that steps in and redresses the
| imbalances so a healthy browser market can arise.
|
| If the regulator does not step in they are choosing the
| status quo which by itself also is a deliberate choice.
| Inaction is always also a form of action.
| lucasyvas wrote:
| It's the regulators job. If they don't do their job, the
| users (not another anti-competitive company) will take
| matters into their own hands. There are alternative
| protocols that could be developed - the only reason they
| haven't taken off is because we are at stalemate.
| [deleted]
| MBCook wrote:
| > What people are asking for is a regulator that steps in
| and redresses the imbalances so a healthy browser market
| can arise.
|
| That's not what I see. I see people constantly calling for
| the ability to run other browsers (really Chrome) on iOS.
|
| I almost never see people trying to get Google's massive
| browser share reduced.
|
| If you do one without the other I expect disaster.
|
| That was the point of my comment. I want the "open web"
| people (in general, not just this org) to call for BOTH.
| But I don't see that.
| agust wrote:
| Open Web Advocacy does address anti-competitive practices
| from Google. See their submission to the Japanese
| regulator: https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
|
| Section 3.1.7 - No Chrome Preferencing and section 3.1.8
| - Website Transparency Obligations.
| swat535 wrote:
| > The chips will fall as they will
|
| This is how we end up with the death of uBlock origin (in a
| few months from now) on January 2023.
|
| Firefox has resisted this thus far but I am pretty sure
| Google will eventually twist their arms enough to either kill
| it, or at the very least _severely_ handicap it.
|
| Google is a threat to the open web, it needs to be heavily
| regulated and punished for all its despicable behaviors: from
| harvesting user data without consent to tracking our every
| move and selling it to anyone who wants it for pittance.
|
| I am very well aware of the fact that many of the HNers are
| partaking in this and am not going to pretend that I wouldn't
| be tempted had I been in their shoes but I think it's time to
| for the smoke and mirrors to clear: Google is nothing more
| than a giant spyware and an adware company because their core
| business model _literally_ requires it. This is why they keep
| fighting against privacy regulations, lobby the governments,
| punish Adblock extensions and come up with clever ways to
| circumvent your privacy protections.
|
| So no, I for one am glad that at least Apple exists to thwart
| this. They may not be doing this because of their "ethics"
| but given the choice, I'd rather side with Apple on this one.
| zerocrates wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong but Safari already does, and long
| has done, the thing that people are objecting to Chrome
| changing: not allowing extensions to just hook into and
| pre-block requests, instead only allowing limited patterns
| to be set and matched against. uBlock Origin hasn't been
| available on Safari since it made this change several years
| ago.
|
| So I don't know that seeing Safari as a bulwark against
| Chrome really makes sense here.
| thayne wrote:
| Well, if chrome did have 90%+ market share maybe we would
| finally see some antitrust regulation against Google's monopoly
| (ideally splitting chrome off from Google). Although there is
| no guarantee that would happen.
| toyg wrote:
| This. If Chrome reaches certifiable monopoly levels, it
| becomes easier to use anti-monopolistic instruments to force
| them to unbundle browser-making from other activities - which
| is really how things should be.
| mturilin wrote:
| I think this won't work because Chrome doesn't have
| independent business model. Also, if Chrome is removed from
| Google they could create another alternative based on
| Chromium since it's open source.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Chrome doesn't have independent business model._
|
| Wut? Independent browsers existed before Google, and
| still do.
|
| The browser is such a key element of the web experience
| that the possibilities for commercial exploitation are
| fundamentally endless; the number of players in the space
| is kept low only by the amount of resources required to
| really compete with the biggest IT companies on the
| planet. If you could forbid such players from being in
| the market, you'd see a plethora of new entrants.
|
| _> if Chrome is removed from Google they could create
| another alternative based on Chromium_
|
| The point is not to remove Chrome, the point is to forbid
| web-giants like Google from being in the browser market,
| because it enables monopolistic practices towards their
| web properties. So they would obviously be forbidden from
| restarting the project as "ReChrome" or whatever.
| MBCook wrote:
| That moves too slow. They could do a ton of damage in the
| time it takes for anti-trust measures to be placed on them.
|
| That's kind of the point I was trying to make.
|
| You need to do that stuff before, or at the same time as,
| opening iOS. Otherwise we'll just have a disaster.
| bad_good_guy wrote:
| So, you are happy to have Apple provide no user choice, because
| you fear a future where there is no user choice?
| veilrap wrote:
| Yes, I am happy with the Apple ecosystem in this regard. If I
| wanted to run a different browser engine, I could do so by
| buying an Android phone. I purchased an iOS phone
| specifically because I think the overall phone experience is
| better when certain aspects do not have a choice.
|
| If android did not exist and Apple controlled the market it
| would be a different story, but that is far from the case.
| nemothekid wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| agust wrote:
| Open Web Advocacy has been very clear that they want
| _competition_ on iOS, not Chrome specifically. The reason
| being that the absence of competition is currently allowing
| Apple to deteriorate the web experience on iOS, preventing
| the web and web apps from competing with native apps. Their
| objective is to lift these artificial limitations imposed
| by Apple and free the web.
|
| OWA members have actually been actively reporting WebKit
| bugs and interacting with the Safari team to help
| prioritise features and bug fixes on Twitter and elsewhere,
| showing the goal is to improve the overall web experience
| on iOS, not allow Chrome to become dominant. Here is one of
| their detailed bug report: https://github.com/web-platform-
| tests/interop-2022/issues/84.
| MBCook wrote:
| Competition on iOS without real competition on the
| desktop already existing could quickly mean unbreakable
| Chrome hegemony.
|
| That's why I originally commented. If you focus on just
| one of those I believe there will be terrible
| unintentional consequences.
| dcow wrote:
| This whole chrome fetish thing you've got is actually the
| issue. Everyone _thinks_ "there is only Chrome" so in a
| sense we all deceive ourselves. I don't know a single
| person anymore who uses Chrome. Maybe you do but that's
| not really the point. If you don't want a Chrome hegemony
| then don't fool yourself into thinking there is one and
| don't proliferate that ideology. Tell your product people
| that NO, you're not going to just ship the Chrome version
| and support Safari and Firefox later. Put in the work to
| make software work on other browsers. That's how you
| break the status quo. The amount of times I've seen some
| software company tell users "our product only works on
| Chrome" is disgusting. No wonder it's popular... people
| don't have a choice because of shitty software.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I don 't know a single person anymore who uses
| Chrome._
|
| I find this very hard to believe. Everyone you know uses
| Firefox?
| dcow wrote:
| And Safari and Brave and Edge (so some use Blink).
| nemothekid wrote:
| So Safari and Chromium and Chromium. I'm not sure who the
| one here is deceiving themselves.
| dcow wrote:
| Chromium != Chrome. We're talking about some world where
| _Google Chrome_ takes over everything not where Chromium
| derivatives compete with Google Chrome for browser market
| share based on features and merits. That latter outcome
| defeats the "chrome hegemony" which is what the person I
| initially responded to is complaining about.
| est31 wrote:
| A 95% chromium world is the same as a 95% chrome world in
| many regards.
|
| Following Chromium upstream is an extremely hard effort
| if you have done any kind of non trivial changes to it.
| There are constant refactors and changes. This means that
| your chromium using browser can't be anything more than
| just a reskin of Chrome, which means that you don't have
| the agency to support some feature that Chrome chose to
| not support, and the features you do support are likely
| going to be implemented 100% the same due to using the
| same code, including the bugs. This leads to the same
| "code assuming the bug" issues that if everyone used
| Chrome.
|
| Furthermore, Google has a monopoly on Chromium
| developers, with only few people contributing from the
| outside. Your Chrome reskin team will likely be very
| skilled in maintaining a Chrome reskin but if Google ever
| decided to stop the Chromium project in favour of a
| closed source Chrome, there would be nobody who knows how
| to properly maintain the fork going forward, neither at
| your company, or available for hire.
|
| You are 100% at the mercy of Google if you do a Chrome
| reskin.
| ajdude wrote:
| Through this logic, iOS already allows firefox etc to run
| on its platform, if Firefox != Gecko.
|
| except the issue here is the rendering engine and who
| controls in at the top level.
|
| I don't wanna live in the world we're 90% of the Internet
| only supports chromium, yet everything from Edge to Opera
| use it now. Firefox and Safari the last holdouts keeping
| google from dominating all web standards.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Chromium dominance is effectively Google dominance when
| it comes to the open web. That is a world where Google no
| longer has to follow any sort of standards body because
| _it is the standard_. Another commenter, snowwrestler[1],
| put it best:
|
| > _With full control of the rendering engine on all
| platforms, Google can stop engaging with standards
| bodies. Web rendering standards will become simply what
| Google says they are, even if it is to their benefit.
| Imagine AMP but on steroids. When Safari stops rendering
| mobile sites correctly, there will be lots of helpful
| friends and family (and ads) telling folks to "just
| switch to Chrome, it's a better browser anyway."_
|
| > _Google could also ship their own root certificate list
| and take control of Web PKI. Imagine Symantec but
| entirely at Google 's option. Play ball or get security
| warnings. This would allow an end run around the
| democratization afforded by Let's Encrypt, for example.
| Controlling 99% of the client end of TLS confers just as
| much power as controlling the CA end._
|
| All of these items are built into how _Chromium renders
| the web_. The other Chromium derivatives will be forced
| to swallow these changes because what are they going to
| do? Fork and maintain their own browser engine? Bisect
| patches from upstream forever? How many of these Chromium
| forks will have the resources to maintain their own fork
| of something as complex as Chromium?
