I’m not going to say I think Apple should be able to lock out competing browsers, I know this is going to happen.
But God I don’t want this. The iPhone is basically the only thing stopping a total Chrome/Chromium hegemony from ruling the web the way IE did.
I don’t think Google will practically abandon things the way Microsoft did. But they will absolutely have the kind of power Microsoft did to force any feature.
I don’t want to be forced to use Chrome because it’s the only browser that works on most sites. It’s already bad enough with some sites.
But Apple‘s stubbornness and completely different reasons are the only things accidentally holding back the tide.
I can't wait until regulators do their job and take away Apple's dictatorial control, in all areas, and all these doom-and-gloom predictions on all these tangential issues end up proving ludicrous.
What kind of control would Chrome have over the web? Adding APIs doesn't force the billions of websites to adopt them. So what if a website adds WebBluetooth? You don't want the web to have that anyway, and if you keep using Safari, you still won't have it. Happy you!
If scrappy Firefox on open platforms could save the web from 95% IE, then why are we all dependent on Apple, alone, to save us from ~60% Chrome? It's learned helplessness and Stockholm syndrome. I wonder how our species survived before the trillion-dollar company started taking such good care of us!
> I want my browser to protect me from ALL those things. Ublock origin did precisely that, then Google went in to kill ublock origin. Ublock lite is nowhere near as good.
>
> I consider this betrayal - naturally by Google, but also by random web designers such as on the python homepage who consider it morally just to pester visitors when they do not want to be pestered. I don't accept ads; I don't accept pop-ups or slide-in effects (in 99.999% of the cases; notifications for some things can be ok, but this does not extend in my book to donation Robin Hood waylanders)."
> If Chrome wants to make itself less attractive, you should celebrate.
I appreciate that Chrome reducing user autonomy in order to further Google's own business goals _should_ be a reduction in their competitiveness in a perfect market.
But the web browser market does not have perfect competition today, and I cannot recall a time when it had.
Regulators preventing Apple from controlling iOS browser engines but allowing Google to have de facto ownership of the web would be an example of governments picking winners and losers.
Public policy needs to move the market towards real competition.
That was almost 20 years ago though. Things are really different now and it's hard to imagine Firefox saving anything these days. Sadly, the only entities powerful enough to control FANGs are FANGs (although fingers crossed the EU holds it's nerve and EU nations belatedly act on the realisation that being beholden to US tech giants is a massive strategic blunder, akin to relying so heavily on US military satellite data for Ukraine).
Yes, new problems will require new solutions. I'm calling out the logic of paternalism and dependency, an impotent hope pinned on a "benevolent" corporation retaining absolute control forever.
The problem with "new entrant" is that only revolutionary features convince users to switch en mass.
Tabs/stability (Firefox vs IE). V8 (Chrome vs Firefox).
Anything else is a battle of attrition, where the deepest pocketed competitor in terms of advertising spend wins. Or Google, because it flood all its own advertising channels.
So what do you want another chromium based browser? The whole point of Ladybird is to kinda prove that a completely independent browser engine is feasible. Also, they are not doing everything from scratch for example it will use the same graphics library that chromium uses (Skia) and also now firefox. You should probably read the FAQ on their homepage:
> So what do you want another chromium based browser?
I want something free of Google code, which sounds like they aren’t doing if Skia is anyway involved.
Instead they’re wasting resources where it’s less needed. Like building a JS engine instead of starting off with something like SpiderMonkey, JSCore, or QuickJS.
> What kind of control would Chrome have over the web?
Do you remember Manifest Version 3? They did away with ad block extensions.
If we all end up using Chromium, there’s no longer a web standard. It’s whatever conforms to Google’s standard because all sites will have to support Chromium. That means there will be an undocumented spec. It’s much too difficult for browser engine developers to compete with them, they don’t have nearly the resources.
Do you think the web should be an open standard? How can company catch up if Google is the one pushing the envelope?
The idea that you’re pushing is a hole that Apple themselves have dug on purpose, this is not an oversight but a very intentional decision of theirs to protect their profit margins that their main user retention strategy is that many courts in the world especially the US are never going to force them to compete freely in an open marketplace with consumer choice is a factor.
So according to you, a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle.
Whereas, a company that has 70% of the global browser market somehow would have no way to take advantage if they had an even larger share.
I wonder how our species would survive without the unique market analysis from one-of-a-kind minds like yours.
> a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle.
Absolutely not. Most of us are perfectly happy with Apple tightly integrating Safari with their hardware.
However, we're going to legally forbid them to prevent users from breaking that tight integration, because it's their device. Apple doesnt "own" the smartphone market: it provides hardware and services, and it shuts the fuck up.
Web and Apple ecosystem is not comparable. IE had quite large market share and was brought down by Chrome in quite short time. Firefox challenged IE quite effectively before that. But Windows (desktop) still enjoys quite large market share even though Google, Linux and Apple (macOS) are trying hard.
The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. One aspect in favor of Google is the complexity of implementing all those standards. But that is not lock-in, rather an issue of having enough resources to implement a compliant browser.
> The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available.
Where have you been in the past 10 years or so? Chrome views the web as their own fiefdom, and web devs happily oblige. There are now dozens of Chrome-only non-standards that are presented as "openly built standards" and devs deride other browsers for not implementing them.
It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards (for good reasons, like for e.g. privacy - but it is still the vendor's decisionand not an inherent limitation). The documentations and specifications are available for free.
In case of Windows, there is no spec. There is no possibility of implementing another Windows clone (patents limit such clones). Wine exists, but was reverse engineered with great difficulty.
> It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards
A scribble on a napkin does not a standard make.
A feature released in a single browser engine without support, consent, and against objections of other browser vendors does not a standard make.
Just because Chrome ships something does not make whatever they ship a standard.
> The documentations and specifications are available for free.
That's how Chrome abuses its position and relies on gullible devs to assume that just because something is documented it becomes a standard the moment it's shipped in Chrome.
There is plenty a browser could do to compete, from blocking modern popups (which now occur within the window, putting a gradient over the content forcing you to interact with their "subscribe to our mailing list" or "join our site to socialize" prompt that you would have to waste time clicking past, auto-pausing looping videos in unfocused tabs, throttling crypto mining tabs, providing uBlock Origin, handling WiFi Terms of Service click through, etc.
Think of the plethora of instances where you wish your browser made minor changes to make browsing easier
There are plenty of things to compete on: efficiency (startup time, memory use), security (from ad blocking on sites to extensions to the app itself), customization (both in looks and behavior)
100% agreed, and I've been explaining this to people for the past year.
I have an iPhone now and miss Firefox for Android (with Ublock, sponsorblock, etc). But this painful restriction is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the new IE6.
At a few startups I've worked for, the devs all use chrome exclusively, and only test in chrome during development.
The only reason they consider other browsers, is because of Safari on iOS. Sometimes it's driven by support calls / complains from iOS users after a release. If Chrome's engine is allowed on iOS, that means support can just tell the users to install Chrome (like they do now if anyone has issues on Windows in other browsers). This means Firefox will usually work as well.
Many years ago, I was able to swap banks when my bank's website stopped working in Opera 12. If all the major banks / websites target Chrome-only, we'll have no choice but to use it. And then we'll have no control as Google push new restrictions into Chrome.
I don’t see that as a threat honestly. safari being the default app pretty much guarantees its place unless google comes up with a killer feature for iOS chrome. And they are unlikely to make that push considering apple demands the app to be distributed only in Japan.
Besides, the mobile web is becoming more and more of a niche platform, since the web is becoming centralised as time passes and most main sites redirect to their own apps.
And that’s without considering direct web search being replaced by AI search,which google seems convinced is the way forward.
Yep. I've even been seeing Chrome TV ads lately (on Amazon Prime Video). They're marketing it pretty hard despite being dominant.
Also, it's wise to not underestimate the power of developers ceasing to test against non-Blink browsers and taking a page from their IE-era past selves with "Best Viewed in Chrome" and "Browser outdated! Download Chrome" badges. There are few user motivators stronger than things not working.
Yeah it's fun how Google displays a full-page ad for Chrome every few times I do a Google search on iOS Safari that I have to dismiss before seeing the results.
We are helpless now in the near term. It’s not trolling.
What can we do in the next two years (let’s say) that would accomplish both letting other browsers on iOS and preventing Chrome from taking over everywhere?
I don’t know of another option. As far as I can see, that’s it.
Longer term yeah we should break up Google. If they didn’t own Chrome that would fix the problem. But is that going to happen in the next year or two?
Or are we about to hand them even more control and then spend the next 5-10 years trying to unwind it?
As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t like this situation. I don’t think governments should have allowed it to get here. I’m not picking an”favorite monopoly”, just the option of the only two I see right now that I think will do less harm.
We’ve screwed ourselves and I don’t want to make it worse for (at least) quite a few years.
We are not "helpless" and setting an arbitrary 2-year deadline is a distraction. The DOJ and EU are moving faster than they have in decades. You ask what we can do? We can enforce browser choice screens and allow alternative engines immediately. This gives Firefox (Gecko) a fighting chance on mobile for the first time in history. Keeping the ecosystem locked down ensures Firefox never has a chance.
That line of roleplay of yours also seems to be just 'Doomsday Defense' part 2. Now you’re adding an arbitrary time limit ("next two years") to justify inaction. We don't need to "unwind" Google before we stop Apple's anti-competitive behavior, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The fact that you view "allowing other browsers" (like Firefox) as "handing Google control" reveals the flaw in your logic. You are effectively arguing that we must destroy the village (the open web) to save it from the dragon, if this isn't concern trolling then I don't know what is.
Yet. AI feeds from the content it substitutes. I’m skeptical to the long term feasibility for this reason, how is it going to bring me news when publishing those news is no longer profitable, for example?
but this can change. At least in the EU Apple already prompts a user which browser they want [1]. While at the moment every browser is WebKit under the hood, this will probably change as the EU is also pushing Apple to allow other engines [2] - and with users knowing Chrome from Ads, their work or from a previous Android phone, I can imagine a lot of them selecting Chrome as a default.
2. They don’t support any modern testing protocols like WebdriverBiDi
3. They don’t make their software available to anyone who isn’t using Apple’s hardware.
The core root of the problem is very clearly Apple who’ve done nothing other than make the world’s buggiest and least accessible browser and then tried to hold everyone hostage who was previously forced to use it until courts had to stop them and they had no choice.
That ship has already sailed. And Apple is part of the problem. Recently I used Microsoft Edge because Facetime doesn't support Firefox. I couldn't get audio working so switched to Google Meet (which does work in Firefox.)
I'm sure if Apple keeps innovating and adopting some of the Web standards they'll outcompete other engines. But let's be realistic, they 100% are blocking other engines and not adopting standards in their own because they want that sweet sweet 30% cut when developers can't publish PWAs and are forced into the "app" model.
WebKit's progress has been significant in recent years, it's just been more focused on things like improving CSS instead of things like an API that tells the developer how many beers the user has in their fridge.
From my perspective, Google tends to focus on somewhat niche features that will benefit a small slice of web apps. In contrast, the things Apple works on are those that benefit everything from static blog sites to huge commercial web apps.
I wish Google were more like Apple in this regard, because the primitives from which everything web is built are still overwhelmingly crude, which results in the half-ton-truck-built-on-a-golf-cart frameworks and apps the web has become famous for. Making the web reasonable to develop for without a dependency tree that looks like a spiral fractal would do way more to make it flourish as a platform than things like access to the GPU and USB devices.
People didn't mind when IE was muscling in and adding useful new features. They abandoned Netscape because the features made the web better. It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem. They would still add features, but too much relied on ActiveX -- which wasn't necessarily evil, there's a grand vision there of component re-use across the OS and varied applications, the same was done with Java Applets and even Shockwave/Flash, but it sucked more and they were all plagued with security problems. Then MS stopped innovating pretty much entirely, and wouldn't even play catch up for a long time, whether with their out-of-browser plugins (oh Silverlight...) or the browser itself. No support for tabs for a long time, or popup blocking (later ad blocking), they had terrible performance... And as various "web standards" advanced to make things nicer for the users and developers, and add capabilities that didn't require an external plugin, they drug their heels on that too.
Eventually, the hell that was IE was a combination of hostile user experience, security problems, performance problems, and developer pain in finding workarounds or other support because it was so far behind on everything. It had nothing to do with their power to dictate or experiment with new features. The extent of the hostile user experience that leaked outside the browser itself was the "only works on IE" problem that forced people to use IE for that site, on the whole it was comparable to the "only works with Flash or Java applets" problems and not as bad as the experience of the browser itself. For the most part these days, the two parts of that hell that remain relevant are the hostile user experience and the developer pains parts, and Mobile Safari is the successor to both for over a decade now. No one supports IE11 anymore (let alone older IEs) but they still have to support Mobile Safari. I have fonder memories of dealing with IE11 (and earlier) support/workarounds over Mobile Safari's crap. My view is more power to actual Chromium-based browsers on mobile even if I personally use Firefox on PC and android despite their user experience shortcomings (at least they're not very hostile). The only part of hell I'd be worried about is that of a hostile user experience, which can be worked around by individual users if they are allowed choices.
It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem.
Only for those misguided "push the web forward" idiots who just wanted the latest shiny shit, aided by Google's plans to control the Internet itself. Plain HTML worked well enough for everything else.
Google's weapon is change. They have the resources to outcompete everyone else by churning the "standards" as much as they want. The less people think that constant change is necessary, the better the web will be.
Technologies like HTTP and Wasm are truly excellent tools for cross platform software delivery and browsers are an ideal sandboxed execution environment.
This idea that the web should only be for straight up HTML documents is a broken mental model.
Apple have a multi-billion dollar income stream that is firmly premised on the fact that nobody could deliver software on their platform unless they could steal 30% of the companies profits and as such spent a huge amount of time and effort undermining the idea that the web could ever be an app platform but you’re not compelled to cheerlead for Apple’s profit margins and anti-consumer bullshit.
Then the problem isn't adding features to make web apps more capable, either.
Web apps replacing unsandboxed applications is a net win. We could argue about whether web apps replacing sandboxed applications is a net win as well, but most local applications on PCs are not sandboxed, and even mobile applications aren't sandboxed as strongly as web apps. (I would love to see an "allow network access" permission on a per-mobile-app basis.)
No full screen API so impossible to make lots of types of game experiences.
No orientation API so impossible to make games and other experiences that require a certain orientation
No WebXR (though Apple will allow it on Vision Pro)
No support for ResizeObvserver devicePixelContentBoxSize so impossible to get correct rendering reguardless of user's zoom level.
No simple PWA installation. Requires an obscure incantation that only expert users know.
That's just a few off the top of my head.
Yes, I know all the comments will be about how they don't want those features. That's really irrelevant. Allow them to be turned off. Require permissions. Those features have been shipping on other OSes, Desktop and Mobile for > 5 years and the world hasn't ended.
I hear this a lot, but have used Safari as my since it was launch in 2003.Performance has always been great. UI has always been minimalist, out of the way, and has never upsold me on anything. There are times where it lags and times where it leads standards. There may be a a site every now and then that doesn’t work, but iOS makes that less likely. The only thing I can ever think of is that it’s not <insert favorite browser> or doesn’t have <some favorite esoteric feature>.
That said, the only plugins I use are ad blockers, so maybe I’m missing something.
It might look ok from user's point of view, but lot of the problems fall on web developers who have to work around a bunch of these issues to make their pages work in Safari
This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest here but just to make it ever clearer for anyone else here’s a chart showing the number of bugs that only occur in a single browser.
> This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest
And in your opinion "being honest" is speaking for every web dev out there?
I've been a web dev for 25 years (god I'm old) and Safari has not been a major pain for me.
You keep bandying wpt.fyi results around not even understanding what they mean. E.g. Safari only passes 8 out of 150 accelerometer tests. So? Does it affect every web dev? Lol no. But it does pass 57 out 57 accessibility tests which is significantly more important.
Late on a lot of standards, quirky in many ways and just a lot of bugs, especially around images and videos. Also positioning issues. They recently broke even position fixed, which broke a ton of web pages on iOS, including apple.com
Yes, it's not the same as the one available still on Firefox. But you said "I’d like the extension ecosystem from chrome or Firefox". I'm pointing out that the Chrome one has been limited and now runs the same UBlock version that Safari runs.
I cannot go through a day without "this tab has been reloaded due to a problem" on Safari iOS and any other browser. It's been happening for years, across phones. It's dogshit. Safari Mac is fine.
Even if that's an edge case, it's why having only one engine is pathological. Maybe Safari iOS works fine for you. Not for me. I don't want rationalization on why it's not Apple's fault, or somehow not Safari's fault, or "they'll fix it one day", or "I'm doing it wrong", or all the fanboy-talk that sounds like the enabling relative of an alcoholic. Don't care. I should be able to switch for even the most frivolous reason. Maybe I don't like that it doesn't render every website in pink.
It's like having only one type of chocolate in existence. This was never normal.
Although I partially agree with you, Firefox on Android is a wonderful mobile browser (with some weird stuff though). I would love to have the same Firefox on my iOS but it's currently just impossible.
While this excuse works today, we should not forget that this policy also meant disinviting Mozilla from the mobile browser party about a decade ago. I'd argue a good chunk of Mozilla's downfall was them chasing the pipe dream of Boot2Gecko, and that was specifically because they couldn't ship Gecko on iOS.
The reason why we have a Chrome/Safari hegemony is because Apple insisted on everything being Safari on their device platforms. This combined with Android shipping WebKit for years meant that the only mobile browser engine that mattered was WebKit. Chrome is a different engine now, but it was forked from WebKit, and it used to have a lot of the same quirks. Hell, Microsoft switched to Blink specifically because Electron - their own web app shell - couldn't run on EdgeHTML.
The fact that this change practically means Chrome displacing Safari is... not really all that meaningful. They're both forks of the same code. The single-engine dystopia you worry about is already here. I daily-drive Firefox, and the amount of shit Google deliberately breaks on Gecko is obvious. Like, YouTube tabs freeze up every few hours because they get stuck in garbage collection, and I have to manually kill whatever processes are running YouTube before I can watch another video. That sort of thing.
> I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web.
Does it? It might give them perverse incentives in some cases, but in others it perfectly aligns their incentives by letting them internalize their externalities. The whole selling point of Chrome to executives, and the reason it's introduced so many nice features, is that consolidating means they have an incentive to invest in things that make their websites work better (a better Chrome means a better Google/Gmail/YouTube/Drive).
We all think of them as Google but let’s face it, they’re DoubleClick.
Google feeds DoubleClick. Gmail does too. YouTube is a pure ad play.
Drive/Docs/etc. I’d say drives Chrome and undercuts competitors.
And Chrome? It drives Google. And Google also helps drive YouTube.
They all end in ads.
If Chrome wasn’t owned by an ad company that owned all that other stuff I wouldn’t be as worried. I still don’t like the idea of a Chrome monoculture. But if it was independent I’d be less alarmed.
problem is apple also handicaps safari so web apps cannot compete with its apps ecosystem like deleting storage if you dont use it for a week or so in the name of security. It makes sense if there is storage pressure but if app is used rarely than you cannot have first class local experience you are forced to rely on server.
Pretty damning evaluation of apple's capabilities to be sure that they won't be able to compete on merit! I don't believe that. So much apple software is absolutely loved.
I love Safari. I’ve used it since the day I bought a Mac not long after it was released. Back when they still bundled IE 5.5.
I don’t think they can compete. Apple doesn’t release Safari on Windows (any more, god it was bad) and that basically kills their chance at desktop relevance.
But even if they did my point is Google has way WAY WAY too much leverage and is already in an effective near monopoly position due to making Chromium. iOS is the only reasonably sized bastion left.
And that’s entirely due to Apple’s policy, whether one thinks it’s right or wrong.
The stakes are way too tilted. The market can’t function.
And we’re about to see it “freed”, which is basically handing it to Google for a total monopoly.
And I don’t like that future. Whatever I think of all the other issues with both Apple and Google right now and what has happened in the past.
Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform…
It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome.
Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then.
See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.
Then it’d be time for round two of antitrust, and I doubt the judge and regulators would feel so understanding about Google keeping Chrome if that is the landscape.
1. The US isn’t doing this. They have a case but aren’t calling for breakup
2. We all know howling anti-trust and appeals take
If Google gets handed the web (let’s say) this year by Apple being forced to allow them, it could be a decade+ before the Google side gets tackled.