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31898439
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Open Web Advocacy has been very clear that they want
| competition on iOS
|
| And it is being pointed out, repeatedly, that the only
| actual real competition is Chrome. When Chrome becomes an
| option then websites will abandon any pretense of
| adhering to standards and just code to Chrome. You can't
| pretend the mobile browser landscape won't just end up
| mirroring that of the desktop.
|
| The total browser share of iOS shifting to Chrome, even
| if Chrome only got 50% of iOS users, would put the total
| browser share of Chrome over 90%. There would be no
| impetus for any website to write for anything _but_
| Chrome.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| I want Firefox on iOS.
| cowtools wrote:
| I want Firefox on iOS, and I want Tor Browser on iOS, and I
| want Lynx on iOS, and I want wget on iOS, and I want
| youtube-dl on iOS, and I want to run whatever the hell I
| damn well please on iOS.
|
| Underhanded? It's pretty clear that your stated goals don't
| align with your real goals here.
|
| Edit: I have a hard time putting into words why your
| arguments seem so deceptive to me. It is like whataboutism:
| the arguments you are making are technically functional but
| they just completely fall apart with any reasonable
| weighing of the pros/cons because it betrays the
| "intrinsic" goals (choice, browser competition,
| functionality, security) for "extrinsic" goals (browser
| diversity, but mostly the success of safari). This makes me
| think that you're secretly misaligned and that you actually
| hold those "extrinsic" goals as your intrinsic goals.
| nneonneo wrote:
| As far as youtube-dl goes, you can run that on iOS via a
| Python interpreter such as Pythonista: https://gist.githu
| b.com/nneonneo/f6b2d659ba76542e7d27e13598a...
| lamontcg wrote:
| Get FF or some other browser a healthy market share first
| and then talk about cracking open iOS.
|
| Instead what happens is this internecine warfare where
| everyone shits all over FF for political reasons (most of
| which have no relevance to their day to day use of a web
| browser) and uptake of Tor/Brave is miniscule and most
| everyone sticks with Chrome.
| lenkite wrote:
| "Get FF or some other browser a healthy market share
| first"
|
| Why ? Open up the _platform_ first.
| Jcowell wrote:
| 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.
| lamontcg wrote:
| 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 a recipe for monopolization.
| depressedpanda wrote:
| Why are you so certain that Apple will have to kill
| Safari if Chrome and other browsers are allowed on iOS?
| lamontcg wrote:
| 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.
| popcube wrote:
| he just pragmatic, if the results are worse than now,
| someone will not do the "right thing" on moral
| cptskippy wrote:
| nailer wrote:
| m-p-3 wrote:
| I hate to break it to you, but Safari isn't going to stop
| that from happening.
| cptskippy wrote:
| Thank you for proving my point.
|
| Safari only has ~20% market share because it's has ~25%
| of mobile and nearly 50% of tablet and only because Apple
| restricts those platforms. If Apple opened up their
| platform that would vanish and Chrome would take over.
|
| The platform being relevant and closed is the only thing
| stopping Chrome from becoming the next Internet Explorer
| 6.
| nemothekid wrote:
| I can be clear and transparent here. My position is that
| if you actually care about browser choice the biggest
| elephant in the room is Chromium. The reality is Google
| has shown that it will leverage it's properties like
| Gmail and YouTube to get users to install Chrome; from
| nagware to just outright breaking sites on other
| browsers.
|
| If you want to force Apple to allow different browsers
| without addressing this problem, then you are trading one
| company's monopoly on a single platform for another
| company's monopoly globally. And there is no reason to
| believe that Google will behave any better than Apple
| has. It's not like Google hasn't tried to skip the
| standards process before.
|
| So when people argue that "it's for browser diversity" I
| have to consider them as 1.) naive, 2.) actually working
| for Google. 3.) just developers who are tired of being
| forced to target multiple platforms.
|
| Do I think it's ethical that this is how this stalemate
| is handled? No; taking away user choice is limiting the
| freedoms of users.
|
| Do I think Safari is amazing? No; I think Chrome on
| Android, today, is better than Safari on iOS. I may be
| _harming_ users today by forcing them on Safari.
|
| Would I fold if Apple only allowed Firefox/Lynx/Netscape?
| Yes; My problem is with Chrome, not with other browsers.
| But I think the number of people who genuinely want to
| Firefox is tiny in comparison to the number of people who
| would just install Chrome.
|
| My worst fear is that once Chrome is allowed on iOS, then
| there is no reason for Google, or anyone else, to target
| anything other than Chrome; and that would ultimately be
| harder to fix. A year of Chrome dominance, where
| developers only target Chrome would fully entrench Chrome
| and make it difficult for anyone to build a browser that
| wasn't just a Chrome fork that emulated all of Chrome's
| bugs and unspecified behaviors. The alternate solution,
| where the Chrome problem is addressed first, then the fix
| is "just" passing legislation that opens up iOS. One fix
| involves just changing the behavior of one company. The
| other fix involves changing the behavior of thousands of
| companies.
| pier25 wrote:
| If Safari hadn't been lagging so far behind for years, I'm
| sure the sentiment to allow Chrome on iOS would be very
| different.
| mtomweb wrote:
| 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.
| MBCook wrote:
| > The answer is competition
|
| _There is no competition_. There is only Chrome.
|
| This is what I was talking about. There will only be one
| result to opening iOS and it scares me.
|
| FF/Opera are too small. Edge is small and really just
| Chrome anyway. If we had a healthy browser market I'd be
| fine. But we don't.
|
| Apple is, for the wrong reason, the only thing keeping us
| from total Chrome dominance.
|
| I want one of these "just open iOS" calls to _include the
| consequences_ of what they're calling for and how they
| plan to deal with it.
| jsnell wrote:
| > This is what I was talking about. There will only be
| one result to opening iOS and it scares me.
|
| Why? Does Apple not have the resources to build a
| competitive browser? Do they not have the motivation? Do
| they not have the engineering skills? Do they not have a
| large and extremely desirable user-base who prefer to
| stay as much as possible in Apple's ecosystem?
|
| Given all the advantages Apple has, how could it possibly
| be true that they can only get users by literally banning
| all competition on their main platform?
| nemothekid wrote:
| Replace Apple with Microsoft and you get your answer.
| Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee
| success? Replace Apple with any company; do you think
| Google lacked the motivation and engineering skills to
| build a social network?
|
| Ignoring much of the fact how Google would leverage it's
| existing properties to make sure you couldn't open a
| single web page without being nagged about installing
| Chrome; it would take a large amount of effort for anyone
| to compete to where Chrome is today and the result is
| that people would just Chrome.
|
| And fine, I understand that as developers you don't want
| the burden of testing multiple platforms or being
| beholden to one platform that doesn't move as fast as
| Chrome. But to pretend this is about the "browser
| diversity" is where I have the problem. Just say you want
| Chrome and don't buy Google's framing that this about
| "open standards" when Google doesn't even hold Chrome to
| that standard.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Since when did having a trillion dollars guarantee
| success?
|
| So then your answer is that Apple's browser is
| significantly worse than competitors, and that users
| wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for
| Apples anti-competitive behavior?
|
| > But to pretend this is about the "browser diversity
|
| > Just say you want Chrome
|
| I think most open web supporters would be a lot happier
| if Apple even simply allowed Firefox.
|
| That would still be massively better than the status quo.
|
| Are you saying that all someone would have to do is argue
| for allowing just Firefox, and you would no longer do
| this thing where you attack some alleged secret
| motivations?
| nneonneo wrote:
| Apple can't reasonably allow Gecko (Firefox's engine)
| without also allowing Blink (Chrome's engine). And we
| know which one is the 800lb gorilla here.
|
| I love and support Firefox, and I even use it on my
| iPhone (yes, it's reskinned WebKit, but it syncs my
| stuff).
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _So then your answer is that Apple 's browser is
| significantly worse than competitors, and that users
| wouldn't use this much worse product if it were not for
| Apples anti-competitive behavior?_
|
| Yes. I hope it's exceedingly clear that I don't think
| Safari is God's gift to mankind.
|
| > _Are you saying that all someone would have to do is
| argue for allowing just Firefox_
|
| Yes. In fact they could be upfront and just say "just
| allow Chrome because I like developing for Chrome." But
| that's not what happens; it's "Apple is stifling
| competition because I want to use Netscape Navigator",
| when in actuality it's just developers that want to
| target a single platform, or Google who wants protect
| itself from Apple's power.
|
| Maybe OWA is the exception here, but what I've found is
| the people making the most visible noise about this are
| connected to Google in some way. Consider this HN post
| from a couple days ago [1], where the author in his six-
| part series about browser choice, neglects to ever
| mention Chrome's dominance. Unsurprising that he was also
| a platform strategist at Google. You're telling me the
| guy who's job it is to make sure Google is an entrenched
| as possible doesn't like Apple's position on Safari? What
| a surprise. Then he tells you "don't worry about Chrome,
| this is about open standards!" - sounds underhanded to
| me.
|
| At the very least, the cohort of users on Safari who
| can't switch prevents Google from just outright breaking
| some sites like Gmail and YouTube on every browser except
| Chrome.
|
| [1] https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-
| defending-brow...
| [deleted]
| MBCook wrote:
| > Does Apple not have the resources to build a
| competitive browser?...
|
| They do. They did. It's called Safari. That's how we got
| here.
|
| What they DON'T have is any care about
| Windows/Linux/Android users. Apple makes their browser to
| make their platform the way they like.
|
| If you want Apple to provide the competitive alternate
| browser on other platforms you're asking the wrong
| company.
|
| > Given all the advantages Apple has, how could it
| possibly be true that they can only get users by
| literally banning all competition on their main platform?
|
| Google pushes Chrome with the #1 OS in the world
| (Android). With the #1 site, google.com. And the #2,
| YouTube.com. And gmail. And Google Maps. Maybe Waze.
| Chrome OS. GSuite.
|
| They have an INSANE amount of power to push people to
| Chrome and off other browsers.
|
| I'm not arguing pro-Apple. I'm arguing anti-Google.
| agust wrote:
| Chrome _is_ competition, and no, it 's not alone: on the
| desktop market, where competition is not rigged as much
| as on mobile, Edge has 10% market share, and Firefox
| 7.5%. It's not insignificant.
|
| > I want one of these "just open iOS" calls to include
| the consequences of what they're calling for and how they
| plan to deal with it.
|
| OWA has taken into account anti-competitive practices
| used by Google to gain browser market share, and made
| recommendation to mitigate or prevent them. In there
| submission to the japanese regulator [1], they include:
|
| - 3.1.7: No Chrome Preferencing: > Google should not use
| their control over the operating system to provide unfair
| preference to their own browser, Chrome, either through
| the operating system or agreements with partners.
|
| - 3.1.8: Website Transparency Obligations: > OWA suggests
| that where a Gatekeeper's website does not support a
| browser which has above a 2% market share, they be
| compelled to publish a document containing detailed
| reasoning that prevents support of certain engines.
|
| [1]: https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
| frumper wrote:
| If you're taking the approach that iOS browsers are just
| re-skinned safari, then Edge doesn't count as it's own
| browser on desktop.
| agust wrote:
| Yes it does, that's a totally different situation. Edge
| _chose_ to use Chromium as its engine, Microsoft takes
| part in its development, they are free to remove or add
| any component from it, and if ever they wanted to they
| would be free to fork it and drop it for another engine
| at any time. None of that is true for WebKit skins on
| iOS.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Microsoft were were quite transparent about being forced
| to adopt Chromium because of the prevalence of Electron
| apps on Windows.
| migueldeicaza wrote:
| That wasn't the reason.
|
| Edge could just not compete with chrome, despite throwing
| hundreds of engineers at the problem. They tried, and
| tried, and tried.
|
| In the end "edge doesn't work" was just code for "edge is
| not chromium"
|
| Electron was and is still a separate beast, Microsoft
| doesn't even need to deal with that: third party
| developers do, they have to ship the binary.
| [deleted]
| nneonneo wrote:
| Those recommendations are weak sauce. Websites are going
| to say stuff like "works best in Chrome!" and Google is
| going to encourage that. Nothing in those
| recommendations, assuming they're even adopted, will
| solve that.
| nwienert wrote:
| It's disheartening - you have good intentions but almost
| everything you say is backwards.
|
| Regulation on Apple only is the opposite of encouraging
| competition, it's literally calling shots against the
| only fighter that's pushing back on Chrome in a
| significant way - on market share, and maybe more
| importantly, on privacy and avoiding bloating web
| standards to further avoid total lock-in on V8.
|
| Second, Apple has been accelerating greatly Safari
| development for _years_ now and I worry your entire
| organization can't admit it's actually a great browser
| and has rapidly caught up in terms of correctness and
| features, and is now in fact leading in many ways. That
| it rejects some proposals isn't inherently wrong, by the
| way, and the reasoning for many is just. I'm afraid if
| you admitted that, it'd pop a bubble in one of your core
| tenets, and given you made this mission driven thing with
| a single purpose, you're sort of now forced into an
| intellectually dishonest place.
|
| Because as a long time web develop myself who went from
| IE to Firefox to Chrome to Safari as my main browsers
| over the years, there's simply *no doubt* that Safari as
| of a year or two ago started whooping Chromes ass. Like
| not even close, it feels like a different type of thing.
| It's insanely fast, across so many dimensions, lighter,
| and I don't get incompatibility almost ever anymore.
|
| Your mission would achieve the opposite of what it wants
| - Apples platform isn't a monopoly, Google's are. Google
| has a monopoly on Search, Browsers, and influence on the
| web. This would only strengthen the worse/stronger
| fighter. And it's all premised on a fundamentally unsound
| critique of Safari.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Why do I care if developing in Safari is hard for
| developers? If iOS opens up to chrome, it's game over for
| any kind of competition in the mobile browser war. Google
| will take over web standards and the death of the old
| republic will be complete. Android is your answer if you
| don't want Safari.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Lots of people want to explain why the government should
| force Apple to let native Chrome onto iOS.
|
| I don't see anyone explaining what will force Google to
| continue supporting Safari once they have Chrome on iOS.
|
| The reality is that they probably won't. Safari will
| break for Google services and pixels, and the only answer
| will be "switch to Chrome, things don't break there." Bye
| bye competition.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| While I admire your stance on the internet being open I
| disagree.
|
| Yes, opening browser engines would be good for the
| competition. But you missed one point: You assume all
| players will play fair in the competition. If all browser
| engines would be allowed over night, what would happen:
| Google will probably play really unfair. E.g. sadly the
| layout of Google will be messed up in Safari, youtube
| videos stutter/have lower resolution, everything is a lot
| slower, the performance will be sabotaged, but on Chrome
| everything will be working fine. There was even a
| precedent for something similar: [1]
|
| This will probably come alongside with "Try it in Google
| Chrome", a lot of users would probably switch, thus the
| monopoly of Chromium would be unstoppable by pure market
| forces.
|
| Yes, having only one browser engine is bad for the choice
| of the user, but it does have significant downsides.
|
| Damned, if you do, damned if you don't
|
| [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-
| youtube-in...
| mtomweb wrote:
| Anti-Competitive Behaviour from google should also be
| addressed by regulators.
|
| Our suggestions were covered in sections: 3.1.7 No Chrome
| Prefrencing 3.1.8 Website Transparency Obligations
|
| https://open-web-
| advocacy.org/files/OWA%20-%20HDMC%20(Japan)...
| nneonneo wrote:
| As parent stated, Google can simply neglect to make their
| apps work well in Safari. They've done so in the past;
| GMail on Firefox was nigh-unusable due to a raft of dumb
| bugs for a long time, and it still uses substantially
| more CPU and memory than literally any other tab I have
| open on my browser. Right now they have to make an effort
| to support WebKit (Safari); as soon as they can push
| Blink (Chrome) to users, that motivation will go away.
| IX-103 wrote:
| To be fair, it's not like Safari is free. Should site
| owners have to pay Apple to make sure that their website
| shows up well in Safari?
|
| That seems like it creates perverse incentives for Apple
| to keep Safari "broken".
| joshuamorton wrote:
| > There was even a precedent for something similar: [1]
|
| No there wasn't, unless you mean killing a 10 year old
| version of Internet explorer with a banner to a newer
| version of Internet explorer is somehow playing unfair.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Yes, there was. See this thread from Mozilla's former
| Vice President: https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/http
| s://twitter.com/joh... (or directly on Twitter:
| https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686)
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| Maybe precedent was an unfair word - I apologize - but it
| shows, how Google can/could use the power of having one
| of the most used websites in order to influence the
| choice of the browser.