And I’m afraid of how much damage they can do in that timeframe.
I think fixing Google’s ownership over Chrome before forcing other browsers on iOS would be less harmless than forcing iOS to allow other browsers than doing Google.
I’m totally good with doing both. I worried about the effects of the order they’re done in.
And I am only saying this about browser engines. This should not be taken to say Apple should be able to do some of the other nonsense they’ve been doing for 10+ years abusing their position.
I think they might be, but only as long as it stays open-source (assuming we mean it works on Chromium and not Chrome). Honestly, I fundamentally don't have a problem with an open-source browser having a monopoly, because the open-source nature means that if things get bad you can always just fork it and make something better.
It's amazing how you can literally start a nonprofit to code a billion-dollar browser, give it away for free, and let people modify it however they want and then HN users will still find a way to act like this is being evil and exploitative. It's as if they care more about whining than they do about their supposed open-source principles.
I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye:
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.
Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
There is absolutely zero way to satisfy the latter part here. It's at best non-enforceable. If I'm using C++ and use std::span instead of a c-style array, is that good enough?
You have to request explicit permission to be able to be a browser on iOS. You can’t just ship an app. I assume part of that process is that you specifically demonstrate that you try your best to use best safety practices.
Again, it’s also not absolute safety. It’s just due diligence review.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the WebKit guidelines were from the commenter, not from the apple page.
> or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
This can't be analyzed in any real way, so its just another way that Apple will restrict web engines and claim it was due to "not enough use of memory safety language features"
Why does it matter if Apple themselves don’t link the WebKit docs? It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
There’s a lot of things in the requirements like funding that Apple cannot verify. I think you’re being too binary in this.
Some of it is very clearly intended to be a “show us you are at least considering these security measures and have practices in place to minimize known issues”. Again, for the third time, it’s clearly NOT a list for ongoing perfect security, given that there are other items on the list that deal with further mitigation strategies.
What is the exception? I’m saying they meet the same requirements they are asking for other browsers.
This is literally the question I started this thread with and you have gone in to a loop of saying “they can’t enforce this” without any response of substance.
Your "substance" is "trust Apple will enforce something correctly where there isn't a correct answer". I don't agree with that. Apple has a history of interpreting things favorably for themselves and locking 3rd parties from doing the same things for wave hands reasons.
If you are going to make guidelines, make them evaluable. These aren't. If you care about memory safety, either say use a memory safe language or point to an exact reference guide to use to allow XYZ language to satisfy it.
Then you’re basically strawmanning here because you’re applying your own interpretation to the rules as written.
If you would pause for a second and actually read the rules in their entirety it is obvious that the lines you’re fixating on aren’t meant to be absolute security measures and therefore don’t need to be continuously evaluated.
Your conjecture about Apple withholding the permissions for arbitrary reasons is not borne out of evidence. When asked REPEATEDLY to show where they’re giving themselves an exception to their own rules, you continuously fail to provide any example and are just hand waiving conjectures.
Maybe they are doing what you’re saying but you’re making an incredibly poor argument regarding it.
I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.
> It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another
They will continue to do so for as long as it remains profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price of admission into the multinational club. Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
Lawyers, admins, and executives, sure. But what about the complexity on the engineers who now have to maintain an exploding matrix of modes? I can definitely see that becoming burdensome.
much has been written about the deteriorating quality of iOS.
There's bluntly not strong external evidence that software quality is a driving priority at Apple in recent years, so it most probably follows that concerns about maintainability aren't either.
You’re not wrong, it is burdensome but the sheer volume of money they secure primarily because of their license to rent-seek mercilessly (in the US especially because it’s the market they dominate most and with the weakest regulators) makes even a hilarious amount of complexity supportable. Besides, it’s mainly the users who suffer from the codebase falling apart, not Apple decision makers.
I've always thought the same. Obviously there isn't much of a technical hurdle since they have the engineering talent. But, keeping track of all these cross-region rules and training your staff+customers on it has to be quite costly in multiple respects (time, energy, mental models, etc.)
My personal opinion is that keeping the browser engine locked down isn't much of a profit generator, unlike maintaining full reign over the app store would be.
Is Chrome's PWA support on Android a massive glow to Android Play Store's bottom line?
I don't buy this line, that Safari is intentionally hobbled to prop up the App Store. What's iOS missing for PWA's to be a viable money-maker for companies? Surely there so much money on the line that we would see companies using them. What does Match.com's portfolio of dating apps need to be viable as websites instead?
In reality, when you actually pay attention to Apple's software engineering practices you realise how incredibly cheap and stingy they are. All the apps are so under funded and under developed. Bugs are introduced all over their native platforms all the time and never fixed.
> Is Chrome's PWA support on Android a massive glow to Android Play Store's bottom line?
Probably, but Android allows side-loading. iOS does not.
> What's iOS missing for PWA's to be a viable money-maker for companies?
Brace yourself.
1. Notifications are hobbled. This is HUGE. Silent pushes, rich notifications, NSE, reliable badge counts, and reliable delivery. This is made worse by:
2. Hobbled background priority. PWAs are aggressively suspended and killed. No long running processes. No guarantee of process execution. IndexedDB and in-memory state may be wiped at any time.
3. PWAs can’t access most system frameworks. Bluetooth (CoreBluetooth). NFC (Core NFC). Background location tracking. HealthKit. HomeKit. CallKit / VoIP. Siri Shortcuts / App Intents. AirDrop. Apple Pay (full API). CarPlay. System share extensions.
4. No access to native rendering pipelines. Performance is severely limited.
5. PWAs have unstable, purgeable memory. No persistent file storage.
6. Limited UX and lifecycle control. No termination callbacks. No suspend notifications. Reloaded arbitrarily. Back/forward gestures conflict with browser.
7. No access to native UI components like FaceID, native text fields, drag and drop across apps, context menus, and haptic feedback.
Apple has done everything they possibly can to ensure PWAs are broken on iOS.
It's not just that, Apple also gets $20+ billion per year in AdSense revenue from Google for being the default search engine in Safari. A change of even 10% marketshare would cost them billions, and this money is pure profit.
The more likely explanation is that when every app can bundle their own browser engine, we will not see a competition explosion. Instead, Electron apps will come to mobile, with every app shipping its own browser stack.
You can’t tell me Gecko, which has already failed on desktop, will suddenly be popular on mobile. You can easily tell me every app shipping their own Chromium would be very popular with developers.
Firefox is really good now on android. It's my go to browser now for everything. It just needed full addon support but when that was finally there it was great.
This is true, however I think an App Store rule that to ship a browser engine, you have to be a browser, defined as having a browser that is maintained on MacOS, Linux, and/or Windows and which can be made the default browser on those platforms. Or even simpler, it has to present web browsing to the user as the primary function and not secondary to accessing content/shopping/gaming.
Seems either approach would rule out your Slack, Amazon app, etc. from shipping their own outdated 900MB Chromiums but allow Chrome, Firefox, K-Meleon, whatever.
Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows?
No.
Even if unencumbered on iOS, it will still fail, because PWA is an intrinsically confusing technology. The pitch to non-technical users is terrible. Just like passkeys, which has also been terrible.
> "Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows? No."
Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others.
To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA
I run PWABuilder.com as well, and I can tell you that many, many PWAs get published to the Google Play Store, including some very popular ones.
>Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows?
No.
Obviously. When a major Gatekeeper systematically holds it back to prevent it from challenging its taxation funnel, then it has no chance of competing and will thus not be chosen on competing platforms either, which will prevent its adoption and any investment in it.
>Even if unencumbered on iOS, it will still fail, because PWA is an intrinsically confusing technology.
PWA is not an "intrinsically confusing technology" and making such an absurd statement without proper elaboration reeks of pure bias.
It’s not that confusing. To a user it could be the same as an app, just one you can be prompted to “install” instantly without a download and without wasting space on your device.
If Apple weren’t incentivized to block PWA use, they’d allow them to be “installed” with the same type of little top banner that prompts you to get/open an App Store app. Instead they relegate it to some obscure buried option inside the Safari Share menu.
Technically you can even write your own webview, but you can't make it the default, nor will it be able to JIT-compile JS, since that requires an entitlement that Apple never grants. Having no JIT is murder on both performance and battery life.
Everything that's inconvenient for your preferred narrative can just be dismissed as conspiratorial thinking, makes the world so much easier - doesnt it? I've compiled some of the evidences that makes clear how one of the Gatekeepers (Apple) has a tremendous conflict of interest, which manifested itself in systematic sabotaging of PWAs over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534316
Proper, full blocking of ads and trackers. Just because you can't see most of them doesn't mean the network requests aren't getting through. And you're not getting a free and open-source extension. And you're not getting 3 extra bucks a month in your wallet, because those grifters made you pay for some pixels despite not contributing to the adblock lists their "business" depends on.
Okay now that we have come to the topic, How is Orion browser on App store whereas all others aren't?
is there a way to make more innovation in this area and maybe an extension or two developed adding more perms etc or forking Orion or the know-how behind it and replicating it could finally allow PWA on apple iphones?
No you don't get me but all browsers in Iphone even firefox and chrome are webkit forks
and neither of them allow any sort of extensions on top
Orion is the only one I think which still supports firefox or chrome extensions as well. I am sure that it can support PWA or already does, not sure, someone should probably test it out.
Theoretically if you can modify the engine enough to run firefox/chrome extensions on it when firefox/chrome themselves on Iphone can't but somehow Orion can, I don't see a reason why nobody's else doing it but combined with some really really good pwa support as well?
I don't think you get how it works. When you download a browser on iOS it does not have an engine _at all_, not even a "WebKit fork". The browser is just a UI and wrapper for one of the engines bundles in iOS. No modifications can be done to the engine whatsoever, it is part of the OS.
Yeah sorry, I don't really have an Iphone so I was just going on a wild hunch.
I would love to discuss about it and how Orion works then.
My question to you is, how is Orion possible to get firefox/chromium extensions working in webkit then, Because I know that Orion's core itself is built on top of webkit but I am wondering what other additions they did to make it possible to have firefox extensions as an example on the Ios
Can you please walk me through how this is possible? I see no other being able to do such a thing. Like how do they make it work then while the engine bundles in Ios.
I also want to ask if possible is that since I can just go to firefox mozilla addon store and get any extension and use it in Orion. Isn't this sort of really similar to an app store itself with 0 restrictions considering that firefox extensions are very unrestricted usually and similar to PWA (not sure)
This is already possible with Orion so I am wondering why more discoveries are not being done in this space. I would love seeing an open source alternative to Orion as well for Iphone perhaps.
Thank you for telling me that browsers work at an operating system level in Ios but can you please tell me how Orion's then able to do such stuff? And can certain more discoveries be made on that front regarding PWA support , extension support similar to orion etc. as well then?
Is there no way that something can be done for PWA abilities? What's stopping PWA on ios, I don't really follow? I would love it if you can clear up my confusion regarding it.
Apple is intentionally trying to make it frustrating in hopes that people will complain to relevant voices that “there’s too much regulation and you should just let Apple do its thing” which is something they've been pushing a lot in Europe the past few years for example
I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
I don’t think you understand Apple‘s stubbornness. They DO NOT like being told what to do.
They seem to have gotten a long way better with Japan in this process than the EU, but they’re still not happy about it. So they’re absolutely not gonna just roll over for everyone.
My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.
At a hardware level it seemed to work. Looking at USB-C on iPhones for example.
Software wise? Fail. EEA gets to disable start search in Windows 11. RoW does not. Interestingly EEA membership is decided at install time based on your selection, and is not changeable afterwards.
iPhones on the other hand have a daemon running that checks your location. It's not based on where you set up the phone. So traveling from Europe to somewhere else can actually prevent you from updating apps that you got via an alt-store:
Yea, unfortunately with software, using enough granular feature flags, they can make their software "maximally bad" for each given region. They lose a battle in the EU and are forced to make the software better? They will make it better only in the EU. Lose another one in Japan over a different issue? Just make a "japan" flag and only make it narrowly better for that use case in that region. Lose further battles in other regions, just add more flags.
They will never deploy the "better" feature worldwide if they have the opportunity to limit the better code to a particular region.
1: And of course, by "better" I am always referring to "better for the user" not "better for Apple."
My dad got his phone stolen on day 1 of a monthlong trip. He went without a phone the whole trip, in part because he was nervous he wouldn't have the right radios if he brought a euro phone home.
You make an excellent point. I would guess that it is orders of magnitude more expensive for Apple to create a new hardware configuration than it is for them to add software feature flags, though. But, assuming the cost of making the hardware change worldwide exceeds the cost of reconfiguring their factories for new hardware, you're right that they would not choose to make the hardware change worldwide.
Almost certainly someone (or an entire team) carefully crunched the numbers and deliberately decided not to keep a Lightning US iPhone.
There are different levels to these things. The number of SIM card slots or bands varying from model to model isn't that unusual. The average user just needs it to work. In fact, the SIM and band configuration differences have nothing to do with regional legal mimina — they have more to do with the standard practice and available systems in each region (for example, mmWave isn't widely deployed outside the US). The configurations aren't really "worse" in the same way as locking down browser access is worse. Phones have had regional variants going back ~forever for pretty mundane and benign reasons.
More importantly, if a user travels from one region to another, as long as they can use their phone in the place they arrive, having slightly non-optimal bands or a different SIM configuration doesn't matter. The fact that your phone is slightly different from the local model is not really a problem.
But having your charger vary across regions? That's a recipe for disaster. Not only is that another level of variance in your external casing, it impacts day-to-day use. When an American user travels to, say, France, or vice versa, and wants to buy a charger, or share one with someone else, having the same model of iPhone be incompatible would be a major frustration. It would be stupid to engineer a lightning AND USB-C version of the same device for each market.
> 1) Apple loves USB-C
Sure, that's why they refused to adopt it for almost a decade after it became the standard and fought the EU regulation tooth-and-nail.
And what's your opinion if the law would oblige the companies to remove features their products have like tracking transparency popups? Two countries' courts already fined Apple for enforcing a popup that warns users about tracking across third party apps (a feature Apple themselves do not use)?
My prior POV was that Apple would jettison the feature globally, but the discussion elsewhere in this thread suggests that salami slicing at the software-level is a cost larger companies are willing to bear.
There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
I think that's the hypothetical part, it's not reality. Safari continues to be a fully modern browser. It doesn't release new features quite as fast as Chrome, but it does generally adopt them.
If Apple were attempting to put a "stranglehold on innovations on the web", Safari's feature set would look very different. But that's not what's happening.
Like I said, Apple does lots of anticompetitive things. I'm not blind to what they do with the app store. I just don't think that the single browser engine policy is motivated by this, or has much effect on it, given how Apple does keep maintaining Safari as a modern browser.
It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it...
And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement), specifically to force many developers to create a native app to use these APIs, so that Apple can force the developer to give them a percentage of any purchases made through the app. They can't force a developer to give them a cut of purchases made through a web browser, which is why they purposely hobble the Safari browser engine and then force all other browsers to use this engine. If you can't see how bad this is, then you've been taken over by the reality distortion field.
It's spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against apple, among many other anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft got sued and lost in an antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari with iOS but forbids any other browser engine but their Safari engine. Can you imagine if Microsoft forbade any other browser from being installed on Windows? It's time Apple was brought to justice over their abusive anti-competitive practices.
I suspect it might have been motivated by antitrust concerns, but safari is really not that bad. Check out Interop 2025: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025
They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0])
> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
Safari is the worst browser by far, especially on iOS. Apple also does things their own way, ignoring standards, so that I have to have a real actual iPhone to debug their platform-specific problems, especially around touch interactions.
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth API, and lots of others. My product could use bluetooth but we're forced to work around Apple's Safari limitations and use Wifi instead, which drains the battery faster. We do not want to write a specific app for iOS (which costs us money to build and maintain), which then allows Apple to extort us for a percentage of sales through the app. Bluetooth would be the better option, but Wifi works although is a bit more cumbersome to deal with. So sorry Apple fans, you have to use wifi with our product because Apple reasons.
I am going to open a bottle of champagne when the DOJ finally forces Apple to allow other browsers on iOS.
Personally my feel is Safari at least isn't dead in the water any more, does ship some stuff. It's much better than 2 years ago. 4 years ago it was a travesty.
But there's still all sorts of wonkiness they just makes Safari non viable. If you don't PWA install, your storage gets cleared alarmingly quickly. If you do install it's still cleared wicked fast. Notifications seem to have incredibly unreliable delivery issues and require PWA installs to work at all. The features are closer to parity than before but the base functionality is still sabotaged deeply. 'The user is secure' with Apple is amazing doublespeak (the second meaning being securely in Apple's pocket with no where to go).
It's worth noting that Interop participants meet and decide via unanimous consent what they are going to work on each year. The anti-trust case against Apple would be far stronger if they didn't show up & find some stuff to work on, to agree to. And with apologies as I break out the tin foil hat, showing up also gives them some leverage to shape what doesn't get worked on too.
Interop 2025 is a subset of web features, but Apple gets a veto on which features get included in each Interop round, and vetoes heavily. It doesn't reflect interoperability in general. Safari also consistently starts out the worst each year, and improves the slowest.
They don't support notifications correctly, they have a semi-broken implementation. Only a subset of sites will work, even though they'll work perfectly on Chrome or Firefox or even minor browsers. Even if you put the site on the homescreen.
>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial...
Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.
Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too.
> Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest
I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.
> You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant.
BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
>Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge.
>BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias.
> Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard
It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships".
> The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division.
Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once.
> And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument
There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard").
It literally is "everyone must immediately not implement anything that cuts into Apple's bottom line"
Apple has veto power over what becomes web standards now. If they didn't abuse that power, and also forbid other browser engines on iOS, then there wouldn't be a problem. They abuse their power in a way that hurts everyone but Apple, and the DOJ took notice.
You say Firefox doesn't implement the same APIs that Apple won't as proof of something, but Opera and other browsers do implement those APIs, so that really cancells out whatever argument you thought you had.
Back in the day, Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest, and if Apple had veto power over web standards back then, the web might still be "Web 1.0", hypothetically speaking.
But now Apple can block progress in web browsers now, and the DOJ will likely prove that they are abusing their position to the detriment of everyone that uses a web browser, so Apple can make a few more dollars from their app store.
It should not be so difficult for anyone to understand.
>It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact.
>There's no broader argument.
There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely.
No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938
>and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with
There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary.
> You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
> There is no such assumption,
"the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard." Yup. "Whatever Chrome ships must be implemented no matter the cost and despite any opposition for any reason".
> only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior
Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)
Yes
> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.
"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is
I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.
> I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement.
Oh yes, you do. To the point of inventing contract clauses for Firefox.
It's just extremely unfortunate that Safari is now between a rock and a hard place (only because of Apple) as really they are the only web engine of note to withstand "whatever Chrome spits out is standard now"
Please stop this now. You are in breach of several guidelines, notably these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I can't fathom how a subthread about browser engines became so toxic. HN is a place for curious conversation and it is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please do your part to make this place better not worse.
I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
> Your deceptive rhetoric in defense of Apple's anti-competitive business practices i
I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
>I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
Then you should have been more specific, but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis. Thus, your attempt to hastily dismiss it as "conspiracy" is factually an act of smearing.
>I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team have been in constant service of justifying Apple's actions at all cost, while outright ignoring and downplaying their evident conflict of interest. Furthermore, you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations of "HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them" which is a distortion, that you keep forcefully putting in people's mouths, despite many people calling you out on it numerous times throughout this thread.
> but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis
I dunno, man. It's claiming a literal conspiracy between Google and Firefox to make Firefox worse. In reality, it's an outlandish proposition because Google already holds such high market share for Chrome, they need Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid antitrust concerns. The idea that they'd contractually (or behind-closed-doors) engage in hobbling Firefox is fantasy territory -- literally conspiracy theorizing. Because of the huge legal and financial risks that would entail if ever discovered. So, when something's an actual conspiracy theory, it's right to call it out as such.
> Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team... you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations...
I'm Ctrl+F-ing here through troupo's comments and not seeing anything like that. Their points seem perfectly reasonable, that Firefox also doesn't implement these features, and therefore Apple's actions might be very reasonably explained as having the same genuine reasons.
On the other hand you're the one saying things like:
> Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy
> Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative
> It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information
> that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions
> Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality
> It's incredible how you insist on being so obnoxious
> That reads like an #ad that Apple would pay for
It looks like you're the one imagining conspiracies in Apple's behavior -- "that motivates every single one of their decisions" -- and attacking others in your own "diatribes". And you're the one using incredibly insulting and inappropriate language. It seems to be your comments that have a lot of inappropriate tone for HN, which is presumably why I see a lot of them downvoted. Maybe you should think about whether this is really the best way to engage here, maybe re-read the HN guidelines?
> That's why you didn't even bother discussing the evidence I've provided
I don't engage in argument with people who accuse me of having another account. If you want to have productive discussions on HN, I suggest you rethink the way you go about them.
This is false and it's against the guidelines to accuse people of shilling/astroturfing/coordinated activity. You've posted enough in this thread, and the thread is days old. Nobody is seeing these comments other than us moderators. Please stop.
You seriously just link to a google search of people who agree with you?? Solid investigation. Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?
I don’t really agree with allowing one monopolistic company to behave anticompetitively because we’re scared of their only competitor, another monopolist. They’re both menaces to consumer rights.
I included that link not as "research" but as proof that I am not the only one calling Safari "the new IE". It's been written about ad nauseum, and just because you think a google search is pointless doesn't mean my argument lacks merit - and if you were to do your own "research", I'd bet you would start with a google search. Thousands of people have written about it, so go see what they have to say, I am not the only one claiming it.
>Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE;
It's a crap browser, and Apple implements things the way they want to, especially around touch interactions. So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks, it just does, and your trolling comment doesn't disprove it.
>what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?
I don't care if they do or if they don't. All I want is an alternative to Safari on iOS. Is that really so bad??
> So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks
You'll still have to debug it. Even when other browsers are allowed, Safari isn't going away.
"Safari fucking sucks" isn't an argument that Apple is being anticompetitive. There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
Of course I have to debug it, but I develop for standards, not Apple's wonky implementations of touch events and lots of other things. So I should not need Apple hardware to debug a web browser. I can't install Safari on Android or any other platform, so if there's a bug that only shows up in Safari, then I have to buy Apple hardware. I'd rather not give Apple one goddamned cent of my money, they have already mistreated us - we actually sued them in a class action lawsuit and won (2011 MBP). So no, I do not want to pay for an overpriced phone just to fix their stupid proprietary bugs. Everything works great on Chrome and Firefox and Opera and a bunch of other mobile browsers.
>There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
Google doesn't prevent Apple from offering Safari for Android, Apple just wouldn't be able to make money offering it through Google's app store the same way they can extort iOS developers that sell anything through the native app.
"Chrome sucks too" is very subjective. I've never had a problem with it. I'm curious what you think sucks about Chrome. Firefox - well, I used to use it a while ago, but not so much anymore. I will fix bugs there and they are easy and free to fix. I can't say the same about Apple's Safari.
Apple used to make Safari for Windows, but it sucked so badly, and they figured they couldn't make any money from it, so they discontinued it. So they could definitely make Safari for other platforms, but they would rather force developers to buy an iPhone instead. Fuck that.
I'm sorry iPhone users, but you'll forever be second class citizens in my product sphere, and you can blame Apple for that, until they allow other browser engines.
You have a very idiosyncratic take. I've never heard anyone else complain, as a dev, that Safari was harder to develop for because it was buggier. When I run into JavaScript API differences between Safari, Chrome, and Firefox (as I have many times), they just mostly do different things where the spec is underspecified. I don't assume Chrome is doing it the right way and Safari is the buggy one. It sounds like you just develop Chrome-first.
Yeah, if you want to test against Safari you need Apple hardware. If you can't be bothered to get some cheap secondhand Apple hardware for testing for your business, then that says more about the business decisions you're making. The idea that Apple ought to be obligated to make its browser available on other platforms seems pretty silly to me.
You sound like someone complaining they want to develop a Microsoft Word plugin on Linux, and they're upset Microsoft doesn't sell a Linux version of Office and that they have to get a copy of Windows. What do you expect? You develop and test on the platforms where your desired users are. If you can't accept that basic reality, then maybe you shouldn't be making software.
It's not idiosyncratic at all, it's a very mainstream, real thing. Just because you have your head in the sand does not mean it doesn't exist.
>If you can't be bothered to get some cheap secondhand Apple hardware for testing for your business, then that says more about the business decisions you're making.
I shouldn't have to spend any money for the privilege to debug Apple's crap browser.
>The idea that Apple ought to be obligated to make its browser available on other platforms seems pretty silly to me.
I never said they were obligated, only that they once did, and failed miserably, and couldn't monetize it, so they packed up and went home. They could, and once did have Safari on other platforms. Now they don't so fuck Apple, I don't care what they do or care about their users any more than Apple cares about developers.
>You sound like someone...
You sound like an Apple fanboi, and there seem to be many brainwashed similar to you in this comment section.
None of what you described is accurate, I only want Apple to allow other browser engines on iOS, and to not be anti-competitive assholes. That's it. And the DOJ thinks so too, so you're not in the right here defending Apple's tyranny.
>What do you expect? You develop and test on the platforms where your desired users are. If you can't accept that basic reality, then maybe you shouldn't be making software.
I expect Apple to be abusively anti-competitive and not block other browsers from using their own browser engines. Once they do that, then I will shut up about it. Until then, Apple are the assholes. Not me. Not other browser makers. Just Apple, and their apologists.
I’m truly curious: as either a user or a developer, how are you impacted by Apple’s behavior and decisions with respect to its web browser engine policy? What is it preventing you from accomplishing?
Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster.
No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so.
So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to.
Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it??
> Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app.
So then why doesn't Firefox support the Web Bluetooth API either? How can you jump to the conclusion that the lack of Safari support is about apps?
The reality is that the Web Bluetooth API is a draft. Not ratified. Not on the formal standards track. And Firefox doesn't even intend to implement it, due to security and privacy concerns around it and the fact that is it not ratified.
But go on assuming it's all about being anticompetitive...
> It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it?
I just did a Ctrl+F for Bluetooth and everything relates to smartwatches, not web APIs. There are only two references to Safari, none of which say anything about standards. The phrase "web standard" appears nowhere. The document is 88 pages long, and it's not immediately obvious to me where any of what you're talking about is spelled out. I hope you'll understand I'm not going to spend my afternoon reading the whole thing.
I don't really care what Firefox does. They get paid massively by Google, so who knows what their motivations are for what they do. Opera implements the same APIs in their browser, but that also doesn't work on iOS because Apple are dicks and force Safari on Opera too.
>Not on the formal standards track.
What a coincidence, Apple gets to vote on what the "formal standards track" is, and they have voted against anything that would hurt their app business.
>But go on assuming it's all about being anticompetitive...
Okay... Apple are anticompetitive and always have been. They forbid their OS from being installed on any hardware that isn't manufactured by Apple, even though it was easily possible to do. Their walled garden is very famous for being anticompetitive - banning any browser from using their own browser engine and forcing Safari is absolutely anti-competitive.
You know what? Just go fucking read the DOJ antitrust suit against Apple, it details the very many ways Apple is anti-competitive:
You seem to have lost the plot here. I started out by saying Apple is anticompetitive in plenty of areas.
But that's not what the conversation is about. I pointed out that in this area, it doesn't appear to be.
So I don't know why you keep pushing this PDF. It doesn't say anything about this specific area. I already checked.
And if you don't care about what Firefox does, then I think it's clear you're not having this conversation in good faith. You're not open to evidence or counter-argument, you just have a knee-jerk reaction that Apple is bad. OK, you do you. But I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who "doesn't care" about the most obvious counterpoint to their argument.
Unfortunately, many people here don’t enter the arena with open minds. Their opinions have congealed; there are good guys and bad guys; and they just want to rant and complain. They don’t want any solutions other than their preferred one.
What the hell? This is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. This is a discussion about Apple and browser engines. We've had to ask you before to observe the guidelines, and we have to ban accounts that continue to post abusive comments. HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please start acting like you want this to continue to be a place for worthwhile discussions.
It’s not alleged in the complaint that Apple cripples Safari in order to incentivize developers to build apps instead. Respectfully, did you read it?
Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
>Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face?
That seems like victim blaming. Apple is the tyrant here.
> If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
Because then have to hire an iOS developer and pay for everything to develop an app, which Apple can then use to extort a percentage of sales for anything purchased through the app. Or I have to write the app myself, and I'm already working 18 hours a day. FUCK THAT. Not going to happen. Apple users will always be second class citizens to me as long as Apple treats other browsers like second class citizens and forbids other browser engines. Making an iOS app isn't a clear pathway to riches, so Apple users will just have to use a more clunky wifi experience. That's just the way it is.
Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to
consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by
imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer
agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure
or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook
across many technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text messaging,
smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others.
9. Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it
selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its “app review” process, as well
as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone’s operating
system (called Application Programming Interfaces or “APIs”). Apple can enforce these
restrictions due to its position as an intermediary between product creators such as developers on
the one hand and users on the other.
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to
justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to
promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security
interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in
Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering
governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app
stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine
when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security
justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and
business interests.
43. Developers cannot avoid Apple’s control of app distribution and app creation by
making web apps—apps created using standard programming languages for web-based content
and available over the internet—as an alternative to native apps. Many iPhone users do not look
for or know how to find web apps, causing web apps to constitute only a small fraction of app
usage. Apple recognizes that web apps are not a good alternative to native apps for developers.
As one Apple executive acknowledged, “[d]evelopers can’t make much money on the web.”
Regardless, Apple can still control the functionality of web apps because Apple requires all web
browsers on the iPhone to use WebKit, Apple’s browser engine—the key software components
that third-party browsers use to display web content.
60. For years, Apple denied its users access to super apps because it viewed them as
“fundamentally disruptive” to “existing app distribution and development paradigms” and
ultimately Apple’s monopoly power. Apple feared super apps because it recognized that as they
become popular, “demand for iPhone is reduced.” So, Apple used its control over app
distribution and app creation to effectively prohibit developers from offering super apps instead
of competing on the merits.
The allegation that Safari is holding back web development by its lack of support for key features is not new, but it’s not true, either. Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds.
...even though Chrome is not the standard, it’s treated as such by many web developers.
No, I think Chrome is the modern IE. It has huge market share, to the point where developers often just ignore the other browsers or at best treat them as P2. Just like they did when IE was dominant.
I'm torn on this honestly. Safari (particularly mobile Safari) is literally the only thing keeping the web from becoming Chrome-only. While I would love to see Safari-alternative engines on the iPhone, I fear that the "open web" in terms of browser compatibility is cooked the day that happens: Commercial web developers are supremely lazy and their product managers are, too. They will consider the web Chrome-only from that day forward and simply refuse to lift a finger for other browsers.
I think when IE6 died, on one hand it was a relief for web developers, who (very quickly) deleted all the code needed to maintain compatibility, but on the other hand, it made the web worse by bringing us closer to browser monopoly.
Chrome is the IE in that it’s all the web devs target or test and the browser that every enterprise just uses as the assumed target. Safari is the late-stage IE that doesn’t add any features or modern standards that its (supposed) competitors add. Although Apple seems to have different and more strategic reasons than MS did. Apple just hates the Web because they can’t effectively tollbooth it, whereas I think MS just didn’t care about investing in IE after 2001 or so.
That's not true. It's not even available on most computers. IE was about Microsoft not following web standards and abusing its monopoly position; Safari is a minor browser by overall market share and is broadly standards-compliant.
> the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
>So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
Says who?
"Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others.
To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457849
If those are the extent of complaints, then I think Safari's doing just fine. That's nothing like the next IE, and shows that PWA still have their own problems regardless of Apple.
It's interesting how the "Apple can do no wrong" shareholders and "I will hate on PWAs no matter what" types, curiously converge and keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been addressed ad nauseam, even in this thread. Every technology has its "own problems" regardless of Apple, but it certainly doesn't help when Apple, being one of the biggest companies in the world, persistently engages in its sabotage.
I worked through the IE days and Safari definitely has a IE feeling that you can't shake off.
IE had a lot of browser features which officially were there but in practice didn't fully work.
I had issues with forms, zIndex, SVGs, backgrounds and localStorage with Safari. All of which I consider basic browser features which should always work.
Of course it's not as bad as IE but Safari is clearly lagging very far behind Chrome and Firefox
> Steve Jobs himself envisioned a
> web app future as the future of[...]
I'm not putting cynical motivations past Apple, but you're reading too much (or too little?) into what Jobs said at the time.
His remarks at the time of the initial iPhone release (with the benefit of hindsight) were clearly because they weren't ready to expose any sort of native API's.
Pissing on you and telling you it's raining was typical Jobs reality distortion field marketing, and not an indication that he actually believed it was raining.
This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other.
If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
Just read the summary that Gemini provides for a good quick understanding, and follow up the multiple articles about it. Then please don't come back and say that there is nothing concrete about this evidence, that is just people speculating about a behavior that Apple has been engaging repeatedly and continuously for over a decade.
Look, I agree that Safari sucks, but with or without the AI overview (which I don’t believe is Gemini, rather that is a very cheap and dumb model that’s been told to summarize a few top results), linking to a search is not a strong debating technique. I could link to a search for “Safari has the best technology” and it would have the same zero value.
It is you that needs to cite the evidence, not some LLM, and with hard facts coupled with evidence of intent, not just referring to mere opinions.
You claim to know something with certainty, so one can reasonably expect you have the expertise and data to prove it. If you come to the kitchen claiming to be a chef, you’d better come with sharp knives, not photos of them.
Seriously, you expect people to click a Google search link for people who agree with you- and then read what the LLM has to say?? When did HN become a garbage dump where people don’t do their own research and/or thinking?
About 10 years ago, by my reckoning. The less people know about a subject, the more strongly opinionated and certain they are about it. It’s not just HN, though; it’s a very human condition.
If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves. If it's a big difference, it's self-evident; and small differences should show up in the battery life tool and computer press.
Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser, and if it doesn't that's not the browser's fault. Maybe restrict access to password filling and such though / figure out how to offer an API to reduce the impact.
Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms (Android and Windows) makes it a pretty wonky standard. I guess there's a claim to be made for the embedded browsing engine, but IMHO, that should be an app developer choice.
> If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves.
Unfortunately, the makers of a certain browser also control several major web properties, and regularly make 'mistakes' that break compatibility with competing browsers, while releasing a set of apps that 'forget' users' browser selections on a monthly basis.
Personally, I'd much prefer apple allowed a browser engine with proper ad blocking support. But I do worry that the moment they do so, the almost-monopoly browser market would become a total monopoly.
Safari exclusivity is the only reason we aren’t living in a 100% “this site built for chrome” world. I think folks must forget the IE days and how bad that was.
There is zero percent chance developers are wasting a second making sure their sites actually work cross platform if not for iOS (and iOS more moneyed user base).
We were in a “built for Netscape” world right before IE had its brief window of innovation in versions 4-5. The fact that people were building to IE though was only painful for a few specific reasons:
1. the versions of IE targeted were exclusive to Windows (Mac IE was way different, so it wasn’t that useful for when the site had targeted Windows IE)
2. IE stopped all development of useful UI or web standards features, meaning if you needed the compatibility you were stuck with a stagnant browser
3. Due to #2, of course web devs hands were tied when it comes to adopting things like HTML5, <video> tags etc. Users would have needed to switch between the two constantly — Firefox for cool new sites and IE for their bank, school, government, whatever.
I would posit that none of the above seems true about Chromium. They do continue developing it, they add new web standards the most aggressively of anyone, and it’s available on basically every platform except the one Apple bans it from.
Mind you I don’t really want Google to own it, because they are way too damn big even without Chrome… but honestly it’s no IE situation.
Yep. Chrome's mindshare and momentum is incredibly difficult to overcome, and outside of technology-oriented circles users generally don't develop associations between specific programs and poor battery life unless it gets the fans blaring like you're running Cyberpunk 2077 with setting cranked to max or something.
It's similar to how the overwhelming majority of people driving cars aren't going to make note of the difference in driving dynamics between CVT and automatic transmissions unless one severely underperforms compared to the other. It either runs or it doesn't and that's where the distinction ends for people who treat their car/computer/phone as an appliance.
>> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
>No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
Yes they will, Apple has made it very easy to see.
To check iOS app power usage, go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app for the last 24 hours or 10 days, showing usage time and background activity, allowing you to identify power-hungry apps and manage settings like Background App Refresh to improve battery life.
So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
>The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Javascript is already very much sandboxed. And there have been plenty of exploits that already target Safari. So saying other browsers are the problem is like blaming the victim (of Apple's anti-competitive practices).
>Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
The real reason Apple disallows other browser engines on Safari is so they can force developers to create native apps where they can get a cut of any purchase made through the app. The problems with Apple's anti-competitive practices have been spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against them:
Apple made it very clear that their security concerns related to third party browsing engines are about difficult-to-contain threats posed by JIT compilation. (JITs require non-text memory pages to be executable.) Apple doesn’t allow other apps to use such technology, so they’re consistent in that respect.
Apple even disables JIT for Safari itself when you put an iPhone in lockdown mode, at no small cost to performance, in an effort to harden the device even more.
That's just their excuse. Javascript is used on practically every web browser in existence, across billions of devices, and it does not have the security risks that Apple claims. It just doesn't. There are plenty of other flaws in their own web browser that have allowed remote code execution, but Javascript isn't typically one of them, in any browser, in any platform, in the last decade or more.
And there are plenty of apps in Apple's app store that are malicious. So the JIT excuse is just Applespeak for "we control what our competitors can do on hardware we supplied that someone bought and paid for". It's abuse and they are being sued by the DOJ. Just read the lawsuit so I don't have to reply to any more of your comments:
First, are you a security expert? If so, please provide your bona fides. Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business. (Cellebrite can attest to this; they possess far fewer capabilities to crack iPhones than every other phone on the market.) If they perceive handling out JIT capabilities to apps as risky, I believe them. You, on the other hand, come with no evidence to the contrary other than a bare assertion.
Second, I already told you that there is no claim in the complaint that Apple is withholding Safari features in order to pad its apps business. If you believe otherwise, please provide relevant passages from the complaint.
Third, you’ve never had to reply to any of my comments. That’s on you.
>First, are you a security expert? If so, please provide your bona fides.
Nice goalpost move. I'm not playing that game with you.
>Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business.
And yet Safari still gets hacked.
From the DOJ lawsuit:
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to
justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to
promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security
interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in
Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering
governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app
stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine
when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security
justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and
business interests.
>If they perceive handling out JIT capabilities to apps as risky, I believe them. You, on the other hand, come with no evidence to the contrary other than a bare assertion.
You are influenced by the reality distortion field, that much is clear, no conversation can be had with a cult member. Have a nice day.
IAAL with experience interpreting Federal antitrust complaints. Allegation 16 is not a specific allegation that Apple deliberately withholds features from Safari in order to steer developers toward building apps. It’s a “narrative” paragraph that is intended to characterize Apple’s overall behavior. It alleges that Apple is self-serving, which, at the end of the day, isn’t really that surprising for an American business enterprise, and isn’t in itself unlawful.
> yet Safari still gets hacked
Talk about moving goalposts.
Every browser to date has had security vulnerabilities, and all the major vendors respond to close them when found to impact customers. Expecting Apple—or any developer for that matter—to have a perfect track record is unrealistic. Moreover, a large part of improving overall security is defense in depth, and it’s unreasonable to expect a vendor obsessed with security on its customers’ behalf to intentionally disable one of its defenses if it’s a known vulnerability vector.
I’m not a member of some Apple cult. There are plenty of things I don’t like about Apple; and no company is perfect. At any rate, name-calling one’s opponents isn’t allowed here, and when a discussion stoops to that nadir, I’m out. I’ll let the reader decide who has the better argument.
>IAAL with experience interpreting Federal antitrust complaints
If so, please provide your bona fides. But you won't.
>Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business.
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests.
I provided the section of the DOJ lawsuit that states that Apple's portrayal of their security stance is nothing more than posturing and anti-competitive. You seem to think Apple are the absolute best in security, but they aren't even close to that. I don't believe that you are a lawyer and more than you believe that I am a security expert.
> You seem to think Apple are the absolute best in security, but they aren't even close to that.