| criddell wrote:
| Actually, yes. With Apple not having user choice, those of
| use who want a choice can choose Android. Lack of diversity
| in one ecosystem supports diversity in a broader context.
|
| It's like prohibitions against importing some aggressive
| plant or animal species. It's a way of protecting local
| diversity.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| 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.
| simiones wrote:
| 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...
| MBCook wrote:
| You don't think Google will push Chrome to iOS users with
| banners when they search, use YouTube, Gmail, etc?
|
| That's what they did on desktop.
| liminvorous wrote:
| They already do this in their Apps, e.g. gmail at least at
| one piont prompted you to install chrome whenever you tried
| to open a link in a browser.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| YouTube also. Clicking links in the comments and
| descriptions prompts me to choose between "default
| browser" and installing Chrome. Every time.
| JamesSwift wrote:
| Yes, but again why would that suddenly mean 90% of people
| use it vs the reality of desktop today where they don't own
| 90% of the market? Why are 9 out of 10 people suddenly
| jumping ship because Google pushed chrome on their phone vs
| on their desktop PC?
| giantrobot wrote:
| In terms of web traffic iOS is a large enough percentage
| that sites have to cater to iOS/Safari. Since Safari
| doesn't support all of Google's latest
| fingerprint/tracking friendly web APIs most sites won't
| hate their content behind them. As soon as a "just
| install Chrome" banner is viable on mobile there's no
| reason websites won't be flooded with Chrome-only
| features.
|
| A Chrome-only web will edge out not just up to date
| competing browsers but any older iOS and Android devices
| that can't run top of tree Chrome.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| You are ignoring that Chrome (+ Edge) already effectively
| controls > 85% of the the browser market, ignoring iOS.
| They only need a 25% uptake on iOS to push them over 90%
| globally
| bogwog wrote:
| Especially since Google is forcing some users on iOS to
| install the Youtube app as the default 2FA method instead
| of offering SMS.
| aaomidi wrote:
| SMS 2FA is broken.
|
| You have a bunch of other options including security
| keys, TOTP, and existing device verification flow.
| bogwog wrote:
| 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.
| jeromegv wrote:
| The issue is that even for users with third party
| Authenticator, they force you many extra clicks to use
| your own. You can't set your own 2FA as default even
| after using it a 100 times. They make you jump through
| hoops to avoid YouTube or gmail for 2FA. Clearly it's on
| purpose.
| jeromegv wrote:
| I don't have sms. I have proper TOTP 2FA. And still,
| google keeps asking me to get my 2fa code in gmail or
| YouTube on iOS. It's 3 extra annoying clicks to get it to
| accept my own 2FA.
|
| It's clearly on purpose to force me on their apps.
| pram wrote:
| GMail on iOS already asks you to install Chrome on every
| link you click. It's not even a hypothetical lol
| badrabbit wrote:
| It isn't in Chrome's interest to dominate 90%+ anyways. It
| already is being treated as the default browser when devs
| create frontends. It will almost certainly see regulation, at
| least in the EU to have some sort of standards compliance else
| Google is fined.
| MBCook wrote:
| > It isn't in Chrome's interest to dominate 90%+ anyways.
|
| Why is that? I've never heard anyone argue that point before
| so I'm curious what you think the downsides would be to
| Google.
| izacus wrote:
| lolinder wrote:
| I think you make some good points, but you really need to
| tone it down. OP is sincerely voicing an opinion that is held
| by a _lot_ of us here, and it 's inappropriate to spew this
| much anger at them and accuse them of shilling and
| dishonesty. As in everything, someone can disagree with you
| without being evil.
| [deleted]
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You're accusing GP of shilling, then you distort the argument
| from the entire market that they were referring to, to only
| the iPhone.
|
| What kind of weird and aggressive behavior is this?
|
| You should be ashamed of your behavior.
| j0hnyl wrote:
| The difference between Chrome and IE is that IE sucked, but
| Chrome is currently the best user experience. What's the
| problem? If you have privacy concerns there are enough
| alternatives. Opera, Brave, Tor browser, etc. perform pretty
| well.
| sparker72678 wrote:
| IE gained market share most when it was a great user
| experience. IE 4 was frickin amazing compared to other
| browsers at the time. 5 and 6, _when they were released_,
| were also excellent browsers.
|
| It wasn't until after they had dominance that IE really
| withered.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| This is the absolute reality of what Open Web Advocacy is
| pushing for. A complete Chrome monopoly. It's really
| frustrating a couple lazy web devs with really incorrect
| understanding of the space keep getting so much attention.
| lenkite wrote:
| "Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing
| stopping a 90%+ Chrome web."
|
| Sorry what ? Can you point me to the place where I can download
| Safari for Linux and Windows and Android ? If they actually had
| those builds, I would believe what you say.
|
| But no - All they are doing is protecting their turf by hitting
| every other browser with sticks so folks prefer native apps
| over web apps.
| MBCook wrote:
| I think you misunderstand.
|
| Yes, Safari is only on Apple platforms.
|
| I'm saying Chrome is already dominant on Windows, Linux,
| Android, and Chromebook.
|
| The only one where it's not is iOS (Mac is kinda close, but
| small in terms of users).
|
| If real Chrome can go on iOS my supposition is Chrome will
| become dominant there too.
|
| Leaving no platform not dominated by Chrome.
| glitchc wrote:
| Actually that's how the system is supposed to work: Let Chrome
| become a monopoly so that we can finally regulate it. The same
| thing happened with IE and we crossed that bridge when the time
| came.
|
| Apple needs to open up their ecosystem to other browsers. This
| is not a suitable excuse.
| MBCook wrote:
| I would argue Chrome is already a de facto monopoly.
|
| So why do we need to make things worse to make them better?
|
| Let's make them better (fix the Chrome issue) and then make
| them better again (the Safari issue) instead of the other way
| around.
| danShumway wrote:
| I completely sympathize with this worry, but are we certain
| that allowing multiple browsers on iOS _would_ mean Chrome
| dominance?
|
| Part of the reason Chrome dominates on Android is because it's
| the default browser. How many people on iPhone are we expecting
| will change their default browser? As far as I know, most users
| don't change their messenger clients on iOS.
| MBCook wrote:
| The one number I can find is that 25% of iOS users already
| use Chrome on iOS. So that's 5% of all surfing.
|
| You know that would immediately become real Chrome.
|
| Once it's possible to have real Chrome my fear is Google
| would start breaking things on Safari (or just refusing to
| fix things) to drive people to it.
| danShumway wrote:
| It's a somewhat legit concern given that people have
| alleged they basically did that already with Firefox.
|
| And the stats make me curious -- given that Chrome on iOS
| is just a wrapper around Safari, are people just switching
| because Google Docs tells them to, and that's enough? I'm
| having a hard time of thinking of a functionality reason to
| switch to Chrome in iOS (maybe browser/bookmark sync, I
| guess). I'm surprised to see a number that high.
| MBCook wrote:
| I have always highly suspected that normal people don't
| know/care about how Chrome on iOS works. It's only the
| developer community that is so outspoken about it.
|
| Of course I have no way to prove that at all.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > are we certain that allowing multiple browsers on iOS would
| mean Chrome dominance?
|
| Yes. From Google's apps _already_ asking you to open links in
| Chrome to Google actively sabotaging competition
| https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686
| spideymans wrote:
| 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.
| simiones wrote:
| 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.
| raydev wrote:
| > It's not the "EU's cookie banners", it is the
| advertisers' cookie banners
|
| It's the EU's cookie banners. Despite the EU's best
| intentions, the end result is worse. It was a naive move
| and we're all suffering for it. One of the biggest pieces
| of evidence that you can't just naively mandate something
| without also thinking through edge cases and "malicious
| compliance."
| spideymans wrote:
| >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.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The cookie banners are still a net good: they make bad
| sites harder to read, turning people away from some of
| the worst examples.
|
| They at least give you some measure of control, or legal
| standing, or at least visibility into how bad the web
| actually is.
| raydev wrote:
| I don't know how to convey to you that people just accept
| worse UX until a better alternative is shown to them.
| Boiled frogs.
| graftak wrote:
| The opt-out action has be to be equally easy and
| discoverable as the opt-in, which is never implemented
| this way and only just started to get enforced.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| > 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
| IX-103 wrote:
| "only technically necessary cookies" That doesn't really
| help preserve privacy. There are so many techniques for
| tracking, detectable and undetectable.