Repeating this opinion ad nauseum doesn’t make it any more true. I already provided Cellebrite as evidence; where’s yours? (No, the fact that security vulnerabilities continue to be filed will not suffice. Security is best judged by the scope of and injury caused by successful exploits.)
> If so, please provide your bona fides. But you won't.
Happy to call your bluff. Send me an email and I’ll send you my California Bar license. otterley at otterley dot org
That’s not the law, and never has been. Devices are combinations of hardware and software. The fact that a device maker allows you to install software subject to limitations is a privilege, not a right. Some device makers, like automobile and medical device manufacturers, often give you no such privileges at all.
Nevertheless, you’re entitled to your belief, which is really at the core of all this discussion. Fine, just say that. But to take that desire and gin up some conspiracy about how Apple is intentionally crippling the browser just to pad its apps business is a bridge too far. You don’t need a villain. Your desire is enough.
Yes. Safari is a less secure browser than Chrome, architecturally. Took far longer to ship sandboxing. Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation. Takes far longer to fix reported vulnerabilities, and consistently "fixes" them superficially and incorrectly, requiring another fix.
Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.
> Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation.
Those are interesting facts, but are ultimately a red herring. How will enabling JIT for other browser engines, absent the detailed vetting Apple is requiring to provide a Web Browser Engine entitlement, yield a more secure outcome?
> Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.
You are, of course, welcome to choose an alternative. If you prefer Android, by all means, use it!
The "vetting" is irrelevant because the other engines will continue to not exist. By design.
I am currently forced to use a less secure browser due to Apple's restrictions, which invalidates your original claim. Your skillful dodging of that point is why it's so frustrating to have any conversation about Apple. There really are cult-like aspects.
The form of questioning is intentional. The person I was responding to claimed they were “forced” to do use a “less secure” browser despite the existence of alternatives like Android. I’m awaiting further details, but anticipate none: most of these conversations boil down to an admission such as, “I’m not really forced to do anything; I just want Apple to let me have my cake and eat it, too” — all while discounting the risks it could impose since they shamelessly believe they know better than the domain experts.
You completely missed the clues, so I informed you of the context.
>The person I was responding to claimed they were “forced” to do use a “less secure” browser despite the existence of alternatives like Android.
Now you're being disingenuous. So now you seem to think that Android has the best security people? Before you said it was Apple.
But then you keep trying to boost Apple, when they are the tyrants, and they are the ones being sued by the DOJ - notice how Google is not being sued by the DOJ for anything they did with Android? Just Apple for what they are doing with iOS and their app store.
I’m not contending that Android is more secure than iOS. They’re both improving security all the time. Lessons learned result in improving the battlements.
But that’s not the point here. The point is that the person said they were “forced” to use a “less secure” browser without explanation. “Forced” suggests there are no alternatives, yet there is one. “Forced” and “less convenient for me” are not synonyms.
> notice how Google is not being sued by the DOJ for anything they did with Android? Just Apple for what they are doing with iOS and their app store.
The antitrust suit is not, as you falsely claimed, about intentionally impeding Safari for their selfish benefit. The DOJ made no specific allegation to that effect. (They have outstanding lawyers and would not have omitted that if they had a shred of evidence that it was true.) It’s about Apple insisting on the App Store as the sole distribution channel for third party apps, with particular focus on the size of their cut, and about integration with third-party devices. And besides, at this stage, they’re still allegations—claims that are still subject to judicial scrutiny. The full story has yet to come out.
As with most things, it’s about who keeps the money. Epic Games would never have sued Apple if its cut was 10% instead of 30%, and many commentators have said (and I agree) that Apple shot themselves in the foot by refusing to negotiate with them.
> So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
It's easy to see, but seeing doesn't mean the user will do anything about it. I guarantee that for the average user, their list goes something like Instagram/TikTok/FaceBook/Twitter, and they haven't uninstalled any of those yet due to battery drain...
So what? Apps use resources, that isn't really an epiphany. Some apps use more than others, and that isn't rocket science. If a stupid user's battery is getting drained faster than they'd like, maybe someone will clue them in. Maybe not. Maybe they'll just buy a battery bank or something to keep their phone powered up longer. I really don't care, but locking out other browser engines from a platform isn't really the excuse you think it is. Apple is anti-competitive, plain and simple, and there's no getting around that.
>And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check?
It does not matter. The functionality is there. If a user can't figure it out then they have other problems that having a smartphone won't fix for them.
>No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution.
You mean Javascript interpreters inside a web browser? lol. You mean like Safari is allowed to do? So only Apple can allow Apple apps to do this? I'm not sure you're thinking this through. Apples rule is a made-up rule designed to keep competition out, and force developers to write native apps so Apple can extort the developers by taking a percentage of purchases made through the native app.
>Yes there is -- JavaScript.
That's the dumbest possible argument you could make. Javascript has been very much sandboxed and secure for a very long time. There have been flaws in Safari that allowed remote code execution had nothing to do with Javascript, so good luck moving that goalpost somewhere else.
>...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser.
I'm not recommending my users use H@ck0rbR0Ws3R, I'm recommending they use Google Chrome, specifically because it supports the APIs my company needs to use for our product (on Android at least).
Okay Tim Apple, the DOJ is coming for you. You can explain this all to them when they come knocking, and they will.
The web browser is the singular hole in Apple's grip over the user's device. While there are definitely arguments that can be made about security, I think it's naive to think that Apple is unaware of this and is operating on something other than protecting their app store fortune.
Apple appear to be using the same rules that they made up when "allowing" third party browser engines in the EU. It's worth pointing out that these restrictions are such, that to best of my knowledge, no one has shipped a browser with an alternate engine in the EU app stores yet despite being permitted to for over a year now.
The demand that the application with its alternate browser engine must be a completely new and separate binary from any app already using the built in browser makes it hard for existing big players like Chrome - they would have to manage two apps on the store during any transition to their own engine, which supposedly has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for them already in the EU.
Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs.
Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed.
I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
Hmm, actually now that I look closer at the Japan requirements, it doesn't seem to allow replacing the web view systemwide, as I thought, and as Android allows. And neither do the EU requirements. They only allow individual apps to embed an alternative engine on a per-app basis by including the whole engine within the app. And the Japan page includes the caveat "apps from browser engine stewards" which if interpreted zealously (and I expect Apple to) would forbid apps not from Google or Mozilla from embedding Chromium or Gecko.
This is a pretty big limitation considering how much iOS web browsing happens in web views. Having both the EU and Japan as markets may be enough for Google to port Chromium just for Chrome itself, but we will have to wait and see. Actually Chromium development is open so it should be pretty easy to see if Google has a serious porting effort or not.
Wrong, they do specify "standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar" are both covered, that's in the law.
What you're referring to is how Apple chose to implement it. The EU hasn't opened a compliance case on Safari yet but I expect they'll do so at some point.
Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions.
FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
Oh definitely! I know you’re just using the phrase and don’t imply otherwise, but to clarify the word “imitation”, uBO lite is not a fake imitation but actually an official thing from uBO and Raymond Hill: see https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
How does it compare to 1Blocker? I use that in Safari and also a VPN when I'm away back to my home connection so it uses my NextDNS which also blocks a lot of in-app ads.
The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious:
> Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer.
2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone.
At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.
Making "tech-minded persons" dump apple etc does NOTHING to move the needle in terms of what most people use.
For example I'm running a pretty sweet calibre-web automated setup with Kobo readers. Ive changed the storefront on my kobo and have seemless sync OTA of selected shelves. And even I struggle to get my wife to choose that setup over Amazon kindle. The very minute there is a single snag, normies (sorry wife dear) lose interest.
I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
Unfortunately the integration is really quite weak with Apple. KDE Connect cannot remain active while the application is not in the foreground. It’s possibly a packaging issue but pairing from fedora is also quite flakey.
As absurd as this sounds windows -> iPhone via their phone link is actually almost as good as apples built in ecosystem to the point where I can make phone calls and send texts on my computer. It’s not quite as seamless especially the setup but that is a well done wizard and it mostly works.
Quite delayed, however windows phone link can show me notifications and notice incoming calls while the phone is locked so I can only assume there is some set of magical entitlements they need.
I don't think they're terrible, but there are two main issues: (i) lack of flagship-level hardware, (ii) app compatibility. Issue (ii) is largely mitigated by Waydroid. For the time being, Graphene on a modern Pixel is still the best compromise of freedom and usability though (>99% Android app compatibility, fully degoogled).
Huge benefits: the ability to run any website as an app (dramatically cutting back on development costs and allowing us to finally replace Electron with PWAs), 30% cheaper apps (no Apple tax), ad-blocking, and better performance since WebKit will finally have some real competition.
I disagree. I had an iPhone in the past and find the minimalist Graphene UI refreshing. It's like comparing KDE on Arch to Windows 11 or MacOS. Nothing gets in your way or distracts you, the OS is what an OS is supposed to be, a platform for managing and launching apps.
It’s definitely something that varies from person to person. I tried putting Graphene on a secondary Android device (an old Pixel 3XL) and compared to the stock ROM or more typical AOSP fork (e.g. LineageOS or Pixel Experience), I found it rather frustrating. I can’t imagine running it on my daily driver.
Similarly with Linux, the sheer number of rough edges, papercuts, and quirks is still too high (regardless of if I’m using a big name DE or hyper minimal tiling WM or somewhere in between) for them to serve as my main desktop environment.
KDE connect over Bluetooth or WiFi seems ideal for this, so it's definitely possible. I am not sure how the iDevices deal with this, but I really don't want anything cloud-connected.
tail scale drop is much more complicated than literally copying and pasting on iDevice. that's literally all you do, no setup, nothing and this is just one example for one type of action.
you don't need to believe me. I use it daily. don't know why you're so defensive lol - it's our own opinion. fyi I didn't have to do anything for this to work (clipboard laptop to phone)
2026 should be the last year when anyone technical-minded comes around to the realization that Google/Apple are in the Fed's pocket. If you're making the switch in 2027 or 2028, it's probably too late for you.
Especially with Apple, I often see people scared that if they open up their ecosystem, then users will lose one of the most consumer friendly tech companies out there. It’s not just “if apple allows alternative browsers then Chrome will win”, which is (probably) true. It’s:
* If Apple allows alternative app stores then the whole ios ecosystem will rot and be foooded with malware, brough up during the Apple vs. Epic cases
* If Apple can’t control the data on their user’s phones, then privacy rights will disappear, a common talking point during the Apple vs. Facebook case for opt-in data collection.
And like, these points are correct — Apple kind of acts like a “benevolent dictator” when it comes to their ecosystem. But shouldn’t there be alternatives between “Apple can control all software on the hardware they sell” and “the moment Apple doesn’t have control of their user’s experience then it’ll be far worse”? Like, we should have more tech companies, more options to pick from between these two extremes. The market needs to be more competitive, and if that isn’t possible shouldn’t there be regulation to protect users and devs better? This constantly feels like a “pick your poison“ kind of deal, where we can only pick between a company locking down their hardware or abuse of users via. software. If Microsoft banned alternative browser engines there’d be riots in these comments. Apple is just better to its users.
Giving companies the power to lock down hardware they sell isn’t a solution that will work when Apple inevitably turns against its users, and is a horrible precedent to set legally. Lord knows John Deere and a million other predatory hardware companies are salivating at the idea of users of their hardware not having control over what they bought, and Meta and Microsoft love the idea of users not having control of the software they run and the data it collects. We can’t just picking between the least worst of two companies.
It's weird that people never distill those arguments to their most basic logic.
Apple directly dictate the shape, speed, and existence of any innovation on iOS, and by extension, any innovation involving mobile phones or meant to run on mobile phones. They don't simply have "power" over it, in the sense that they get to say "Yes" or "No". iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it.
Browsers didn't exist when Windows 1.0 came out. But they happened. If it had been iOS, there would have been no networking, no JIT (I know that came later, bear with me), Firefox/Gecko could never have existed and been able to fix the web. Apple alone would have controlled the evolution of the most important tech of the past few decades. It couldn't have existed in the first place unless Apple, and no one else, invented it and put it in iOS themselves. Basic OS features: files and the filesystem, sharing, casting your screen, communicating with other devices. It doesn't exist until Apple makes it. It doesn't change until Apple changes it.
Even something as simple as file syncing. They forced Dropbox, GDrive, OneDrive to adopt their shitty, buggy backend. Those services all had to drop basic features to adapt. Those features can't ever come back unless Apple allows them. Any hypothetical new features won't exist unless Apple, and no one else, thinks of them and adds them.
> iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it.
No platform highlights the issue you hit on here like VisionOS.
It is barren. Not just because of the lack of customer base for paid apps, that hurts too, but because the APIs aren't there, and because you can't hack on the private APIs or the hardware directly...they won't be. The app store on Vision Pro is filled with half-assed "spatial computing" consumption apps (Wow, I can put the stock tickers on the wall! That I can only see with these huge goggles on! Neat!), "showroom" apps that are just pure consumption, mostly 3D models of products, and media consumption apps. The games that exist are all pretty lame, and you can't enjoy any of the backcatalog of games written for VR because A. They'd never pass app review, and B. you can only use the PSVR controllers with it, so my Index controllers that I already have are useless.
The Vision Pro demands being as open as the Mac. The problem space is too ill defined and the hardware too packed with interesting use cases to gate behind the restrictive App Store rules. The iPad model worked because it was 2010 and had all the upward momentum of the iPhone to ride. Here and now, on a stagnant, occupied app market where room for innovation is small, on a device with far less promise, the App Store restrictions take all the air out of the room. The entire device is suffocated by Apple's iron grip and belief that they are entitled to own any good ideas that happen on the device, and that they are entitled to 15-30% of any economic exchange happening on the device. Just an utterly kneecapped platform right out of the gate, pricing, specs, weight, and everything else aside. There are no good apps because you just can't write the sort of apps your imagination is likely to want to make. Hell, accessing the main camera wasn't allowed until visionOS 2.0, and you have to use the "enterprise apps" API/entitlement to access it.
Apple's grip has killed it. It is a glorified TV you can wear on your face. It's a very good TV. It's even alright as an external monitor for a *real* computer.
The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible.
It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.
> The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious.
To be honest, I suspect that Apple is purposefully doing this to make alternatives a logistical and legal nightmare vs their own App store.
By having different rules for different countries, different fee structures, etc, Apple is basically making alternatives as inconvenient and painful as legally possible
The US not getting these features is on purpose, it makes the entire idea of "alternatives on iOS" extremely inconvenient vs just using the App store.
Apple didn't donate to Trump's inauguration, give him a gold and glass paperweight, and donate to his demolishing of the East Wing so that they would have to open up the app store in the USA
I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem.
I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
It’s still got popularity within tech-inclined Mac/iOS circles too because it’s easier on the battery than Chrome (+derivatives) and Firefox. Some would like to switch but because neither Google nor Mozilla has much to lose for their browsers being battery hogs, relatively little engineering effort gets dedicated to improving efficiency compared to WebKit (which is similarly efficient under Linux in e.g. GNOME Web, proving it’s not purely first-party advantage).
That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up.
Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.
The reason Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS is due to them collecting up to 30% of purchases made through the apps from the app store. If a developer can do the same things with a capable web browser, then they won't need to create a native iOS app and that cuts into Apple's app revenue. So Apple purposely hobbles Safari so it doesn't have any advanced browser APIs for stuff like bluetooth or other APIs that apps have access to, forcing developers to create an app, where Apple can then cut into purchases made through the app.
It has nothing to do with people no longer using Safari and Apple being sad about that. Other browsers can technically be installed on iOS, but the underlying browser engine is forced to be Safari, which lacks many APIs other web browsers could implement, reducing the need for a native app. It's purely Apple's anti-competitive greed that drives this situation. And the EU, Japan, and the US DOJ have noticed. So far only the EU and Japan have actually taken measures to force Apple to change this.
Here's the entire DOJ lawsuit which includes many other instances of anti-competitive practices by Apple.
What evidence do you have, other than speculation, that Apple is so motivated? What standard features are missing from Safari’s rendering engine that makes it a less capable browser such that developers are forced to produce apps instead?
Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster.
No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so.
So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to.
Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it??
The "monoculture" has never been less of a threat. WPT.FYI is driving towards asymptotically perfect compatibility and behavior. And the real web, the long-tail of websites, is too chaotic to be controlled by any entity regardless of browser market share. Chrome can cook up whatever API they want, no website can be forced to adopt it. And if someone can't use some WebMIDI site on Safari, well, they can't complain, they didn't want that site to exist in the first place.
It's simply not a good excuse to defend the iOS browser ban.
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit?
I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
If I'm reading the requirements around being a "browser engine steward" correctly, does this mean essentially only Google and Mozilla can ever qualify for the "Embedded Browser Engine Entitlement"? Even Microsoft seems to be ruled out, give that Edge's engine is based on Blink. Any other smaller browser engines would be ruled out by the baseline web functionality requirements.
The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS.
It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?
I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have.
Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set.
At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999.
This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC.
It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines.
I’m not going to say I think Apple should be able to lock out competing browsers, I know this is going to happen.
But God I don’t want this. The iPhone is basically the only thing stopping a total Chrome/Chromium hegemony from ruling the web the way IE did.
I don’t think Google will practically abandon things the way Microsoft did. But they will absolutely have the kind of power Microsoft did to force any feature.
I don’t want to be forced to use Chrome because it’s the only browser that works on most sites. It’s already bad enough with some sites.
But Apple‘s stubbornness and completely different reasons are the only things accidentally holding back the tide.
I can't wait until regulators do their job and take away Apple's dictatorial control, in all areas, and all these doom-and-gloom predictions on all these tangential issues end up proving ludicrous.
What kind of control would Chrome have over the web? Adding APIs doesn't force the billions of websites to adopt them. So what if a website adds WebBluetooth? You don't want the web to have that anyway, and if you keep using Safari, you still won't have it. Happy you!
If scrappy Firefox on open platforms could save the web from 95% IE, then why are we all dependent on Apple, alone, to save us from ~60% Chrome? It's learned helplessness and Stockholm syndrome. I wonder how our species survived before the trillion-dollar company started taking such good care of us!
Not even a day ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46454115:
> I want my browser to protect me from ALL those things. Ublock origin did precisely that, then Google went in to kill ublock origin. Ublock lite is nowhere near as good.
>
> I consider this betrayal - naturally by Google, but also by random web designers such as on the python homepage who consider it morally just to pester visitors when they do not want to be pestered. I don't accept ads; I don't accept pop-ups or slide-in effects (in 99.999% of the cases; notifications for some things can be ok, but this does not extend in my book to donation Robin Hood waylanders)."
Why did you link me to a random comment?
edit: I see now. Firefox still has uBlock Origin. You missed the point. If Chrome wants to make itself less attractive, you should celebrate.
> If Chrome wants to make itself less attractive, you should celebrate.
I appreciate that Chrome reducing user autonomy in order to further Google's own business goals _should_ be a reduction in their competitiveness in a perfect market.
But the web browser market does not have perfect competition today, and I cannot recall a time when it had.
Regulators preventing Apple from controlling iOS browser engines but allowing Google to have de facto ownership of the web would be an example of governments picking winners and losers.
Public policy needs to move the market towards real competition.
If you read it, it shows the impact Google has on browser quality for end users.
Firefox onpy works because iOS means site owners have to support multiple engines
I wonder how many chrome fanboys remember the ie6 days.
> What kind of control would Chrome have over the web? Adding APIs doesn't force the billions of websites to adopt them.
You are assuming adding APIs is a net positive, and the debacle that was Chrome’s privacy sandbox initiative suggests that’s not the case
> why are we all dependent on Apple, alone, to save us from ~60% Chrome?
How’s Firefox doing now? They’re literally dependent upon Chrome to exist. Without Google they have no money to fund development.
The only viable non-Chromium browser engine today that is not funded by Google is WebKit.
That was almost 20 years ago though. Things are really different now and it's hard to imagine Firefox saving anything these days. Sadly, the only entities powerful enough to control FANGs are FANGs (although fingers crossed the EU holds it's nerve and EU nations belatedly act on the realisation that being beholden to US tech giants is a massive strategic blunder, akin to relying so heavily on US military satellite data for Ukraine).
Yes, new problems will require new solutions. I'm calling out the logic of paternalism and dependency, an impotent hope pinned on a "benevolent" corporation retaining absolute control forever.
I don't have much faith in Firefox saving us, given its organizational turnover and cultural issues.
I have much more faith in a new entrant, like Ladybird. I should be able to use Ladybird on iOS. Why not?
The problem with "new entrant" is that only revolutionary features convince users to switch en mass.
Tabs/stability (Firefox vs IE). V8 (Chrome vs Firefox).
Anything else is a battle of attrition, where the deepest pocketed competitor in terms of advertising spend wins. Or Google, because it flood all its own advertising channels.
And Chrome still barely only won.
Ladybird has too much pride.
They are more concerned with making something from scratch than something that actually works.
Also they’re switching over to Swift which can only be worse for performance.
So what do you want another chromium based browser? The whole point of Ladybird is to kinda prove that a completely independent browser engine is feasible. Also, they are not doing everything from scratch for example it will use the same graphics library that chromium uses (Skia) and also now firefox. You should probably read the FAQ on their homepage:
https://ladybird.org/#:~:text=What%20does%20%22No%20code%20f...
> So what do you want another chromium based browser?
I want something free of Google code, which sounds like they aren’t doing if Skia is anyway involved.
Instead they’re wasting resources where it’s less needed. Like building a JS engine instead of starting off with something like SpiderMonkey, JSCore, or QuickJS.
Let them spend resources however they want. It's not like they are subsidized or anything
>It's not like they are subsidized or anything
View sponsors https://ladybird.org/
Am I missing any govt org there?
Subsidize doesn’t only mean government funded.
> What kind of control would Chrome have over the web?
Do you remember Manifest Version 3? They did away with ad block extensions.
If we all end up using Chromium, there’s no longer a web standard. It’s whatever conforms to Google’s standard because all sites will have to support Chromium. That means there will be an undocumented spec. It’s much too difficult for browser engine developers to compete with them, they don’t have nearly the resources.
Do you think the web should be an open standard? How can company catch up if Google is the one pushing the envelope?
Just want to be super clear here… the other party in this question being Apple who is currently the worlds richest company who makes the worlds buggiest browser as seen here https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&label=experimental&ali...
The idea that you’re pushing is a hole that Apple themselves have dug on purpose, this is not an oversight but a very intentional decision of theirs to protect their profit margins that their main user retention strategy is that many courts in the world especially the US are never going to force them to compete freely in an open marketplace with consumer choice is a factor.
I never once said anything in favor of Safari, that’s not something I’m “pushing”. I’m in favor more than just Chromium.
So according to you, a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle.
Whereas, a company that has 70% of the global browser market somehow would have no way to take advantage if they had an even larger share.
I wonder how our species would survive without the unique market analysis from one-of-a-kind minds like yours.
> a company that has about 25% of the global smartphone market, should be _legally forbidden_ from creating a tightly integrated software/hardware bundle.
Absolutely not. Most of us are perfectly happy with Apple tightly integrating Safari with their hardware.
However, we're going to legally forbid them to prevent users from breaking that tight integration, because it's their device. Apple doesnt "own" the smartphone market: it provides hardware and services, and it shuts the fuck up.
Web and Apple ecosystem is not comparable. IE had quite large market share and was brought down by Chrome in quite short time. Firefox challenged IE quite effectively before that. But Windows (desktop) still enjoys quite large market share even though Google, Linux and Apple (macOS) are trying hard.
The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available. One aspect in favor of Google is the complexity of implementing all those standards. But that is not lock-in, rather an issue of having enough resources to implement a compliant browser.
> The OS lock-in is much more difficult to break than Web where the standards are openly built and made available.
Where have you been in the past 10 years or so? Chrome views the web as their own fiefdom, and web devs happily oblige. There are now dozens of Chrome-only non-standards that are presented as "openly built standards" and devs deride other browsers for not implementing them.
It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards (for good reasons, like for e.g. privacy - but it is still the vendor's decisionand not an inherent limitation). The documentations and specifications are available for free.
In case of Windows, there is no spec. There is no possibility of implementing another Windows clone (patents limit such clones). Wine exists, but was reverse engineered with great difficulty.
> It is the decision of the other vendors to not implement the standards
A scribble on a napkin does not a standard make.
A feature released in a single browser engine without support, consent, and against objections of other browser vendors does not a standard make.
Just because Chrome ships something does not make whatever they ship a standard.
> The documentations and specifications are available for free.
That's how Chrome abuses its position and relies on gullible devs to assume that just because something is documented it becomes a standard the moment it's shipped in Chrome.
That's not how standards work.
> If scrappy Firefox
Because ie at the time was dogshit. FF was such an indisputable improvement that people just had to switch.
Chrome great. There is nothing a newcomer can do to compete.
There is plenty a browser could do to compete, from blocking modern popups (which now occur within the window, putting a gradient over the content forcing you to interact with their "subscribe to our mailing list" or "join our site to socialize" prompt that you would have to waste time clicking past, auto-pausing looping videos in unfocused tabs, throttling crypto mining tabs, providing uBlock Origin, handling WiFi Terms of Service click through, etc.
Think of the plethora of instances where you wish your browser made minor changes to make browsing easier
There are plenty of things to compete on: efficiency (startup time, memory use), security (from ad blocking on sites to extensions to the app itself), customization (both in looks and behavior)
Additionally, the predatory UI in Windows that pushes Edge, and on Google.com that push Chrome, simply did not exist at the time.
100% agreed, and I've been explaining this to people for the past year.
I have an iPhone now and miss Firefox for Android (with Ublock, sponsorblock, etc). But this painful restriction is the only thing stopping Chrome from becoming the new IE6.
At a few startups I've worked for, the devs all use chrome exclusively, and only test in chrome during development.
The only reason they consider other browsers, is because of Safari on iOS. Sometimes it's driven by support calls / complains from iOS users after a release. If Chrome's engine is allowed on iOS, that means support can just tell the users to install Chrome (like they do now if anyone has issues on Windows in other browsers). This means Firefox will usually work as well.
Many years ago, I was able to swap banks when my bank's website stopped working in Opera 12. If all the major banks / websites target Chrome-only, we'll have no choice but to use it. And then we'll have no control as Google push new restrictions into Chrome.
I don’t see that as a threat honestly. safari being the default app pretty much guarantees its place unless google comes up with a killer feature for iOS chrome. And they are unlikely to make that push considering apple demands the app to be distributed only in Japan.
Besides, the mobile web is becoming more and more of a niche platform, since the web is becoming centralised as time passes and most main sites redirect to their own apps.
And that’s without considering direct web search being replaced by AI search,which google seems convinced is the way forward.
It was the default on the Mac and it’s nowhere near the most popular there.
Google pushes Chrome HARD.
Yep. I've even been seeing Chrome TV ads lately (on Amazon Prime Video). They're marketing it pretty hard despite being dominant.
Also, it's wise to not underestimate the power of developers ceasing to test against non-Blink browsers and taking a page from their IE-era past selves with "Best Viewed in Chrome" and "Browser outdated! Download Chrome" badges. There are few user motivators stronger than things not working.
Similarly, Edge is the default on Windows. Chrome has 75% of the market share.
Yeah it's fun how Google displays a full-page ad for Chrome every few times I do a Google search on iOS Safari that I have to dismiss before seeing the results.
Yeah but the solution to that is to be good at breaking monopolies, not allowing one to stop another.
That’s what should have happened long ago.
As far as I can see there are only two possibilities on any kind of near term:
Apple can lock Google and everyone else out, or Google can take over the web fully.
Those appear to be our only choices right now. I don’t like either one. But I know which one I don’t like more.
[flagged]
We are helpless now in the near term. It’s not trolling.
What can we do in the next two years (let’s say) that would accomplish both letting other browsers on iOS and preventing Chrome from taking over everywhere?
I don’t know of another option. As far as I can see, that’s it.
Longer term yeah we should break up Google. If they didn’t own Chrome that would fix the problem. But is that going to happen in the next year or two?
Or are we about to hand them even more control and then spend the next 5-10 years trying to unwind it?
As I’ve said elsewhere I don’t like this situation. I don’t think governments should have allowed it to get here. I’m not picking an”favorite monopoly”, just the option of the only two I see right now that I think will do less harm.
We’ve screwed ourselves and I don’t want to make it worse for (at least) quite a few years.
We are not "helpless" and setting an arbitrary 2-year deadline is a distraction. The DOJ and EU are moving faster than they have in decades. You ask what we can do? We can enforce browser choice screens and allow alternative engines immediately. This gives Firefox (Gecko) a fighting chance on mobile for the first time in history. Keeping the ecosystem locked down ensures Firefox never has a chance.
That line of roleplay of yours also seems to be just 'Doomsday Defense' part 2. Now you’re adding an arbitrary time limit ("next two years") to justify inaction. We don't need to "unwind" Google before we stop Apple's anti-competitive behavior, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The fact that you view "allowing other browsers" (like Firefox) as "handing Google control" reveals the flaw in your logic. You are effectively arguing that we must destroy the village (the open web) to save it from the dragon, if this isn't concern trolling then I don't know what is.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Always had. From blocking features by UA to ads worth billions of dollars (only little of which they had to actually pay).
Google has no actual content left to find. It’s AI spam website after AI spam website.
And if you find any content, it’s on a website riddled with ads.
AI search has none of these issues. Google from 15 years ago was wildly superior to today.
>AI search has none of these issues
Yet. AI feeds from the content it substitutes. I’m skeptical to the long term feasibility for this reason, how is it going to bring me news when publishing those news is no longer profitable, for example?
The last working site in google search is reddit. Adding keyword reddit enables it. But it's disappointing.
Agreed. This is the only context in which I still use Google.
> safari being the default app
but this can change. At least in the EU Apple already prompts a user which browser they want [1]. While at the moment every browser is WebKit under the hood, this will probably change as the EU is also pushing Apple to allow other engines [2] - and with users knowing Chrome from Ads, their work or from a previous Android phone, I can imagine a lot of them selecting Chrome as a default.
1: https://www.heise.de/en/news/Apple-alters-selection-screen-f... 2: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
Until websites block you from logging in, completing transactions, ordering items until you open it with Chrome
Or just get buggy. I have absolutely run into sites that work on mobile Safari but not on desktop Safari. Because they don’t test it and don’t care.
You HAVE to use Chrome or possibly Firefox. We’ve always seen what Firefox is doing, they’re not going to be our saviors again.
There’s a meaningful amount of blame here that sits squarely at the feet of Apple.
1. They produce the world’s buggiest browser by far. Look at this chart that shows the number of bugs that ONLY OCCUR IN A SINGLE BROWSER. https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&label=experimental&ali...
2. They don’t support any modern testing protocols like WebdriverBiDi
3. They don’t make their software available to anyone who isn’t using Apple’s hardware.
The core root of the problem is very clearly Apple who’ve done nothing other than make the world’s buggiest and least accessible browser and then tried to hold everyone hostage who was previously forced to use it until courts had to stop them and they had no choice.
> They don’t make their software available to anyone who isn’t using Apple’s hardware.
Why should they? When did this become a rule? If Atari survived would they be required to make Windows software? Be? Commodore?
Where/why does/should the law require everyone to make Windows apps?
Really?
Why should people buy special, extra expensive hardware to test with a bad web browser?
It's logical to skip that step.
That ship has already sailed. And Apple is part of the problem. Recently I used Microsoft Edge because Facetime doesn't support Firefox. I couldn't get audio working so switched to Google Meet (which does work in Firefox.)
I'm sure if Apple keeps innovating and adopting some of the Web standards they'll outcompete other engines. But let's be realistic, they 100% are blocking other engines and not adopting standards in their own because they want that sweet sweet 30% cut when developers can't publish PWAs and are forced into the "app" model.
WebKit's progress has been significant in recent years, it's just been more focused on things like improving CSS instead of things like an API that tells the developer how many beers the user has in their fridge.
[flagged]
It depends on how you look at it.
From my perspective, Google tends to focus on somewhat niche features that will benefit a small slice of web apps. In contrast, the things Apple works on are those that benefit everything from static blog sites to huge commercial web apps.
I wish Google were more like Apple in this regard, because the primitives from which everything web is built are still overwhelmingly crude, which results in the half-ton-truck-built-on-a-golf-cart frameworks and apps the web has become famous for. Making the web reasonable to develop for without a dependency tree that looks like a spiral fractal would do way more to make it flourish as a platform than things like access to the GPU and USB devices.
People didn't mind when IE was muscling in and adding useful new features. They abandoned Netscape because the features made the web better. It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem. They would still add features, but too much relied on ActiveX -- which wasn't necessarily evil, there's a grand vision there of component re-use across the OS and varied applications, the same was done with Java Applets and even Shockwave/Flash, but it sucked more and they were all plagued with security problems. Then MS stopped innovating pretty much entirely, and wouldn't even play catch up for a long time, whether with their out-of-browser plugins (oh Silverlight...) or the browser itself. No support for tabs for a long time, or popup blocking (later ad blocking), they had terrible performance... And as various "web standards" advanced to make things nicer for the users and developers, and add capabilities that didn't require an external plugin, they drug their heels on that too.
Eventually, the hell that was IE was a combination of hostile user experience, security problems, performance problems, and developer pain in finding workarounds or other support because it was so far behind on everything. It had nothing to do with their power to dictate or experiment with new features. The extent of the hostile user experience that leaked outside the browser itself was the "only works on IE" problem that forced people to use IE for that site, on the whole it was comparable to the "only works with Flash or Java applets" problems and not as bad as the experience of the browser itself. For the most part these days, the two parts of that hell that remain relevant are the hostile user experience and the developer pains parts, and Mobile Safari is the successor to both for over a decade now. No one supports IE11 anymore (let alone older IEs) but they still have to support Mobile Safari. I have fonder memories of dealing with IE11 (and earlier) support/workarounds over Mobile Safari's crap. My view is more power to actual Chromium-based browsers on mobile even if I personally use Firefox on PC and android despite their user experience shortcomings (at least they're not very hostile). The only part of hell I'd be worried about is that of a hostile user experience, which can be worked around by individual users if they are allowed choices.
It wasn't until they stopped adding features to the browser itself that it really started to become a problem.
Only for those misguided "push the web forward" idiots who just wanted the latest shiny shit, aided by Google's plans to control the Internet itself. Plain HTML worked well enough for everything else.
Google's weapon is change. They have the resources to outcompete everyone else by churning the "standards" as much as they want. The less people think that constant change is necessary, the better the web will be.
This is silly IMO.
Technologies like HTTP and Wasm are truly excellent tools for cross platform software delivery and browsers are an ideal sandboxed execution environment.
This idea that the web should only be for straight up HTML documents is a broken mental model.
Apple have a multi-billion dollar income stream that is firmly premised on the fact that nobody could deliver software on their platform unless they could steal 30% of the companies profits and as such spent a huge amount of time and effort undermining the idea that the web could ever be an app platform but you’re not compelled to cheerlead for Apple’s profit margins and anti-consumer bullshit.
The problem isn't web apps; it's web apps where simple HTML would be sufficient.
> The problem isn't web apps
Then the problem isn't adding features to make web apps more capable, either.
Web apps replacing unsandboxed applications is a net win. We could argue about whether web apps replacing sandboxed applications is a net win as well, but most local applications on PCs are not sandboxed, and even mobile applications aren't sandboxed as strongly as web apps. (I would love to see an "allow network access" permission on a per-mobile-app basis.)
Safari is so bad, I want a real chrome experience on iOS
Can you explain how? Poor standards implementation? Performance? UX?
No full screen API so impossible to make lots of types of game experiences.
No orientation API so impossible to make games and other experiences that require a certain orientation
No WebXR (though Apple will allow it on Vision Pro)
No support for ResizeObvserver devicePixelContentBoxSize so impossible to get correct rendering reguardless of user's zoom level.
No simple PWA installation. Requires an obscure incantation that only expert users know.
That's just a few off the top of my head.
Yes, I know all the comments will be about how they don't want those features. That's really irrelevant. Allow them to be turned off. Require permissions. Those features have been shipping on other OSes, Desktop and Mobile for > 5 years and the world hasn't ended.
The world hasn’t ended but it arguably got worse with most of those features. Good enough reason to not implement them.
I hear this a lot, but have used Safari as my since it was launch in 2003.Performance has always been great. UI has always been minimalist, out of the way, and has never upsold me on anything. There are times where it lags and times where it leads standards. There may be a a site every now and then that doesn’t work, but iOS makes that less likely. The only thing I can ever think of is that it’s not <insert favorite browser> or doesn’t have <some favorite esoteric feature>.
That said, the only plugins I use are ad blockers, so maybe I’m missing something.
It might look ok from user's point of view, but lot of the problems fall on web developers who have to work around a bunch of these issues to make their pages work in Safari
Been working with web related tech since the early 00’s. Safari has just never been a problem except for invasive ads, like back in the Flash days.
This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest here but just to make it ever clearer for anyone else here’s a chart showing the number of bugs that only occur in a single browser.
https://wpt.fyi/results/?label=master&label=experimental&ali...
It’s undeniable that Apple makes a dogshit browser.
> This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest
And in your opinion "being honest" is speaking for every web dev out there?
I've been a web dev for 25 years (god I'm old) and Safari has not been a major pain for me.
You keep bandying wpt.fyi results around not even understanding what they mean. E.g. Safari only passes 8 out of 150 accelerometer tests. So? Does it affect every web dev? Lol no. But it does pass 57 out 57 accessibility tests which is significantly more important.
Edit: don't forget that there's also Interop 2025 which paints a very different picture: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025?stable
I was doing web dev or related from 2000 to 2016. IE6 was far worse than anything Safari has done.
Late on a lot of standards, quirky in many ways and just a lot of bugs, especially around images and videos. Also positioning issues. They recently broke even position fixed, which broke a ton of web pages on iOS, including apple.com
I’d like the extension ecosystem from chrome or Firefox. I miss having real Firefox with real Ublock like on Android.
The extension ecosystem that Google has been locking down? You can get the same UBlock extension on Safari and Chrome now (on Safari desktop and iOS).
Good thing I mentioned Firefox. Ublock on safari and iOS is not the same.
Yes, it's not the same as the one available still on Firefox. But you said "I’d like the extension ecosystem from chrome or Firefox". I'm pointing out that the Chrome one has been limited and now runs the same UBlock version that Safari runs.
Good thing I mentioned Firefox
I find the “use reader automatically “ setting helps a lot
I cannot go through a day without "this tab has been reloaded due to a problem" on Safari iOS and any other browser. It's been happening for years, across phones. It's dogshit. Safari Mac is fine.
Even if that's an edge case, it's why having only one engine is pathological. Maybe Safari iOS works fine for you. Not for me. I don't want rationalization on why it's not Apple's fault, or somehow not Safari's fault, or "they'll fix it one day", or "I'm doing it wrong", or all the fanboy-talk that sounds like the enabling relative of an alcoholic. Don't care. I should be able to switch for even the most frivolous reason. Maybe I don't like that it doesn't render every website in pink.
It's like having only one type of chocolate in existence. This was never normal.
It’s INCREDIBLY rare I see that. Phone or desktop, lots of surfing, all day long, for two decades.
I did not know that was even a thing that can happen.
Do you see any pattern to which pages it happens to?
Although I partially agree with you, Firefox on Android is a wonderful mobile browser (with some weird stuff though). I would love to have the same Firefox on my iOS but it's currently just impossible.
While this excuse works today, we should not forget that this policy also meant disinviting Mozilla from the mobile browser party about a decade ago. I'd argue a good chunk of Mozilla's downfall was them chasing the pipe dream of Boot2Gecko, and that was specifically because they couldn't ship Gecko on iOS.
The reason why we have a Chrome/Safari hegemony is because Apple insisted on everything being Safari on their device platforms. This combined with Android shipping WebKit for years meant that the only mobile browser engine that mattered was WebKit. Chrome is a different engine now, but it was forked from WebKit, and it used to have a lot of the same quirks. Hell, Microsoft switched to Blink specifically because Electron - their own web app shell - couldn't run on EdgeHTML.
The fact that this change practically means Chrome displacing Safari is... not really all that meaningful. They're both forks of the same code. The single-engine dystopia you worry about is already here. I daily-drive Firefox, and the amount of shit Google deliberately breaks on Gecko is obvious. Like, YouTube tabs freeze up every few hours because they get stuck in garbage collection, and I have to manually kill whatever processes are running YouTube before I can watch another video. That sort of thing.