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| I formulated it a bit to informal, I meant, that the
| website should just don't collect data from me unless it
| is really needed. (E.g. Tracking identifiers are not
| needed or collecting fingerprints from WebCanvas and so
| on)
| spideymans wrote:
| Yup, that would work.
|
| I wish the EU had gone with this solution rather than the
| current regulations. However I can't help but feel that
| the "loopholes" in the current regulations were
| intentional. Politicians have a history of rolling out
| regulations that have giant loopholes for their corporate
| friends to exploit.
| bogwog wrote:
| On the other hand, if Apple's anti-competitive practices end
| and Chrome finally hits 90%+ market share, it would make it
| much harder for regulators to ignore Chrome's dominance and
| might lead to some actual change for once.
| Bud wrote:
| Let me see if I have this straight. Apple has a tiny slice of
| the overall market, but you are terribly, terribly offended,
| and so your proposed solution is for Chrome to get more than
| 90% market share, because that would be a better situation?
| And "change" would result? How? You don't say. What change?
| You don't even hint.
|
| This just isn't a serious stance, I'm sorry.
| ar_lan wrote:
| I'm really confused. I actively use Firefox as my default browser
| on my iPhone running iOS 15.5.
|
| I don't think Apple has banned other browsers at all.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's basically a skin for Apple WebKit because Apple doesn't
| allow browsers to use their own engine.
| ar_lan wrote:
| I guess the question becomes are Firefox and Safari (on iOS)
| the same browser, or different? I would still argue that
| Firefox is different (in the same way that Brave and Chrome
| are different), and that this title is misleading.
| ArcVRArthur wrote:
| It's funny to hear Apple talking about how mandatory Webkit is a
| feature when iOS 1 ran Safari as root.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Why? You mean the original version in 2007? It wasn't even
| called iOS yet. It was obsolete in 2008.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1541318055636369409.html
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Anyone have a clue for me what the 'CMA' is? I assume it's not
| CMA China Shipping, nor the Country Music Association, nor a
| Certified Management Accountant certification. (I did try to
| figure it out on my own before asking) Thanks in advance.
| aeyes wrote:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-...
| mtomweb wrote:
| The Competition and Markets Authority (The UK Regulator).
|
| You can read more here: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-
| ecosystems-market-study
|
| And their new market investigation here:
| https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-browsers-and-cloud-gamin...
|
| or our tweet thread summary here:
| https://twitter.com/OpenWebAdvocacy/status/15395035090783887...
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Thank you both.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| The claim is laughable because this policy makes it impossible
| for external developers to step in and address fundamental,
| inexcusable problems with WebKit, such as the fact it's written
| in C++ and therefore produces a consistent supply of memory
| corruption bugs year after year.
|
| Also, I'm skeptical of the notion that every type of app _except_
| web browsers can be meaningfully screened for security. How can
| one not interpret this as a tacit admission that the screening
| process is close to worthless?
| jeffwask wrote:
| I don't recall that argument working for Microsoft visa vi
| Windows and IE
| scarface74 wrote:
| Actually it did. Nothing changed. No there was no browser
| choice mandate in the US
| aaomidi wrote:
| Then put it behind a switch and let the user take responsibility.
| Based on how apple has responded to security issues before, I
| don't really think they have much of a leg to stand on.
|
| Also, a security issue with safari is far more devastating if you
| don't have other browsers.
|
| 1. You have to wait for apple to release a system update, not
| just update the app.
|
| 2. You now have no safe browser to use while you wait for #1.
| fuu_dev wrote:
| 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.
| SalimoS wrote:
| 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
| fuu_dev wrote:
| This also dismisses that apple controls the platform and
| hardware what means it can easily and does use this position
| to their advantage.
| Spivak wrote:
| Every discussion about this seems to have people cutting
| themselves on Occam's razor left and right. The idea that there
| can only every be one true motivation for someone's actions isn't
| even true for the individual, much less a massive organization.
| It can be simultaneously true that Safari being the only browser
| on iOS is enjoyed by the business side of Apple and the
| engineering side of Apple for different reasons.
|
| And good lord this line of argumentation is extremely
| disingenuous even if you think the actual analysis is good
| (counting CVEs is not exactly the best measure). One because no
| one except nerds are going to switch browsers in response a
| random CVE and two because it doesn't even establish what Apple
| actually means by security and instead goes off on a rant "well
| if Apple really cared about [my personal view of] security you
| would blah blah" -- literally zero effort to understand the
| opposing view or evaluate other possible ways of addressing the
| security concerns.
|
| But ya know, "Safari lags behind other browsers in RCE
| mitigations and mean time to patch" doesn't grab headlines and
| doesn't prescribe a single solution that is also motivated by
| more than just security ;)
| imchillyb wrote:
| Well duh.
|
| They're _'...doing it for the children! '_
|
| Mmmhm.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| If they banned all browsers, I'd believe them.
| tobi1449 wrote:
| It's also surely only for ,,security" that all the neutered
| adblockers only work with Safari itself and not on any other apps
| using the Webkit Rendering ...
| aquanext wrote:
| Fortunately, there's user choice in phones. So get an Android
| device if you want to run Google's stuff? I mean, security is one
| angle, but let's talk power and memory usage. You're asking for
| Apple to allow Chrome's engine (because their app is on the App
| Store today right now) -- the giant well-known resource hog
| routinely toasting MacBook Pro users' thighs -- onto their
| fanless hyper-performant devices. Setting aside privacy and
| monopolistic concerns, I just don't see how that's a great idea.
| jensensbutton wrote:
| Yes, that's what I want. It turns out a phone and a web browser
| are different products.
|
| This isn't rocket science.
| fastaguy88 wrote:
| What a misleading argument. Yes, Apple believes that restricting
| IOS browsers to Safari improves security. This is NOT the same as
| saying Safari has fewer bugs, or fixes bugs faster, than other
| browsers. I suspect Apple's argument is that by allowing other
| browsers, and their plugin management system, the other browsers
| (or their plug-ins/extensions) will be able to bypass the App
| store and do things that are insecure.
|
| And it is hard to see how counting numbers of bugs has much to do
| with the severity of the bugs. Not every bug allows a jailbreak,
| but the ones that do are of much greater concern.
| iasay wrote:
| It depends how you look at it and this twitter post takes only
| one perspective.
|
| Mine is different. The security I'm interested in for my use case
| is that there is one egress point from the operating system as
| far as a browser goes. That means I don't have apps shipping
| their own browser engines to circumvent the system block lists
| and screen time whitelist controls.
|
| Also comparing CVE rates is pointless as that's exploits and
| vulnerabilities that were identified and patched, not ones that
| are in active exploit or publicly unknown which is a metric you
| cannot measure.
|
| And of course if every app ships a browser or you change it, how
| many CVEs do you have from unpatched browsers shipped in apps?
|
| This twitter post feels like the old political adverts: "vote for
| us because the other guy is shit" (not because we have a better
| solution).
| causi wrote:
| _That means I don 't have apps shipping their own browser
| engines to circumvent the system block lists and screen time
| whitelist controls._
|
| The mechanism for banning third-party browsers is rejection by
| the App Store reviewer, correct? Supposing Apple allowed third-
| party browsers but disallowed embedded browsers in non-browser
| apps, how would this security model change at all?
| mtomweb wrote:
| For In-App Browsers we'd advocate for implementing a system
| similar to CCT which means that it just uses the user's
| default browser. For WebViews for native apps we'd advocate
| for simply using the system browser (every other solution
| seems too complicated).
| mtomweb wrote:
| OP here. The point of the post was not that Safari's security
| is bad (browser security in general is pretty excellent), the
| point is that Apple uses security as an excuse to block
| competition and has no evidence that it's browser is more
| secure than Firefox/Chrome/Edge etc.
|
| As for system block lists and screentime whitelist controls,
| that sounds like something any browser could plug-in to via a
| OS provided API.
|
| I'm in somewhat agreement with you that you can't identify the
| number of security flaws by vulnerability count, but when you
| combine that with the big delay in patching + patches not being
| delivered to the current (most popular) version of the OS it
| brings a lot of doubt to Apple's claims of both being able to
| patch faster and have better security.
|
| We're not advocating that apps should not be allowed to ship a
| browser unless they receive a browser entitlement which should
| be subject to some approval process / vetting etc. i.e.
| Browsers with strong security track records should be allowed
| to bring their browsers along with the engines with some
| affordance given to browsers that run from soft-forks of those
| engines.
| _kbh_ wrote:
| Should browsers that ship to iOS have to raise their security
| profile to be the same as safari in your scenarios?.(afaik no
| browsers have the same exploit mitigations that safari does
| on M1/iOS because nothing else has the hardware to support
| these mitigations).
| mtomweb wrote:
| For a start, Apple should have to provide access same
| hardware security functionality it gives to Safari like
| APPR, or PAC (Pointer Authentication Codes)
| security protections can be implemented either at the
| software or hardware layer and I would be wary of mandating
| either.
|
| It's important to note that every browser has security
| vulnerabilities.