I would argue that the root of the problem is that Google was not broken up.
I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web.
I’m not saying it’s smart we got here. I’m not saying it’s good we got here. I’m not saying we should be here.
All I’m saying is we ARE here. And given that (effective screw up) I fear this will make things drastically worse.
> I don’t think one company should own all the stuff that Google does. It gives them way too many perverse incentives over the web.
Does it? It might give them perverse incentives in some cases, but in others it perfectly aligns their incentives by letting them internalize their externalities. The whole selling point of Chrome to executives, and the reason it's introduced so many nice features, is that consolidating means they have an incentive to invest in things that make their websites work better (a better Chrome means a better Google/Gmail/YouTube/Drive).
We all think of them as Google but let’s face it, they’re DoubleClick.
Google feeds DoubleClick. Gmail does too. YouTube is a pure ad play.
Drive/Docs/etc. I’d say drives Chrome and undercuts competitors.
And Chrome? It drives Google. And Google also helps drive YouTube.
They all end in ads.
If Chrome wasn’t owned by an ad company that owned all that other stuff I wouldn’t be as worried. I still don’t like the idea of a Chrome monoculture. But if it was independent I’d be less alarmed.
problem is apple also handicaps safari so web apps cannot compete with its apps ecosystem like deleting storage if you dont use it for a week or so in the name of security. It makes sense if there is storage pressure but if app is used rarely than you cannot have first class local experience you are forced to rely on server.
Pretty damning evaluation of apple's capabilities to be sure that they won't be able to compete on merit! I don't believe that. So much apple software is absolutely loved.
I love Safari. I’ve used it since the day I bought a Mac not long after it was released. Back when they still bundled IE 5.5.
I don’t think they can compete. Apple doesn’t release Safari on Windows (any more, god it was bad) and that basically kills their chance at desktop relevance.
But even if they did my point is Google has way WAY WAY too much leverage and is already in an effective near monopoly position due to making Chromium. iOS is the only reasonably sized bastion left.
And that’s entirely due to Apple’s policy, whether one thinks it’s right or wrong.
The stakes are way too tilted. The market can’t function.
And we’re about to see it “freed”, which is basically handing it to Google for a total monopoly.
And I don’t like that future. Whatever I think of all the other issues with both Apple and Google right now and what has happened in the past.
I don’t see any reason why Google wouldn’t abandon web features left and right, given how they do that with everything else.
Because they themselves use them?
Also because they know what happened to Microsoft when they did that with IE.
Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform…
It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome.
Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then.
See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.
Then it’d be time for round two of antitrust, and I doubt the judge and regulators would feel so understanding about Google keeping Chrome if that is the landscape.
I think that would’ve good. But…
1. The US isn’t doing this. They have a case but aren’t calling for breakup
2. We all know howling anti-trust and appeals take
If Google gets handed the web (let’s say) this year by Apple being forced to allow them, it could be a decade+ before the Google side gets tackled.
And I’m afraid of how much damage they can do in that timeframe.
I think fixing Google’s ownership over Chrome before forcing other browsers on iOS would be less harmless than forcing iOS to allow other browsers than doing Google.
I’m totally good with doing both. I worried about the effects of the order they’re done in.
And I am only saying this about browser engines. This should not be taken to say Apple should be able to do some of the other nonsense they’ve been doing for 10+ years abusing their position.
I think they might be, but only as long as it stays open-source (assuming we mean it works on Chromium and not Chrome). Honestly, I fundamentally don't have a problem with an open-source browser having a monopoly, because the open-source nature means that if things get bad you can always just fork it and make something better.
Can't the same entities compelling Apple to do this also compel Google to do or not do things?
Do you see them doing that on a short term?
The best I saw was the case against Google in the US and they decided not to call for breakup.
I don’t see the EU trying to unbundle everything they do.
Firefox exists.
And its userbase is essentially just HN users unfortunately
And it’s trying to get them to run away as fast as possible.
Firefox is not going to save us again. It’s arguably part of the problem in a different way.
It's amazing how you can literally start a nonprofit to code a billion-dollar browser, give it away for free, and let people modify it however they want and then HN users will still find a way to act like this is being evil and exploitative. It's as if they care more about whining than they do about their supposed open-source principles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
HN users are almost entirely Google users
so you support a hegemony because you are opposed to hegemonies?
[flagged]
I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye:
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines
Documentation to guide devs on safe usage of C++ is enough?
So any language should be allowed as long as they instruct developers to be careful.
Compliance often works exactly like this.
I don't know if they do this, but those conventions could be enforced by a tool.
Theres C++ in military airplanes, they just cut out 90% of the features: https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
And heres a nice video about it: https://youtu.be/Gv4sDL9Ljww?si=Z4riPMKAKcIKaU0s
Yes, in WebKit, SaferCPP guidelines are enforced by a static analysis tool.
My work bans raw new and delete, so we only use unique_ptr. It's not as memory safe as Rust's borrow checker but I've never seen a segfault.
Yes, they do this, and it's really not an unreasonable requirement.
Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
Which of the restrictions do you feel they don’t abide by? It looks like they meet all their own restrictions
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
There is absolutely zero way to satisfy the latter part here. It's at best non-enforceable. If I'm using C++ and use std::span instead of a c-style array, is that good enough?
Why not? The wording is “features that improve memory safety”
It doesn’t say that it needs to provide absolute memory safety. Based on the linked WebKit guidelines, it seems like they meet the criteria.
That's the commenter, not from the Apple page as far as I can tell.
My point is the requirement is too broad. It cannot be meaningfully enforced.
It’s literally from their requirements page
https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...
You have to request explicit permission to be able to be a browser on iOS. You can’t just ship an app. I assume part of that process is that you specifically demonstrate that you try your best to use best safety practices.
Again, it’s also not absolute safety. It’s just due diligence review.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the WebKit guidelines were from the commenter, not from the apple page.
> or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
This can't be analyzed in any real way, so its just another way that Apple will restrict web engines and claim it was due to "not enough use of memory safety language features"
Why does it matter if Apple themselves don’t link the WebKit docs? It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
There’s a lot of things in the requirements like funding that Apple cannot verify. I think you’re being too binary in this.
Some of it is very clearly intended to be a “show us you are at least considering these security measures and have practices in place to minimize known issues”. Again, for the third time, it’s clearly NOT a list for ongoing perfect security, given that there are other items on the list that deal with further mitigation strategies.
> It’s literally their project and seems to meet their requirements.
This is meaningless. Apple can carve out special exceptions for themselves all day long.
What is the exception? I’m saying they meet the same requirements they are asking for other browsers.
This is literally the question I started this thread with and you have gone in to a loop of saying “they can’t enforce this” without any response of substance.
Your "substance" is "trust Apple will enforce something correctly where there isn't a correct answer". I don't agree with that. Apple has a history of interpreting things favorably for themselves and locking 3rd parties from doing the same things for wave hands reasons.
If you are going to make guidelines, make them evaluable. These aren't. If you care about memory safety, either say use a memory safe language or point to an exact reference guide to use to allow XYZ language to satisfy it.
Then you’re basically strawmanning here because you’re applying your own interpretation to the rules as written.
If you would pause for a second and actually read the rules in their entirety it is obvious that the lines you’re fixating on aren’t meant to be absolute security measures and therefore don’t need to be continuously evaluated.
Your conjecture about Apple withholding the permissions for arbitrary reasons is not borne out of evidence. When asked REPEATEDLY to show where they’re giving themselves an exception to their own rules, you continuously fail to provide any example and are just hand waiving conjectures.
Maybe they are doing what you’re saying but you’re making an incredibly poor argument regarding it.
Apple's resistance to rust is truly mind-boggling
I do wonder how long before Apple either replaces WebKit with something built in Swift, or starts slowly converting their browser engine to Swift.
I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.
> It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another
They will continue to do so for as long as it remains profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price of admission into the multinational club. Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
Or until they’ve successfully “demonstrated” that it always was impossible.
> Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
As both a shareholder and user, I really wish they’d invest their resources into feature development instead of manufacturing obstacles.
Lawyers, admins, and executives, sure. But what about the complexity on the engineers who now have to maintain an exploding matrix of modes? I can definitely see that becoming burdensome.
much has been written about the deteriorating quality of iOS.
There's bluntly not strong external evidence that software quality is a driving priority at Apple in recent years, so it most probably follows that concerns about maintainability aren't either.
You’re not wrong, it is burdensome but the sheer volume of money they secure primarily because of their license to rent-seek mercilessly (in the US especially because it’s the market they dominate most and with the weakest regulators) makes even a hilarious amount of complexity supportable. Besides, it’s mainly the users who suffer from the codebase falling apart, not Apple decision makers.
$500k+ TC makes many burdens worth shouldering
they make $1b in revenue and $300mm a day in profit
Engineers say they want to work on hard problems then complain that they can’t solve something because it’s too complex
The difference is this isn't an inherently hard problem. It's just stupidity. The difficulty is not inherently interesting, because it's all made up.
Seconded, compliance-induced complexity is the most asinine and tedious possible application of programming skills.
sounds like a problem for claude to worry about
And since billions of dollars are on the line it will remain profitable for a long time.
I've always thought the same. Obviously there isn't much of a technical hurdle since they have the engineering talent. But, keeping track of all these cross-region rules and training your staff+customers on it has to be quite costly in multiple respects (time, energy, mental models, etc.)
My personal opinion is that keeping the browser engine locked down isn't much of a profit generator, unlike maintaining full reign over the app store would be.
Hobbling browser engines is a key pillar of app store control. Decent PWA support would be a massive blow to Apple's bottom line.
Is Chrome's PWA support on Android a massive glow to Android Play Store's bottom line?
I don't buy this line, that Safari is intentionally hobbled to prop up the App Store. What's iOS missing for PWA's to be a viable money-maker for companies? Surely there so much money on the line that we would see companies using them. What does Match.com's portfolio of dating apps need to be viable as websites instead?
In reality, when you actually pay attention to Apple's software engineering practices you realise how incredibly cheap and stingy they are. All the apps are so under funded and under developed. Bugs are introduced all over their native platforms all the time and never fixed.
> Is Chrome's PWA support on Android a massive glow to Android Play Store's bottom line?
Probably, but Android allows side-loading. iOS does not.
> What's iOS missing for PWA's to be a viable money-maker for companies?
Brace yourself.
1. Notifications are hobbled. This is HUGE. Silent pushes, rich notifications, NSE, reliable badge counts, and reliable delivery. This is made worse by:
2. Hobbled background priority. PWAs are aggressively suspended and killed. No long running processes. No guarantee of process execution. IndexedDB and in-memory state may be wiped at any time.
3. PWAs can’t access most system frameworks. Bluetooth (CoreBluetooth). NFC (Core NFC). Background location tracking. HealthKit. HomeKit. CallKit / VoIP. Siri Shortcuts / App Intents. AirDrop. Apple Pay (full API). CarPlay. System share extensions.
4. No access to native rendering pipelines. Performance is severely limited.
5. PWAs have unstable, purgeable memory. No persistent file storage.
6. Limited UX and lifecycle control. No termination callbacks. No suspend notifications. Reloaded arbitrarily. Back/forward gestures conflict with browser.
7. No access to native UI components like FaceID, native text fields, drag and drop across apps, context menus, and haptic feedback.
Apple has done everything they possibly can to ensure PWAs are broken on iOS.
It's not just that, Apple also gets $20+ billion per year in AdSense revenue from Google for being the default search engine in Safari. A change of even 10% marketshare would cost them billions, and this money is pure profit.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-...
This is the conspiratorial version.
The more likely explanation is that when every app can bundle their own browser engine, we will not see a competition explosion. Instead, Electron apps will come to mobile, with every app shipping its own browser stack.
You can’t tell me Gecko, which has already failed on desktop, will suddenly be popular on mobile. You can easily tell me every app shipping their own Chromium would be very popular with developers.
Firefox is really good now on android. It's my go to browser now for everything. It just needed full addon support but when that was finally there it was great.
This is true, however I think an App Store rule that to ship a browser engine, you have to be a browser, defined as having a browser that is maintained on MacOS, Linux, and/or Windows and which can be made the default browser on those platforms. Or even simpler, it has to present web browsing to the user as the primary function and not secondary to accessing content/shopping/gaming.
Seems either approach would rule out your Slack, Amazon app, etc. from shipping their own outdated 900MB Chromiums but allow Chrome, Firefox, K-Meleon, whatever.
a browser is essentially an app store with no 30% cut for Apple. If you can ship a browser, you don't need to pay the Apple tax
Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows?
No.
Even if unencumbered on iOS, it will still fail, because PWA is an intrinsically confusing technology. The pitch to non-technical users is terrible. Just like passkeys, which has also been terrible.
> "Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows? No."
Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others.
To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA
I run PWABuilder.com as well, and I can tell you that many, many PWAs get published to the Google Play Store, including some very popular ones.
I agree there is some confusion around PWA installation. There are some proposed web standards with Google and Microsoft's backing to help with that, e.g. Web Install: https://github.com/MicrosoftEdge/MSEdgeExplainers/blob/main/...
>Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows? No.
Obviously. When a major Gatekeeper systematically holds it back to prevent it from challenging its taxation funnel, then it has no chance of competing and will thus not be chosen on competing platforms either, which will prevent its adoption and any investment in it.
>Even if unencumbered on iOS, it will still fail, because PWA is an intrinsically confusing technology.
PWA is not an "intrinsically confusing technology" and making such an absurd statement without proper elaboration reeks of pure bias.
It’s not that confusing. To a user it could be the same as an app, just one you can be prompted to “install” instantly without a download and without wasting space on your device.
If Apple weren’t incentivized to block PWA use, they’d allow them to be “installed” with the same type of little top banner that prompts you to get/open an App Store app. Instead they relegate it to some obscure buried option inside the Safari Share menu.
[dead]
Every app shipping its own Chromium isn't currently forbidden, as I understand it. They're just not allowed to use their own engines for webviews.
Technically you can even write your own webview, but you can't make it the default, nor will it be able to JIT-compile JS, since that requires an entitlement that Apple never grants. Having no JIT is murder on both performance and battery life.
https://www.macobserver.com/news/15-months-later-iphone-user...
>This is the conspiratorial version.
Everything that's inconvenient for your preferred narrative can just be dismissed as conspiratorial thinking, makes the world so much easier - doesnt it? I've compiled some of the evidences that makes clear how one of the Gatekeepers (Apple) has a tremendous conflict of interest, which manifested itself in systematic sabotaging of PWAs over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534316
Good. The sooner I can run Firefox with the legit uBlock origin the better.
While its not Firefox, you can run uBlock origin with the Orion browser from the Kagi people.
That’s what I’m currently doing - it’s barely functional. I’m sure it’ll get there eventually but it misses a ton of stuff the desktop version blocks.
I'm running 1Blocker on iOS Safari, what am I not getting?
I'm using wipr and it's great. using vinegar/baking soda for video adblocks.
Proper, full blocking of ads and trackers. Just because you can't see most of them doesn't mean the network requests aren't getting through. And you're not getting a free and open-source extension. And you're not getting 3 extra bucks a month in your wallet, because those grifters made you pay for some pixels despite not contributing to the adblock lists their "business" depends on.
what do you mean? 1Blocker blocks network requests.
It might not block everything to the degree of uBlock Origin, but it does block network requests.
The stuff that makes it through is what I mean.
Okay now that we have come to the topic, How is Orion browser on App store whereas all others aren't?
is there a way to make more innovation in this area and maybe an extension or two developed adding more perms etc or forking Orion or the know-how behind it and replicating it could finally allow PWA on apple iphones?
There are many browsers on the App Store but they all have to use one of two browser engines bundled with iOS.
No you don't get me but all browsers in Iphone even firefox and chrome are webkit forks
and neither of them allow any sort of extensions on top
Orion is the only one I think which still supports firefox or chrome extensions as well. I am sure that it can support PWA or already does, not sure, someone should probably test it out.
Theoretically if you can modify the engine enough to run firefox/chrome extensions on it when firefox/chrome themselves on Iphone can't but somehow Orion can, I don't see a reason why nobody's else doing it but combined with some really really good pwa support as well?
I don't think you get how it works. When you download a browser on iOS it does not have an engine _at all_, not even a "WebKit fork". The browser is just a UI and wrapper for one of the engines bundles in iOS. No modifications can be done to the engine whatsoever, it is part of the OS.
Yeah sorry, I don't really have an Iphone so I was just going on a wild hunch.
I would love to discuss about it and how Orion works then.
My question to you is, how is Orion possible to get firefox/chromium extensions working in webkit then, Because I know that Orion's core itself is built on top of webkit but I am wondering what other additions they did to make it possible to have firefox extensions as an example on the Ios
Can you please walk me through how this is possible? I see no other being able to do such a thing. Like how do they make it work then while the engine bundles in Ios.
I also want to ask if possible is that since I can just go to firefox mozilla addon store and get any extension and use it in Orion. Isn't this sort of really similar to an app store itself with 0 restrictions considering that firefox extensions are very unrestricted usually and similar to PWA (not sure)
This is already possible with Orion so I am wondering why more discoveries are not being done in this space. I would love seeing an open source alternative to Orion as well for Iphone perhaps.
Thank you for telling me that browsers work at an operating system level in Ios but can you please tell me how Orion's then able to do such stuff? And can certain more discoveries be made on that front regarding PWA support , extension support similar to orion etc. as well then?
The Firefox/Chromium extension APIs are just javascript. Orion reimplements them with the features that Webkit/JavascriptCore provides.
Oh alright, thanks for telling.
Is there no way that something can be done for PWA abilities? What's stopping PWA on ios, I don't really follow? I would love it if you can clear up my confusion regarding it.
What actually does “PWA” mean? What APIs or functionality is iOS lacking?
Orion has always been designed to use WebKit.
[dead]
Apple is intentionally trying to make it frustrating in hopes that people will complain to relevant voices that “there’s too much regulation and you should just let Apple do its thing” which is something they've been pushing a lot in Europe the past few years for example
FeatureToggles.swift
eligibilityd
https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility
This. It’s computation. Computation doesn’t really “get” geopolitical borders.
I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
This is a poorly thought through argument, as there is nothing that “gets” geopolitical borders.
I don’t think you understand Apple‘s stubbornness. They DO NOT like being told what to do.
They seem to have gotten a long way better with Japan in this process than the EU, but they’re still not happy about it. So they’re absolutely not gonna just roll over for everyone.
My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.
At a hardware level it seemed to work. Looking at USB-C on iPhones for example.
Software wise? Fail. EEA gets to disable start search in Windows 11. RoW does not. Interestingly EEA membership is decided at install time based on your selection, and is not changeable afterwards.
iPhones on the other hand have a daemon running that checks your location. It's not based on where you set up the phone. So traveling from Europe to somewhere else can actually prevent you from updating apps that you got via an alt-store:
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/06/alternative-ios-app-sto...
Yea, unfortunately with software, using enough granular feature flags, they can make their software "maximally bad" for each given region. They lose a battle in the EU and are forced to make the software better? They will make it better only in the EU. Lose another one in Japan over a different issue? Just make a "japan" flag and only make it narrowly better for that use case in that region. Lose further battles in other regions, just add more flags.
They will never deploy the "better" feature worldwide if they have the opportunity to limit the better code to a particular region.
1: And of course, by "better" I am always referring to "better for the user" not "better for Apple."
Even in a hardware level, this is easily obtainable, and Apple already does it.
Chinese iPhones? They have 2 physical SIM card slots and no eSIM.
EU iPhones? 1 SIM card slot, and 1 eSIM.
US iPhones? 2 eSIM card slots and no physical SIM. US iPhones also have mmWave when other countries do not.
If Apple wanted to, keeping a Lightning US iPhone was easily on the cards. The EU’s role in forcing the issue in the US is exaggerated.
My dad got his phone stolen on day 1 of a monthlong trip. He went without a phone the whole trip, in part because he was nervous he wouldn't have the right radios if he brought a euro phone home.
That's true they are different. It'll still work, but the bands aren't exactly the same so it may lead to coverage issues depending on the network.
You make an excellent point. I would guess that it is orders of magnitude more expensive for Apple to create a new hardware configuration than it is for them to add software feature flags, though. But, assuming the cost of making the hardware change worldwide exceeds the cost of reconfiguring their factories for new hardware, you're right that they would not choose to make the hardware change worldwide.