|
| It's hard to measure security, what I would advocate for is
| that any browser that received a browser entitlement would
| have to be committed to providing quick security patches
| and any browser that was found to be negligent should be
| first warned and then removed.
| mtomweb wrote:
| IMO, Only browsers with dedicated security teams should
| receive a browser entitlement (which includes a small team
| for soft-fork browsers) who are committed to keeping their
| browser secure.
|
| All browsers have vulnerabilities, and it's hard to
| measure. Although it's easy to spot browsers that aren't
| patching known vulnerabilities fast enough. Negligent
| browsers should be warned and then have their entitlements
| revoked.
|
| As for hardware protections like APRR or Pointer
| Authentication Codes (PAC) Apple should be forced to
| provide access to the third party browsers. I would steer
| clear of mandating exactly how the browsers should keep
| their users secure because that can be a point of debate
| and can be done both at a software layer or a hardware
| layer. Firefox has also introduced Site Isolation, Chromium
| has proven that adequately staffed security teams are able
| to mitigate hardware level security issues like Spectre &
| Meltdown with novel, system-level mitigations and these
| mitigations reached users before OS and hardware updates
| were able to fully remove the vulnerabilities.
| btilly wrote:
| Comparing CVE rates is NOT pointless. The bad guys have
| basically the same toolset as the good guys. Therefore the rate
| at which vulnerabilities are being discovered by the good guys
| is indicative of how fast they are being discovered and
| exploited by the bad guys.
|
| Second the thread pointed out that many iPhones remain
| vulnerable and unpatched to openly disclosed security holes
| WITHOUT an option to update them. One must assume at that point
| that they are being exploited. The fact that alternate browsers
| don't have this problem is a significant version.
|
| But you do have a good point that it is bad for third party
| apps to bundle their own browsers to bypass controls, and then
| leave them vulnerable.
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| Isn't this anti-competitive? Wasn't Microsoft fined for doing a
| less aggressive version of the same with IE?
| petmon wrote:
| Microsoft got in legal trouble for coercing OEMs like Dell to
| ship IE. The OEMs, not Microsoft, should decide what ships on
| their own hardware. Here Apple is the OEM and is being coerced.
| freediver wrote:
| @dang The title is misleading. Apple is not banning other
| browsers (there are over 100+ browsers on iOS). Apple is
| restricting iOS browsers to using the WebKit rendering engine
| which is an entirely different matter.
|
| Edit: Apple is also not claiming what the title suggests (source
| would be needed), the author of the tweet seems to just interpret
| it this way.
| cromwellian wrote:
| This is misleading because the Rendering Engine is the browser.
| Everything else is a skin.
|
| The rendering engine determines pretty much everything related
| to we standards.
|
| Third party iOS browsers are little more than third party
| themes/skins.
| freediver wrote:
| I understand how it may appear to look like that to someone
| who never tried to build a browser.
|
| See this comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31897294
| Pakdef wrote:
| Apple can block any web feature that they don't like,
| regardless of "browser"...
| mtomweb wrote:
| It's not misleading. Firefox, Edge and Chrome have all been
| banned on iOS.
|
| Instead Apple has forced them to produce separate browsers
| around a locked WebView that they exclusively control. Mozilla,
| Microsoft and Google have all spoken out against the ban in
| regulatory submission, and browser engineers at each vendor
| consider it a ban.
|
| The REAL browsers have been banned.
| thewebcount wrote:
| > 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-
| web-browser/id1... [2]https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-
| chrome/id535886823
| lenkite wrote:
| Good thing that regulation mentions browser _engines_ and
| not the cardboard wrapping. You can use any browser you
| want as long it is ONLY Apple WebKit behind the scenes is a
| true dystopian fascist power-play.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > Good thing that regulation mentions browser engines and
| not the cardboard wrapping.
|
| Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly
| dominant engine that has ~80% of global market?
|
| Or in the case of Chromium the cardboard wrapping like
| Edge etc. are different engines all of a sudden?
| smoldesu wrote:
| > Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly
| dominant engine that has ~80% of global market?
|
| Because WebKit _sucks!_
|
| I don't intend to be vitriolic here, but this really is
| the status quo of rendering engines. You have Blink,
| which is capable of making complex webapps and fully-
| featured browser experiences, and then you have WebKit,
| which is almost exclusively capable of breaking them. I'm
| not mad that WebKit sucks though, we need sucky browser
| engines! Sucky browser engines like WebKit run great on
| terrible hardware like Smart TVs or WiFi Fridges or
| portable game consoles that wouldn't be running a browser
| engine otherwise. The problem is that Apple forces mobile
| users onto a browser that's behind the rest of the
| world's web technologies. They can make sucky browsers
| all day long, and they won't hear a peep out of me as
| long as I can replace it with a Chromium-based browser.
| WebKit is holding Safari, and by extension the rest of
| the internet, back.
|
| _That 's_ the problem, and arguably an abuse of market
| position considering Apple directly profits off the
| failure of webapps.
| mtomweb wrote:
| They say a picture is worth a 1000 words:
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/1
| 6...
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _Firefox, Edge and Chrome have all been banned on iOS._
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-
| browser/i...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/microsoft-edge-web-
| browser/id1...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome/id535886823
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/brave-private-web-
| browser/id10...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/duckduckgo-privacy-
| browser/id6...
|
| https://apps.apple.com/us/app/opera-browser-fast-
| private/id1...
|
| Etc.
| warning26 wrote:
| All of these are Safari skins. If you really want your
| Safari to _look like_ Firefox then you 're fine, but if
| you'd like to _actually use_ Firefox you 're out of luck.
| CharlesW wrote:
| That's like saying all DAWs are skins of CoreAudio. Also,
| it assumes that Firefox's only value is Gecko.
| mtomweb wrote:
| Quote:
|
| Mozilla believes that major platforms should be under an
| on-going duty to:
|
| Stop practices that distort competition on the merits and
| inhibit consumer choice, such as: * interfering with
| consumer selection of alternative browsers and use of
| those browsers to access the internet from links and
| queries on their devices; and * dictating or controlling
| browser components, such as browser engines, which
| prevent consumers from accessing and using their
| preferred browser across all operating systems and
| devices.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Mozilla is the Hiroo Onoda of browser makers. They should
| decommission Gecko and adopt WebKit, or just move to
| Blink and stop pretending to fight for web standards.
| lenkite wrote:
| Yeah, everyone should kneel to Apple - they are the Real
| Web Gods. Of-course the Apple fanatics can continue to
| love and use bug-ridden Safari. The folks who want a
| choice can use something else.
| dcow wrote:
| Those aren't the actual browsers. They're a reskinned
| Safari because they have to be.
| jedberg wrote:
| A semantic nitpick that is totally irrelevant. Most people on
| this website usually mean Gecko when they say they want to use
| Firefox, Blink when they say Chrome, etc.
|
| You and I both know the headline means allowing other rendering
| engines.
| freediver wrote:
| 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 be
| the case if one is cloning Chromium/Firefox where you get
| both the rendering angine and the browser app for free. If
| you are using WebKit, you are writing the browser application
| from scratch.
|
| [1] https://browser.kagi.com
| JamesSwift wrote:
| 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?
| [deleted]
| enos_feedler wrote:
| The first claim when you visit their home page:
|
| "Apple's ban of third party browsers on iOS is deeply anti-
| competitive, starves the Safari/WebKit team of funding and has
| stalled innovation for the past 10 years and prevented Web Apps
| from taking off on mobile."
|
| Anti-competitive? Perhaps? Yes? Starves the Safari team of
| funding? I don't know what this means. Stalled innovation for the
| past 10 years? Maybe. Prevented Web Apps from taking off on
| mobile? whoah. These are some pretty loose claims.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| I'm actually writing this on Brave on MacOS. I also have Chrome.
| I practically never use Safari. (I don't have an iPhone, though.)
|
| So they don't have it on the AppStore? Who cares?
| corrral wrote:
| On iOS, the only browser engine allowed is Safari's. There are
| other browsers, but they have to use the same engine.
|
| I'm pretty sure that approximately zero normal users are
| bothered by this, but a lot of webdevs really, really want to
| be able to use things like web push messaging on iOS.
| lewisgodowski wrote:
| Web push notifications will be available (in some capacity)
| in iOS 16 this fall. But that's beside the point.
| TheDong wrote:
| > I'm pretty sure that approximately zero normal users are
| bothered by this
|
| I think many normal users are bothered by this and don't
| realize it.
|
| The restrictions on browser engine are the main reason that
| Firefox can't ship addons for iOS (like it does for firefox
| on android). I bet a ton of iOS users would appreciate being
| able to install firefox addons, like uBlock origin, on their
| iOS firefox.
| smiddereens wrote:
| tambourine_man wrote:
| 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 too powerful for its own good.