Almost certainly someone (or an entire team) carefully crunched the numbers and deliberately decided not to keep a Lightning US iPhone.
There are different levels to these things. The number of SIM card slots or bands varying from model to model isn't that unusual. The average user just needs it to work. In fact, the SIM and band configuration differences have nothing to do with regional legal mimina — they have more to do with the standard practice and available systems in each region (for example, mmWave isn't widely deployed outside the US). The configurations aren't really "worse" in the same way as locking down browser access is worse. Phones have had regional variants going back ~forever for pretty mundane and benign reasons.
More importantly, if a user travels from one region to another, as long as they can use their phone in the place they arrive, having slightly non-optimal bands or a different SIM configuration doesn't matter. The fact that your phone is slightly different from the local model is not really a problem.
But having your charger vary across regions? That's a recipe for disaster. Not only is that another level of variance in your external casing, it impacts day-to-day use. When an American user travels to, say, France, or vice versa, and wants to buy a charger, or share one with someone else, having the same model of iPhone be incompatible would be a major frustration. It would be stupid to engineer a lightning AND USB-C version of the same device for each market.
1) Apple loves USB-C, they helped invent it and were one of the first to ship a USB-C only laptop
2) Apple committed to 10 years of lightning support to weather the backlash from dropping 30-pin
USB-C on iPhone was going to happen regardless of the EU.
> 1) Apple loves USB-C Sure, that's why they refused to adopt it for almost a decade after it became the standard and fought the EU regulation tooth-and-nail.
iPhone getting USB-C was inevitable. I mean, their iPads were USB-C for years before any EU law.
The best the EU can say is that the law moved up the inevitable a year or two.
Sounds like a market for Faraday GPS spoofer boxes.
We still playing Pokémon go?
And what's your opinion if the law would oblige the companies to remove features their products have like tracking transparency popups? Two countries' courts already fined Apple for enforcing a popup that warns users about tracking across third party apps (a feature Apple themselves do not use)?
My prior POV was that Apple would jettison the feature globally, but the discussion elsewhere in this thread suggests that salami slicing at the software-level is a cost larger companies are willing to bear.
There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
> to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web
I think that's the hypothetical part, it's not reality. Safari continues to be a fully modern browser. It doesn't release new features quite as fast as Chrome, but it does generally adopt them.
If Apple were attempting to put a "stranglehold on innovations on the web", Safari's feature set would look very different. But that's not what's happening.
Like I said, Apple does lots of anticompetitive things. I'm not blind to what they do with the app store. I just don't think that the single browser engine policy is motivated by this, or has much effect on it, given how Apple does keep maintaining Safari as a modern browser.
It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it...
https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie
And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement), specifically to force many developers to create a native app to use these APIs, so that Apple can force the developer to give them a percentage of any purchases made through the app. They can't force a developer to give them a cut of purchases made through a web browser, which is why they purposely hobble the Safari browser engine and then force all other browsers to use this engine. If you can't see how bad this is, then you've been taken over by the reality distortion field.
It's spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against apple, among many other anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft got sued and lost in an antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari with iOS but forbids any other browser engine but their Safari engine. Can you imagine if Microsoft forbade any other browser from being installed on Windows? It's time Apple was brought to justice over their abusive anti-competitive practices.
Here's the whole DOJ suit against Apple:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
I suspect it might have been motivated by antitrust concerns, but safari is really not that bad. Check out Interop 2025: https://wpt.fyi/interop-2025
They generally are pretty caught up on features. They have webgpu, they support the web notifications API (once a PWA is installed), lots of stuff. My main gripe is that they make it too hard to install PWAs, but we're still waiting for an actual API for that. (Maybe in 2027? [0])
> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
Can you give an example?
[0]: https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2025/11/24/the-web-insta...
Safari is the worst browser by far, especially on iOS. Apple also does things their own way, ignoring standards, so that I have to have a real actual iPhone to debug their platform-specific problems, especially around touch interactions.
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth API, and lots of others. My product could use bluetooth but we're forced to work around Apple's Safari limitations and use Wifi instead, which drains the battery faster. We do not want to write a specific app for iOS (which costs us money to build and maintain), which then allows Apple to extort us for a percentage of sales through the app. Bluetooth would be the better option, but Wifi works although is a bit more cumbersome to deal with. So sorry Apple fans, you have to use wifi with our product because Apple reasons.
I am going to open a bottle of champagne when the DOJ finally forces Apple to allow other browsers on iOS.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Personally my feel is Safari at least isn't dead in the water any more, does ship some stuff. It's much better than 2 years ago. 4 years ago it was a travesty.
But there's still all sorts of wonkiness they just makes Safari non viable. If you don't PWA install, your storage gets cleared alarmingly quickly. If you do install it's still cleared wicked fast. Notifications seem to have incredibly unreliable delivery issues and require PWA installs to work at all. The features are closer to parity than before but the base functionality is still sabotaged deeply. 'The user is secure' with Apple is amazing doublespeak (the second meaning being securely in Apple's pocket with no where to go).
It's worth noting that Interop participants meet and decide via unanimous consent what they are going to work on each year. The anti-trust case against Apple would be far stronger if they didn't show up & find some stuff to work on, to agree to. And with apologies as I break out the tin foil hat, showing up also gives them some leverage to shape what doesn't get worked on too.
No, it's just not true.
Interop 2025 is a subset of web features, but Apple gets a veto on which features get included in each Interop round, and vetoes heavily. It doesn't reflect interoperability in general. Safari also consistently starts out the worst each year, and improves the slowest.
They don't support notifications correctly, they have a semi-broken implementation. Only a subset of sites will work, even though they'll work perfectly on Chrome or Firefox or even minor browsers. Even if you put the site on the homescreen.
>> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)
>Can you give an example?
Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial...
Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.
> Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial
Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too.
> Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest
I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.
> You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant.
BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
>Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".
There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge.
>BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.
So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias.
> Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard
It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships".
> The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division.
Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once.
> And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument
There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard").
[1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
It literally is "everyone must immediately not implement anything that cuts into Apple's bottom line"
Apple has veto power over what becomes web standards now. If they didn't abuse that power, and also forbid other browser engines on iOS, then there wouldn't be a problem. They abuse their power in a way that hurts everyone but Apple, and the DOJ took notice.
You say Firefox doesn't implement the same APIs that Apple won't as proof of something, but Opera and other browsers do implement those APIs, so that really cancells out whatever argument you thought you had.
Back in the day, Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest, and if Apple had veto power over web standards back then, the web might still be "Web 1.0", hypothetically speaking.
But now Apple can block progress in web browsers now, and the DOJ will likely prove that they are abusing their position to the detriment of everyone that uses a web browser, so Apple can make a few more dollars from their app store.
It should not be so difficult for anyone to understand.
>It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.
It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact.
>There's no broader argument.
There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely.
>You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1][1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938
>and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with
There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary.
> You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all
Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
> There is no such assumption,
"the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard." Yup. "Whatever Chrome ships must be implemented no matter the cost and despite any opposition for any reason".
> only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior
Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
[flagged]
Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)
Yes
> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
Note that Firefox's position is literally exactly the same as Apple's on these Chrome-only features: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.
"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is
I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.
> I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement.
Oh yes, you do. To the point of inventing contract clauses for Firefox.
It's just extremely unfortunate that Safari is now between a rock and a hard place (only because of Apple) as really they are the only web engine of note to withstand "whatever Chrome spits out is standard now"
[flagged]
[flagged]
> You mean malicious actors like yourself
That’s enough. You’re in violation of the HN guidelines. Personal attacks aren’t allowed here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please stop this now. You are in breach of several guidelines, notably these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I can't fathom how a subthread about browser engines became so toxic. HN is a place for curious conversation and it is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please do your part to make this place better not worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> by smearing critics as "conspiracy theorists"
I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
> Your deceptive rhetoric in defense of Apple's anti-competitive business practices i
I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
>I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.
Then you should have been more specific, but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis. Thus, your attempt to hastily dismiss it as "conspiracy" is factually an act of smearing.
>I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them
Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team have been in constant service of justifying Apple's actions at all cost, while outright ignoring and downplaying their evident conflict of interest. Furthermore, you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations of "HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them" which is a distortion, that you keep forcefully putting in people's mouths, despite many people calling you out on it numerous times throughout this thread.
> but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis
I dunno, man. It's claiming a literal conspiracy between Google and Firefox to make Firefox worse. In reality, it's an outlandish proposition because Google already holds such high market share for Chrome, they need Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid antitrust concerns. The idea that they'd contractually (or behind-closed-doors) engage in hobbling Firefox is fantasy territory -- literally conspiracy theorizing. Because of the huge legal and financial risks that would entail if ever discovered. So, when something's an actual conspiracy theory, it's right to call it out as such.
> Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team... you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations...
I'm Ctrl+F-ing here through troupo's comments and not seeing anything like that. Their points seem perfectly reasonable, that Firefox also doesn't implement these features, and therefore Apple's actions might be very reasonably explained as having the same genuine reasons.
On the other hand you're the one saying things like:
> Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy
> Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative
> It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information
> that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions
> Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality
> It's incredible how you insist on being so obnoxious
> That reads like an #ad that Apple would pay for
It looks like you're the one imagining conspiracies in Apple's behavior -- "that motivates every single one of their decisions" -- and attacking others in your own "diatribes". And you're the one using incredibly insulting and inappropriate language. It seems to be your comments that have a lot of inappropriate tone for HN, which is presumably why I see a lot of them downvoted. Maybe you should think about whether this is really the best way to engage here, maybe re-read the HN guidelines?
[flagged]
> Why are you switching to your main account to defend your alt?
Buddy, your sense of reality is warped if you think two accounts making similar arguments have to be the same person. They're not.
But have fun imagining whatever you want. Conspiracies are everywhere, I guess, if you have that kind of mindset...
[flagged]
> That's why you didn't even bother discussing the evidence I've provided
I don't engage in argument with people who accuse me of having another account. If you want to have productive discussions on HN, I suggest you rethink the way you go about them.
[flagged]
[flagged]
This is false and it's against the guidelines to accuse people of shilling/astroturfing/coordinated activity. You've posted enough in this thread, and the thread is days old. Nobody is seeing these comments other than us moderators. Please stop.
You seriously just link to a google search of people who agree with you?? Solid investigation. Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE; what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?
I don’t really agree with allowing one monopolistic company to behave anticompetitively because we’re scared of their only competitor, another monopolist. They’re both menaces to consumer rights.
I included that link not as "research" but as proof that I am not the only one calling Safari "the new IE". It's been written about ad nauseum, and just because you think a google search is pointless doesn't mean my argument lacks merit - and if you were to do your own "research", I'd bet you would start with a google search. Thousands of people have written about it, so go see what they have to say, I am not the only one claiming it.
>Hard disagree on safari being even in the same ballpark as IE;
It's a crap browser, and Apple implements things the way they want to, especially around touch interactions. So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks, it just does, and your trolling comment doesn't disprove it.
>what’s your alternative, Google owns the entirety of the browser space?
I don't care if they do or if they don't. All I want is an alternative to Safari on iOS. Is that really so bad??
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
> So I have to have a real iPhone to debug problems with Apple's implementations. Safari fucking sucks
You'll still have to debug it. Even when other browsers are allowed, Safari isn't going away.
"Safari fucking sucks" isn't an argument that Apple is being anticompetitive. There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
Of course I have to debug it, but I develop for standards, not Apple's wonky implementations of touch events and lots of other things. So I should not need Apple hardware to debug a web browser. I can't install Safari on Android or any other platform, so if there's a bug that only shows up in Safari, then I have to buy Apple hardware. I'd rather not give Apple one goddamned cent of my money, they have already mistreated us - we actually sued them in a class action lawsuit and won (2011 MBP). So no, I do not want to pay for an overpriced phone just to fix their stupid proprietary bugs. Everything works great on Chrome and Firefox and Opera and a bunch of other mobile browsers.
>There are a bunch of things that suck about Chrome too. And Firefox as well. No product is perfect.
Google doesn't prevent Apple from offering Safari for Android, Apple just wouldn't be able to make money offering it through Google's app store the same way they can extort iOS developers that sell anything through the native app.
"Chrome sucks too" is very subjective. I've never had a problem with it. I'm curious what you think sucks about Chrome. Firefox - well, I used to use it a while ago, but not so much anymore. I will fix bugs there and they are easy and free to fix. I can't say the same about Apple's Safari.
Apple used to make Safari for Windows, but it sucked so badly, and they figured they couldn't make any money from it, so they discontinued it. So they could definitely make Safari for other platforms, but they would rather force developers to buy an iPhone instead. Fuck that.
I'm sorry iPhone users, but you'll forever be second class citizens in my product sphere, and you can blame Apple for that, until they allow other browser engines.
You have a very idiosyncratic take. I've never heard anyone else complain, as a dev, that Safari was harder to develop for because it was buggier. When I run into JavaScript API differences between Safari, Chrome, and Firefox (as I have many times), they just mostly do different things where the spec is underspecified. I don't assume Chrome is doing it the right way and Safari is the buggy one. It sounds like you just develop Chrome-first.
Yeah, if you want to test against Safari you need Apple hardware. If you can't be bothered to get some cheap secondhand Apple hardware for testing for your business, then that says more about the business decisions you're making. The idea that Apple ought to be obligated to make its browser available on other platforms seems pretty silly to me.
You sound like someone complaining they want to develop a Microsoft Word plugin on Linux, and they're upset Microsoft doesn't sell a Linux version of Office and that they have to get a copy of Windows. What do you expect? You develop and test on the platforms where your desired users are. If you can't accept that basic reality, then maybe you shouldn't be making software.
>I've never heard anyone else complain, as a dev, that Safari was harder to develop for because it was buggier.
Then you simply are not paying attention.
There are thousands upon thousands of articles written about how Safari is the worst web browser.
https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+worst+browser
It's not idiosyncratic at all, it's a very mainstream, real thing. Just because you have your head in the sand does not mean it doesn't exist.
>If you can't be bothered to get some cheap secondhand Apple hardware for testing for your business, then that says more about the business decisions you're making.
I shouldn't have to spend any money for the privilege to debug Apple's crap browser.
>The idea that Apple ought to be obligated to make its browser available on other platforms seems pretty silly to me.
I never said they were obligated, only that they once did, and failed miserably, and couldn't monetize it, so they packed up and went home. They could, and once did have Safari on other platforms. Now they don't so fuck Apple, I don't care what they do or care about their users any more than Apple cares about developers.
>You sound like someone...
You sound like an Apple fanboi, and there seem to be many brainwashed similar to you in this comment section.
None of what you described is accurate, I only want Apple to allow other browser engines on iOS, and to not be anti-competitive assholes. That's it. And the DOJ thinks so too, so you're not in the right here defending Apple's tyranny.
>What do you expect? You develop and test on the platforms where your desired users are. If you can't accept that basic reality, then maybe you shouldn't be making software.
I expect Apple to be abusively anti-competitive and not block other browsers from using their own browser engines. Once they do that, then I will shut up about it. Until then, Apple are the assholes. Not me. Not other browser makers. Just Apple, and their apologists.
> I'm sorry iPhone users, but you'll forever be second class citizens in my product sphere
I can’t help but wonder if your company’s leadership shares your level of disdain for your customers.
I am the company leadership, and I really don't care what you think. Go away.
> But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it...
You mean that Chrome is the new IE
https://google.com/search?q=chrome+is+the+new+ie
I’m truly curious: as either a user or a developer, how are you impacted by Apple’s behavior and decisions with respect to its web browser engine policy? What is it preventing you from accomplishing?
Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster.
No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so.
So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to.
Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it??
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
> Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app.
So then why doesn't Firefox support the Web Bluetooth API either? How can you jump to the conclusion that the lack of Safari support is about apps?
The reality is that the Web Bluetooth API is a draft. Not ratified. Not on the formal standards track. And Firefox doesn't even intend to implement it, due to security and privacy concerns around it and the fact that is it not ratified.
But go on assuming it's all about being anticompetitive...
> It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it?
I just did a Ctrl+F for Bluetooth and everything relates to smartwatches, not web APIs. There are only two references to Safari, none of which say anything about standards. The phrase "web standard" appears nowhere. The document is 88 pages long, and it's not immediately obvious to me where any of what you're talking about is spelled out. I hope you'll understand I'm not going to spend my afternoon reading the whole thing.
I don't really care what Firefox does. They get paid massively by Google, so who knows what their motivations are for what they do. Opera implements the same APIs in their browser, but that also doesn't work on iOS because Apple are dicks and force Safari on Opera too.
>Not on the formal standards track.
What a coincidence, Apple gets to vote on what the "formal standards track" is, and they have voted against anything that would hurt their app business.
>But go on assuming it's all about being anticompetitive...
Okay... Apple are anticompetitive and always have been. They forbid their OS from being installed on any hardware that isn't manufactured by Apple, even though it was easily possible to do. Their walled garden is very famous for being anticompetitive - banning any browser from using their own browser engine and forcing Safari is absolutely anti-competitive.
You know what? Just go fucking read the DOJ antitrust suit against Apple, it details the very many ways Apple is anti-competitive:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
But I bet you won't.
You seem to have lost the plot here. I started out by saying Apple is anticompetitive in plenty of areas.
But that's not what the conversation is about. I pointed out that in this area, it doesn't appear to be.
So I don't know why you keep pushing this PDF. It doesn't say anything about this specific area. I already checked.
And if you don't care about what Firefox does, then I think it's clear you're not having this conversation in good faith. You're not open to evidence or counter-argument, you just have a knee-jerk reaction that Apple is bad. OK, you do you. But I'm not going to waste any more time with someone who "doesn't care" about the most obvious counterpoint to their argument.
Unfortunately, many people here don’t enter the arena with open minds. Their opinions have congealed; there are good guys and bad guys; and they just want to rant and complain. They don’t want any solutions other than their preferred one.
[flagged]
> I'm not sure how damaged your brain has to be
What the hell? This is a completely unacceptable comment on HN. This is a discussion about Apple and browser engines. We've had to ask you before to observe the guidelines, and we have to ban accounts that continue to post abusive comments. HN is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please start acting like you want this to continue to be a place for worthwhile discussions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> I'm not sure how damaged your brain has to be
That’s enough. This sort of behavior isn’t tolerated here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It’s not alleged in the complaint that Apple cripples Safari in order to incentivize developers to build apps instead. Respectfully, did you read it?
Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face? If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
>Also, why would your company cut off its nose to spite its face?
That seems like victim blaming. Apple is the tyrant here.
> If using Bluetooth is a customer requirement (as opposed to merely a “nice to have”), why wouldn’t you go to the lengths to provide an app for them?
Because then have to hire an iOS developer and pay for everything to develop an app, which Apple can then use to extort a percentage of sales for anything purchased through the app. Or I have to write the app myself, and I'm already working 18 hours a day. FUCK THAT. Not going to happen. Apple users will always be second class citizens to me as long as Apple treats other browsers like second class citizens and forbids other browser engines. Making an iOS app isn't a clear pathway to riches, so Apple users will just have to use a more clunky wifi experience. That's just the way it is.
>It’s not alleged in the complaint that Apple cripples Safari in order to incentivize developers to build apps instead. Respectfully, did you read it?
DID YOU READ IT? Below are some of the relevant sections.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Rather than respond to competitive threats by offering lower smartphone prices to consumers or better monetization for developers, Apple would meet competitive threats by imposing a series of shapeshifting rules and restrictions in its App Store guidelines and developer agreements that would allow Apple to extract higher fees, thwart innovation, offer a less secure or degraded user experience, and throttle competitive alternatives. It has deployed this playbook across many technologies, products, and services, including super apps, text messaging, smartwatches, and digital wallets, among many others.
9. Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of app distribution and its “app review” process, as well as by denying access to key points of connection between apps and the iPhone’s operating system (called Application Programming Interfaces or “APIs”). Apple can enforce these restrictions due to its position as an intermediary between product creators such as developers on the one hand and users on the other.
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.