|
| * Chrome's dominance of the Web is very scary. Not as scary as
| IE's, since it's open source, but still, it's such a huge beast
| that it's almost proprietary through complexity. I don't know if
| there's an easy solution out of this.
|
| * The time it takes Apple to patch security flaws is not the main
| issue here and should not be the core argument. What if Apple
| steps up its game and gets really good at this? The issue is the
| strategic decision Apple is making and the discussion should be
| if a company that powerful should be allowed to make such
| decisions and impose them to the user.
|
| * Apple could avoid this discussion by giving the user a one time
| only toggle switch to sideload any binary. It should be buried
| under many menus and preceded by lots of scary dialog boxes. It
| could even void battery warranty or something. Maybe keep a
| constant orange menu bar as a reminder that you are on your own
| and can't blame Apple for anything.
| hinkley wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| 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.
| Cannabat wrote:
| > Chrome's dominance of the Web is very scary. Not as scary as
| IE's, since it's open source, but still, it's such a huge beast
| that it's almost proprietary through complexity. I don't know
| if there's an easy solution out of this.
|
| I'd say that Chrome's dominance is much scarier than IE's. One
| reason has to do with user data.
|
| When IE was dominant, user data was not nearly as valuable.
| Today, user data is how Google makes money, so they are
| strongly incentivised to harvest it. While I understand Chrome
| isn't exactly the source of the harvesting, it reinforces
| reliance on Google services for the vast majority of users.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| 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.
| Jcowell wrote:
| > It could even void battery warranty or something
|
| This is illegal in a variety of places. They need to prove that
| these actions caused damage to the battery.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Clarification: Chrome is NOT open source. Chromium is, but it
| has a nonexistent market share. Google loves this model:
| Android isn't open source either, and it forces a bunch of
| proprietary apps as requirements for it's distribution, but
| they claim they're open source because they throw basically
| nonfunctional AOSP code over the wall.
| fbanon wrote:
| Dig1t wrote:
| I'd argue that there are legitimately decent reasons that Apple
| is doing this, besides the selfish, monopoly-protecting, reasons
| that are also nicely aligned with it as well. Besides the
| security thing mentioned elsewhere, I think performance and
| battery life are a huge concern as well. A big reason that Apple
| products (usually) work so well is that the vertical integration
| of both hardware and software can lead to compounding gains WRT
| performance and battery life. i.e. iPhones have excellent battery
| life and are pretty snappy for most of their life. A web browser
| is such a core (frequently used) experience for a smartphone that
| any tradeoffs made in the browser engine in favor of faster
| performance at the cost of power efficiency can have a big
| overall effect on the battery of the device.
|
| The vast majority of users don't know or understand why they see
| decreased battery life when they do, they just see that their
| phone doesn't last as long. Google has such a complete monopoly
| in the browser market that one can argue that there's a pretty
| good incentive for Google to make tradeoffs in Chrome that
| decrease battery life on the iPhone to hurt the iPhone's battery
| life, and most people would not realize or understand that its
| not the iPhone's fault but Chrome.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| > iPhones have excellent battery life and are pretty snappy for
| most of their life
|
| Not really. Maybe in the early days they had an edge with ObjC
| when hardware was primitive and java slow, but nowadays it's
| the same or buried behind synthetic slowdown animations. The
| battery life isn't especially good in my personal experience.
| max51 wrote:
| every single year single the early iphones, they have had
| equal or better battery life than competing androids with
| larger batteries. They consistently have 500 - 1000 mAh less
| than their close competitors.
| mccr8 wrote:
| Comparing CVE counts is a bit nonsensical. For instance, Chrome
| and Firefox don't individually assign CVEs for internally
| reported vulnerabilities.
|
| For instance, in these patch notes Chrome lists "Various fixes
| from internal audits, fuzzing and other initiatives" and doesn't
| even look to have a CVE:
|
| https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2022/05/stable-channel...
|
| Or for Firefox, there's a dozen or so bundled together in a
| single CVE under "Memory safety bugs fixed in Firefox 101":
|
| https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2022-2...
| capableweb wrote:
| I agree, measuring "security" by counting CVE counts is a bit
| like measuring developer productivity by counting git commits,
| it simply doesn't make sense.
|
| But in the grand schema of things, who cares _how many_ CVEs a
| project has, when it can take almost 2 months for the project
| to ship updates fixing exploits that happen in the wild
| already? That 's just out of control and unbelievable.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| I seem to remember the CVE database search utility on Mitre's
| web site stating something along the lines of "comparing the
| number of CVEs by platform shouldn't be used to draw
| conclusions".
|
| Possibly a CYA-esque liability statement, but the principle
| seemed sound.
| ssd8991 wrote:
| bogwog wrote:
| 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.
| judge2020 wrote:
| iOS as well - JailbreakMe[0] and TotallyNotSpyware[1] use a
| WebKit exploit to get out of the sandbox to then trigger other
| exploits that allow full system compromise/control.
|
| Note that, while earlier JailbreakMe exploits were patchable if
| you installed a patch[2], the readme in the TotallyNotSpyware
| repo explains that, in general, there's not a patch for the
| exploit post-jailbreak, so you could still be pwned by a third-
| party website should they deliver this exploit with a spyware
| payload.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JailbreakMe
|
| 1: https://github.com/JakeBlair420/totally-not-spyware
|
| 2: https://www.idownloadblog.com/2011/07/06/pdf-patcher-2/ (use
| an ad-blocker, this website is super ad-infested)
| adrr wrote:
| If you can break out the app sandbox on IOS, that is a flaw
| with IOS. These flaws could be exploited with any app that is
| using file parsing like the adobe photoshop app.
|
| The jailbreakme app wasn't exploit on WebKit. It was iOS native
| pdf rendering Library. WebKit was used to deliver the exploit.
| babypuncher wrote:
| That is not a fair comparison. An entire browser engine has
| way more surface area for attack than a JPEG decoder.
| adrr wrote:
| It was just an example. What about a pdf editor/viewer like
| acrobat?
| babypuncher wrote:
| Still far less attack surface area than a browser engine.
|
| Browsers can download and execute arbitrary code in the
| form of JavaScript or WASM. Your options for poking at
| the sandbox are far more plentiful when it is parsing and
| executing turing-complete instructions rather than a
| markup languages or other static data.
| Retr0id wrote:
| A couple of things to note here.
|
| Firstly, this is not a webkit-specific problem - It's just that
| webkit is the most commonly embedded browser engine.
|
| I have personally jailbroken my LG smart TV using a V8 n-day
| exploit (details not public, yet).
|
| For any modern browser engine that is left unpatched, it is
| only a matter of time before it can be exploited using
| publicly-available techniques - and console manufacturers know
| this. Which leads me to my second point:
|
| Console manufactuers _assume_ that the browser will be
| compromised, and sandbox it appropriately. It is not a
| meaningful security boundary, by design. Exploiting the browser
| on a console, on its own, doesn 't get get you very far. You'll
| need to chain it with additional exploits (a sandbox escape, a
| kernel exploit, etc.) to do something useful.
| smoldesu wrote:
| So... theoretically there is no security disadvantage to
| using Blink as your render engine instead of Webkit, as long
| as they're running the in the same sandbox? If that's
| _really_ the case, then it 's even _more_ bizarre that Apple
| stands by their security statement.
| Retr0id wrote:
| The console threat model is far too different to the mobile
| device threat model for any direct comparison.
|
| Console users will deliberately withhold security updates,
| so that they can later hack their devices. Console security
| updates protect the vendor from their users.
|
| Mobile users (who care) will always be on the latest
| updates. Fresh browser exploits are exponentially more
| expensive, generally speaking.
|
| Allowing users to use different browser engines doesn't
| necessarily widen the remote attack surface, it just
| changes it. But yes, ultimately I think Apple cares more
| about losing their walled garden, than they do about
| security.
| mccr8 wrote:
| 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.
| ibigb wrote:
| 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?
| Razengan wrote:
| How would you enforce device-wide content restrictions or
| parental controls in other engines?
| jacooper wrote:
| 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/
| nicce wrote:
| > 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 Apple forces the Webkit rendering, but for normal user
| it does not even matter much. They can download Chrome and get
| the UI they want.
| niko001 wrote:
| It might not matter to users in the sense that they ask
| themselves what rendering engine Chrome on iOS is using under
| the hood, but the effects do matter. I get a lot of support
| requests saying "Your [web] app is broken on my iPhone!",
| "Right, Safari doesn't support feature XYZ", "I'm not using
| Safari, I'm using Chrome", "..."
| CharlesW wrote:
| How does the developer story get better if you're required
| to support many web rendering engines on iOS instead of
| one? Or is the endgame that you'd just point people to
| Chrome/Blink and extend the web monoculture to Apple
| devices too?
| jsnell wrote:
| The endgame is that Apple is forced to actually make a
| working browser, rather than intentionally starve it of
| resources to benefit the App Store. Everyone wins.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Just wait until Google has Chrome running natively on iOS
| and introduces nonstandard behaviors to break Safari
| rendering intentionally.
|
| Then at least you'll be able to tell all your customers
| that you recommend switching to Chrome for all browsing.
| What a great victory for browser diversity and the open
| web!
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| That seems to be a communication problem. Instead of saying
| "Right, Safari doesn't support feature XYZ", say "Right,
| iOS doesn't support feature XYZ".
|
| It's also technically more correct, the best kind.
| jacooper wrote:
| 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.
| dmitriid wrote:
| Safari supports everything in PWA (which is a non-existent
| thing, but a dozen standards in a trenchcoat) except
| notifications.
|
| By "compatibility" you mean "support all of the Chrome's no
| n-standards it pushes at breaking speed"?
| the_gipsy wrote:
| > except notifications.
|
| Which is THE single selling points that brings everyone
| to make 2 native apps instead of one URL. It hs been
| available on Android for a decade, and is still
| undetermined when it will actually land in iOS.
| jacooper wrote:
| It won't, they want to push you to make an app no matter
| what.
| the_gipsy wrote:
| I bet
| barkerja wrote:
| 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.
| lenkite wrote:
| Both Safari and Chrome are the new IE's. Regulation should
| force folks to download a browser or have competing browser
| (with relevant competing engines) already pre-installed on
| both iOS and Android.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| > 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
| shouldn't I be able to do these things?
|
| Apple enforces its own browser, which it carefully and
| deliberately hamstrings, in order to force web apps to not
| bypass the App Store, so Safari also enforces the App Store
| marketshare.
|
| They're tightly tied together (so tight that the Windows-IE
| tying isn't even in the same galaxy) in order to enforce the
| other's marketshare. At least Microsoft allowed third party
| browsers and installing apps from other locations. This is
| tying on a completely different level.
| viktorcode wrote:
| 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.
| smoldesu wrote:
| ...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.
| capableweb wrote:
| If you buy a computer from ASUS, you can download
| whatever browser you want. If you buy a cellphone from a
| Android-manufacturer, you can download whatever browser
| you want.
|
| But if you buy an iPhone, you can only download browsers
| that are using Apples own browser.
|
| Just because smartphones have traditionally been locked
| down, doesn't mean that it _should_ be like that.
|
| PCs were also pretty locked down the beginning. And
| Windows have tried a couple of times to move in that
| direction. But fortunately, we have a relatively open
| ecosystem when it comes to devices we use for "producing"
| things on. It's just missing that the devices we
| "consume" on works similarly.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Do you understand that you are spouting conspiracy theory
| brain poison?
|
| Feel free to debate the end result. If you presume motive,
| you can be proven wrong.
| capableweb wrote:
| > Do you understand that you are spouting conspiracy
| theory brain poison?
|
| Why don't you actually refute the points they made
| instead? If it's so obviously "conspiracy theory brain
| poison"
|
| Webkit quite literally has 100% market-share on the iOS
| platform, as no other browser engine is even allowed.
| Same goes for the App Store, 100% market-share.
| zuhsetaqi wrote:
| > Apple Safari has, literally, 100% marketshare across the
| entire iPhone market. Its App Store also has 100%
| marketshare and enforces the Safari marketshare.
|
| And that's the big difference between Safari dominance and
| IE at the time. Safari is only on iOS/iPadOS dominant not
| in the entire market like IE was
| dcow wrote:
| There was no mobile _at the time_.
| zuhsetaqi wrote:
| It's not about mobile or desktop, it's about marketshare.
| So just all devices.
|
| IE had a nearly 100 % percent marketshare and Safari is
| far away from 100 % marketshare.
| LMYahooTFY wrote:
| That's what countered the claim that Windows+IE were 'one
| product' as opposed to separate, right?
|
| Outside of legal-land this seems like a BS argument, and
| even more so now. But legal-land is what matter first I
| suppose.
| mtomweb wrote:
| Source was the DMA final text:
| https://twitter.com/OpenWebAdvocacy/status/15271019882567229...
|
| Also many have now spoken up against it:
|
| ### Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) Apple's restrictions on
| third-party browsers, and the limitations it puts on
| Safari/WebKit (its own browser tools) have hobbled "web apps,"
| which run seamlessly inside a browser. This means that app
| makers can't deliver a single, browser-based app that works on
| all tablets and phones - they have to pay to develop separate
| apps for each mobile platform.
|
| That also means that app users can't just switch from one
| platform to another and access all their apps by typing a URL
| into a browser of their choice.
|
| ### Mozilla Mozilla believes that major platforms should be
| under an on-going duty to:
|
| Stop practices that distort competition on the merits and
| inhibit consumer choice, such as: * interfering with consumer
| selection of alternative browsers and use of those browsers to
| access the internet from links and queries on their devices;
| and * dictating or controlling browser components, such as
| browser engines, which prevent consumers from accessing and
| using their preferred browser across all operating systems and
| devices.
|
| ### Google By contrast, PWAs--and the web writ-large--receive a
| small fraction of this support on iOS. This is primarily
| because of Apple's requirement that all browsers use its
| proprietary WebKit browser engine. Not only does this prevent
| browsers from differentiating from Safari--Chrome is unable to
| access the user's camera, preventing users from using products
| like Google Lens--it also harms user security. A recent study
| from Google's Project Zero security research team found that
| WebKit is significantly slower than other browser engines to
| fix reported bugs.
|
| ### Microsoft Apple requires that any mobile browsers on iOS,
| including those offered by Apple's competitors (e.g., Google's
| Chrome app), use Apple's own WebKit browser engine. This
| restriction harms competition and consumers.
|
| ### Meta Apple requires all web browsers on iOS to use WebKit,
| a degraded version of Apple's Safari browser, to render web
| pages. Apple thus sets Safari as a functionality ceiling for
| mobile browsers on iOS. The restrictions on Safari's and other
| iOS web browsers' capabilities prevent web pages and web apps
| from providing consumers with robust, cross-platform
| experiences that would lower switching barriers
|
| ### Telegram We suspect that Apple may be intentionally
| crippling its web apps to force its users to download more
| native apps where Apple is able to charge its 30% commission
| JCWasmx86 wrote:
| > proprietary WebKit
|
| That is not true. WebKit is opensource, there are other
| browsers that use it (GNOME Web), it is used in a lot of
| other applications, like GNOME Builder, Devhelp.
| mtomweb wrote:
| It doesn't matter if WebKit is open source or not (in the
| context of the topic) because only Apple can make
| modifications to the WebView on iOS. Adding or removing
| functionality, fixing bugs is entirely under Apple's
| control.
|
| On iOS third party browsers: * Can't pick their own browser
| engine * Can't pick which version of Webkit they wish to us
| * Can't turn browser engine features on or off using flags
| * Can't add entirely new browser engine features * Can't
| edit browser engine features * Can't entirely remove
| browser engine features * Don't even get all the features
| of Webkit that iOS provides Safari * Get a more restricted
| version of Webkit than the one iOS provides Safari
| and the WebView that browsers use do not get the same level
| of access) * Use a version of Webkit provided that is tied
| to iOS system updates as opposed to packaged with the third
| party browser
|
| On Android third party browsers: * Can use their own
| browser engine * Can pick which version of Blink they wish
| to use (if they are using Blink at all) * Can turn browser
| engine features on/off using flags * Can add entirely new
| features to Blink * Can edit existing features in Blink *
| Can completely remove features from Blink * Don't have to
| use Blink at all
| mtomweb wrote:
| It doesn't matter if WebKit is open source or not (in the
| context of the topic) because only Apple can make
| modifications to the WebView on iOS. Adding or removing
| functionality, fixing bugs is entirely under Apple's
| control.
|
| On iOS third party browsers: * Can't pick their own browser
| engine * Can't pick which version of Webkit they wish to us
| * Can't turn browser engine features on or off using flags
| * Can't add entirely new browser engine features * Can't
| edit browser engine features * Can't entirely remove
| browser engine features * Don't even get all the features
| of Webkit that iOS provides Safari * Get a more restricted
| version of Webkit than the one iOS provides Safari Safari
| and the WebView that browsers use do not get the same level
| of access) * Use a version of Webkit provided that is tied
| to iOS system updates as opposed to packaged with the third
| party browser
|
| On Android third party browsers: * Can use their own
| browser engine * Can pick which version of Blink they wish
| to use (if they are using Blink at all) * Can turn browser
| engine features on/off using flags * Can add entirely new
| features to Blink * Can edit existing features in Blink *
| Can completely remove features from Blink * Don't have to
| use Blink at all
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-27 23:01 UTC)