43. Developers cannot avoid Apple’s control of app distribution and app creation by making web apps—apps created using standard programming languages for web-based content and available over the internet—as an alternative to native apps. Many iPhone users do not look for or know how to find web apps, causing web apps to constitute only a small fraction of app usage. Apple recognizes that web apps are not a good alternative to native apps for developers. As one Apple executive acknowledged, “[d]evelopers can’t make much money on the web.” Regardless, Apple can still control the functionality of web apps because Apple requires all web browsers on the iPhone to use WebKit, Apple’s browser engine—the key software components that third-party browsers use to display web content.
60. For years, Apple denied its users access to super apps because it viewed them as “fundamentally disruptive” to “existing app distribution and development paradigms” and ultimately Apple’s monopoly power. Apple feared super apps because it recognized that as they become popular, “demand for iPhone is reduced.” So, Apple used its control over app distribution and app creation to effectively prohibit developers from offering super apps instead of competing on the merits.
Merely citing longer passages of the complaint does nothing to better support your initial claim.
We’re done.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie
Which is of course bullshit
--- start quote ---
The allegation that Safari is holding back web development by its lack of support for key features is not new, but it’s not true, either. Back fifteen years ago IE held back the web because web developers had to cater to its outdated technology stack. “Best viewed with IE” and all that. But do you ever see a “Best viewed with Safari” notice? No, you don’t. Another browser takes that special place in web developers’ hearts and minds.
...even though Chrome is not the standard, it’s treated as such by many web developers.
https://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2021/08/breaking_th...
--- end quote ---
Safari is the modern IE. the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
The only reason Apple has banned alternative engines and continues to hold back on major web technologies is anticompetitive behaviour.
No, I think Chrome is the modern IE. It has huge market share, to the point where developers often just ignore the other browsers or at best treat them as P2. Just like they did when IE was dominant.
I'm torn on this honestly. Safari (particularly mobile Safari) is literally the only thing keeping the web from becoming Chrome-only. While I would love to see Safari-alternative engines on the iPhone, I fear that the "open web" in terms of browser compatibility is cooked the day that happens: Commercial web developers are supremely lazy and their product managers are, too. They will consider the web Chrome-only from that day forward and simply refuse to lift a finger for other browsers.
I think when IE6 died, on one hand it was a relief for web developers, who (very quickly) deleted all the code needed to maintain compatibility, but on the other hand, it made the web worse by bringing us closer to browser monopoly.
Chrome is the IE in that it’s all the web devs target or test and the browser that every enterprise just uses as the assumed target. Safari is the late-stage IE that doesn’t add any features or modern standards that its (supposed) competitors add. Although Apple seems to have different and more strategic reasons than MS did. Apple just hates the Web because they can’t effectively tollbooth it, whereas I think MS just didn’t care about investing in IE after 2001 or so.
> Safari is the modern IE.
That's not true. It's not even available on most computers. IE was about Microsoft not following web standards and abusing its monopoly position; Safari is a minor browser by overall market share and is broadly standards-compliant.
> the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
>So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
Says who?
"Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others.
To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457849
> Safari is a minor browser by overall market share and is broadly standards-compliant.
It's officially compliant but in practice there's a lot of buggy implementations in Safari and you'll spend lots of time on workarounds and debugging.
It's also the last non-evergreen browser being tied to the OS so it's the slowest to update, compounding that effect.
> So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
Personally I think that's because it's still not that convenient even on Android even if better.
If those are the extent of complaints, then I think Safari's doing just fine. That's nothing like the next IE, and shows that PWA still have their own problems regardless of Apple.
It's interesting how the "Apple can do no wrong" shareholders and "I will hate on PWAs no matter what" types, curiously converge and keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been addressed ad nauseam, even in this thread. Every technology has its "own problems" regardless of Apple, but it certainly doesn't help when Apple, being one of the biggest companies in the world, persistently engages in its sabotage.
I worked through the IE days and Safari definitely has a IE feeling that you can't shake off.
IE had a lot of browser features which officially were there but in practice didn't fully work.
I had issues with forms, zIndex, SVGs, backgrounds and localStorage with Safari. All of which I consider basic browser features which should always work.
Of course it's not as bad as IE but Safari is clearly lagging very far behind Chrome and Firefox
His remarks at the time of the initial iPhone release (with the benefit of hindsight) were clearly because they weren't ready to expose any sort of native API's.
Pissing on you and telling you it's raining was typical Jobs reality distortion field marketing, and not an indication that he actually believed it was raining.
> Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive
This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other.
If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie
Just read the summary that Gemini provides for a good quick understanding, and follow up the multiple articles about it. Then please don't come back and say that there is nothing concrete about this evidence, that is just people speculating about a behavior that Apple has been engaging repeatedly and continuously for over a decade.
Look, I agree that Safari sucks, but with or without the AI overview (which I don’t believe is Gemini, rather that is a very cheap and dumb model that’s been told to summarize a few top results), linking to a search is not a strong debating technique. I could link to a search for “Safari has the best technology” and it would have the same zero value.
It is you that needs to cite the evidence, not some LLM, and with hard facts coupled with evidence of intent, not just referring to mere opinions.
You claim to know something with certainty, so one can reasonably expect you have the expertise and data to prove it. If you come to the kitchen claiming to be a chef, you’d better come with sharp knives, not photos of them.
Seriously, you expect people to click a Google search link for people who agree with you- and then read what the LLM has to say?? When did HN become a garbage dump where people don’t do their own research and/or thinking?
About 10 years ago, by my reckoning. The less people know about a subject, the more strongly opinionated and certain they are about it. It’s not just HN, though; it’s a very human condition.
If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves. If it's a big difference, it's self-evident; and small differences should show up in the battery life tool and computer press.
Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser, and if it doesn't that's not the browser's fault. Maybe restrict access to password filling and such though / figure out how to offer an API to reduce the impact.
Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms (Android and Windows) makes it a pretty wonky standard. I guess there's a claim to be made for the embedded browsing engine, but IMHO, that should be an app developer choice.
> If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves.
Unfortunately, the makers of a certain browser also control several major web properties, and regularly make 'mistakes' that break compatibility with competing browsers, while releasing a set of apps that 'forget' users' browser selections on a monthly basis.
Personally, I'd much prefer apple allowed a browser engine with proper ad blocking support. But I do worry that the moment they do so, the almost-monopoly browser market would become a total monopoly.
Safari exclusivity is the only reason we aren’t living in a 100% “this site built for chrome” world. I think folks must forget the IE days and how bad that was.
There is zero percent chance developers are wasting a second making sure their sites actually work cross platform if not for iOS (and iOS more moneyed user base).
We were in a “built for Netscape” world right before IE had its brief window of innovation in versions 4-5. The fact that people were building to IE though was only painful for a few specific reasons: 1. the versions of IE targeted were exclusive to Windows (Mac IE was way different, so it wasn’t that useful for when the site had targeted Windows IE)
2. IE stopped all development of useful UI or web standards features, meaning if you needed the compatibility you were stuck with a stagnant browser
3. Due to #2, of course web devs hands were tied when it comes to adopting things like HTML5, <video> tags etc. Users would have needed to switch between the two constantly — Firefox for cool new sites and IE for their bank, school, government, whatever.
I would posit that none of the above seems true about Chromium. They do continue developing it, they add new web standards the most aggressively of anyone, and it’s available on basically every platform except the one Apple bans it from. Mind you I don’t really want Google to own it, because they are way too damn big even without Chrome… but honestly it’s no IE situation.
Safari has long been better for battery than Chrome but people still install Chrome on their MacBooks.
Yep. Chrome's mindshare and momentum is incredibly difficult to overcome, and outside of technology-oriented circles users generally don't develop associations between specific programs and poor battery life unless it gets the fans blaring like you're running Cyberpunk 2077 with setting cranked to max or something.
It's similar to how the overwhelming majority of people driving cars aren't going to make note of the difference in driving dynamics between CVT and automatic transmissions unless one severely underperforms compared to the other. It either runs or it doesn't and that's where the distinction ends for people who treat their car/computer/phone as an appliance.
> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
> Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser
The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
> Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms
Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
>> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
>No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
Yes they will, Apple has made it very easy to see.
To check iOS app power usage, go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app for the last 24 hours or 10 days, showing usage time and background activity, allowing you to identify power-hungry apps and manage settings like Background App Refresh to improve battery life.
So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
>The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Javascript is already very much sandboxed. And there have been plenty of exploits that already target Safari. So saying other browsers are the problem is like blaming the victim (of Apple's anti-competitive practices).
>Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
The real reason Apple disallows other browser engines on Safari is so they can force developers to create native apps where they can get a cut of any purchase made through the app. The problems with Apple's anti-competitive practices have been spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against them:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Apple made it very clear that their security concerns related to third party browsing engines are about difficult-to-contain threats posed by JIT compilation. (JITs require non-text memory pages to be executable.) Apple doesn’t allow other apps to use such technology, so they’re consistent in that respect.
Apple even disables JIT for Safari itself when you put an iPhone in lockdown mode, at no small cost to performance, in an effort to harden the device even more.
Do you have a rebuttal to that?
That's just their excuse. Javascript is used on practically every web browser in existence, across billions of devices, and it does not have the security risks that Apple claims. It just doesn't. There are plenty of other flaws in their own web browser that have allowed remote code execution, but Javascript isn't typically one of them, in any browser, in any platform, in the last decade or more.
And there are plenty of apps in Apple's app store that are malicious. So the JIT excuse is just Applespeak for "we control what our competitors can do on hardware we supplied that someone bought and paid for". It's abuse and they are being sued by the DOJ. Just read the lawsuit so I don't have to reply to any more of your comments:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
First, are you a security expert? If so, please provide your bona fides. Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business. (Cellebrite can attest to this; they possess far fewer capabilities to crack iPhones than every other phone on the market.) If they perceive handling out JIT capabilities to apps as risky, I believe them. You, on the other hand, come with no evidence to the contrary other than a bare assertion.
Second, I already told you that there is no claim in the complaint that Apple is withholding Safari features in order to pad its apps business. If you believe otherwise, please provide relevant passages from the complaint.
Third, you’ve never had to reply to any of my comments. That’s on you.
>First, are you a security expert? If so, please provide your bona fides.
Nice goalpost move. I'm not playing that game with you.
>Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business.
And yet Safari still gets hacked.
From the DOJ lawsuit:
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests. Apple selectively compromises privacy and security interests when doing so is in Apple’s own financial interest—such as degrading the security of text messages, offering governments and certain companies the chance to access more private and secure versions of app stores, or accepting billions of dollars each year for choosing Google as its default search engine when more private options are available. In the end, Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
>If they perceive handling out JIT capabilities to apps as risky, I believe them. You, on the other hand, come with no evidence to the contrary other than a bare assertion.
You are influenced by the reality distortion field, that much is clear, no conversation can be had with a cult member. Have a nice day.
IAAL with experience interpreting Federal antitrust complaints. Allegation 16 is not a specific allegation that Apple deliberately withholds features from Safari in order to steer developers toward building apps. It’s a “narrative” paragraph that is intended to characterize Apple’s overall behavior. It alleges that Apple is self-serving, which, at the end of the day, isn’t really that surprising for an American business enterprise, and isn’t in itself unlawful.
> yet Safari still gets hacked
Talk about moving goalposts.
Every browser to date has had security vulnerabilities, and all the major vendors respond to close them when found to impact customers. Expecting Apple—or any developer for that matter—to have a perfect track record is unrealistic. Moreover, a large part of improving overall security is defense in depth, and it’s unreasonable to expect a vendor obsessed with security on its customers’ behalf to intentionally disable one of its defenses if it’s a known vulnerability vector.
I’m not a member of some Apple cult. There are plenty of things I don’t like about Apple; and no company is perfect. At any rate, name-calling one’s opponents isn’t allowed here, and when a discussion stoops to that nadir, I’m out. I’ll let the reader decide who has the better argument.
>IAAL with experience interpreting Federal antitrust complaints
If so, please provide your bona fides. But you won't.
>Apple employs some of the brightest software and hardware security experts in the business.
16. Apple wraps itself in a cloak of privacy, security, and consumer preferences to justify its anticompetitive conduct. Indeed, it spends billions on marketing and branding to promote the self-serving premise that only Apple can safeguard consumers’ privacy and security interests.
I provided the section of the DOJ lawsuit that states that Apple's portrayal of their security stance is nothing more than posturing and anti-competitive. You seem to think Apple are the absolute best in security, but they aren't even close to that. I don't believe that you are a lawyer and more than you believe that I am a security expert.
> You seem to think Apple are the absolute best in security, but they aren't even close to that.
Repeating this opinion ad nauseum doesn’t make it any more true. I already provided Cellebrite as evidence; where’s yours? (No, the fact that security vulnerabilities continue to be filed will not suffice. Security is best judged by the scope of and injury caused by successful exploits.)
> If so, please provide your bona fides. But you won't.
Happy to call your bluff. Send me an email and I’ll send you my California Bar license. otterley at otterley dot org
>Do you have a rebuttal to that?
People should be allowed to run the software they want on a device they paid a lot of money to own. Period.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
That’s not the law, and never has been. Devices are combinations of hardware and software. The fact that a device maker allows you to install software subject to limitations is a privilege, not a right. Some device makers, like automobile and medical device manufacturers, often give you no such privileges at all.
Nevertheless, you’re entitled to your belief, which is really at the core of all this discussion. Fine, just say that. But to take that desire and gin up some conspiracy about how Apple is intentionally crippling the browser just to pad its apps business is a bridge too far. You don’t need a villain. Your desire is enough.
Yes. Safari is a less secure browser than Chrome, architecturally. Took far longer to ship sandboxing. Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation. Takes far longer to fix reported vulnerabilities, and consistently "fixes" them superficially and incorrectly, requiring another fix.
Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.
> Still hasn't fixed SLAP and FLOP. Still hasn't shipped proper site isolation.
Those are interesting facts, but are ultimately a red herring. How will enabling JIT for other browser engines, absent the detailed vetting Apple is requiring to provide a Web Browser Engine entitlement, yield a more secure outcome?
> Enough with the Apple fanboy paternalism. They don't need absolute control "for users' sake". They're not entitled to it.
You are, of course, welcome to choose an alternative. If you prefer Android, by all means, use it!
The "vetting" is irrelevant because the other engines will continue to not exist. By design.
I am currently forced to use a less secure browser due to Apple's restrictions, which invalidates your original claim. Your skillful dodging of that point is why it's so frustrating to have any conversation about Apple. There really are cult-like aspects.
What “less secure” browser are you “forced” to use? And why?
You seem to need a bigger context window, and a memory. The less secure browser is Safari.
Please don’t speak for others.
The form of questioning is intentional. The person I was responding to claimed they were “forced” to do use a “less secure” browser despite the existence of alternatives like Android. I’m awaiting further details, but anticipate none: most of these conversations boil down to an admission such as, “I’m not really forced to do anything; I just want Apple to let me have my cake and eat it, too” — all while discounting the risks it could impose since they shamelessly believe they know better than the domain experts.
Don't tell me what to do.
You completely missed the clues, so I informed you of the context.
>The person I was responding to claimed they were “forced” to do use a “less secure” browser despite the existence of alternatives like Android.
Now you're being disingenuous. So now you seem to think that Android has the best security people? Before you said it was Apple.
But then you keep trying to boost Apple, when they are the tyrants, and they are the ones being sued by the DOJ - notice how Google is not being sued by the DOJ for anything they did with Android? Just Apple for what they are doing with iOS and their app store.
I’m not contending that Android is more secure than iOS. They’re both improving security all the time. Lessons learned result in improving the battlements.
But that’s not the point here. The point is that the person said they were “forced” to use a “less secure” browser without explanation. “Forced” suggests there are no alternatives, yet there is one. “Forced” and “less convenient for me” are not synonyms.
> notice how Google is not being sued by the DOJ for anything they did with Android? Just Apple for what they are doing with iOS and their app store.
The antitrust suit is not, as you falsely claimed, about intentionally impeding Safari for their selfish benefit. The DOJ made no specific allegation to that effect. (They have outstanding lawyers and would not have omitted that if they had a shred of evidence that it was true.) It’s about Apple insisting on the App Store as the sole distribution channel for third party apps, with particular focus on the size of their cut, and about integration with third-party devices. And besides, at this stage, they’re still allegations—claims that are still subject to judicial scrutiny. The full story has yet to come out.
As with most things, it’s about who keeps the money. Epic Games would never have sued Apple if its cut was 10% instead of 30%, and many commentators have said (and I agree) that Apple shot themselves in the foot by refusing to negotiate with them.
> So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
It's easy to see, but seeing doesn't mean the user will do anything about it. I guarantee that for the average user, their list goes something like Instagram/TikTok/FaceBook/Twitter, and they haven't uninstalled any of those yet due to battery drain...
So what? Apps use resources, that isn't really an epiphany. Some apps use more than others, and that isn't rocket science. If a stupid user's battery is getting drained faster than they'd like, maybe someone will clue them in. Maybe not. Maybe they'll just buy a battery bank or something to keep their phone powered up longer. I really don't care, but locking out other browser engines from a platform isn't really the excuse you think it is. Apple is anti-competitive, plain and simple, and there's no getting around that.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
> go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app
And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check?
> If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store.
No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution.
> There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app.
Yes there is -- JavaScript.
> Javascript is already very much sandboxed.
...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser.
> If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
That's a non-sequitur.
>And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check?
It does not matter. The functionality is there. If a user can't figure it out then they have other problems that having a smartphone won't fix for them.
>No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution.
You mean Javascript interpreters inside a web browser? lol. You mean like Safari is allowed to do? So only Apple can allow Apple apps to do this? I'm not sure you're thinking this through. Apples rule is a made-up rule designed to keep competition out, and force developers to write native apps so Apple can extort the developers by taking a percentage of purchases made through the native app.
>Yes there is -- JavaScript.
That's the dumbest possible argument you could make. Javascript has been very much sandboxed and secure for a very long time. There have been flaws in Safari that allowed remote code execution had nothing to do with Javascript, so good luck moving that goalpost somewhere else.
>...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser.
I'm not recommending my users use H@ck0rbR0Ws3R, I'm recommending they use Google Chrome, specifically because it supports the APIs my company needs to use for our product (on Android at least).
Okay Tim Apple, the DOJ is coming for you. You can explain this all to them when they come knocking, and they will.
The web browser is the singular hole in Apple's grip over the user's device. While there are definitely arguments that can be made about security, I think it's naive to think that Apple is unaware of this and is operating on something other than protecting their app store fortune.
why wouldnt they just drop safari and switch to firefox with ublock origin included in that case?
adtech is the big security and performance drain and allowing ads and making them hard to block is a big security and performance gap
Apple appear to be using the same rules that they made up when "allowing" third party browser engines in the EU. It's worth pointing out that these restrictions are such, that to best of my knowledge, no one has shipped a browser with an alternate engine in the EU app stores yet despite being permitted to for over a year now.
The demand that the application with its alternate browser engine must be a completely new and separate binary from any app already using the built in browser makes it hard for existing big players like Chrome - they would have to manage two apps on the store during any transition to their own engine, which supposedly has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for them already in the EU.
Another hurdle in the EU is the browser app developers must be in the EU too.
Does this mean we'll finally have "real" firefox with support for ublock origin on iOS?
Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs.
Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed.
I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
> just for the Japan market
Also the EU, no?
Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
> Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the system web view in apps systemwide?
Yes.
Hmm, actually now that I look closer at the Japan requirements, it doesn't seem to allow replacing the web view systemwide, as I thought, and as Android allows. And neither do the EU requirements. They only allow individual apps to embed an alternative engine on a per-app basis by including the whole engine within the app. And the Japan page includes the caveat "apps from browser engine stewards" which if interpreted zealously (and I expect Apple to) would forbid apps not from Google or Mozilla from embedding Chromium or Gecko.
This is a pretty big limitation considering how much iOS web browsing happens in web views. Having both the EU and Japan as markets may be enough for Google to port Chromium just for Chrome itself, but we will have to wait and see. Actually Chromium development is open so it should be pretty easy to see if Google has a serious porting effort or not.
> neither do the EU requirements
Wrong, they do specify "standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar" are both covered, that's in the law.
What you're referring to is how Apple chose to implement it. The EU hasn't opened a compliance case on Safari yet but I expect they'll do so at some point.
It's not clear to me that the EU rules make Apple's implementation illegal. I hope they do.
Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
Yeah malicious compliance :(
There is ublock origin lite for Safari in the meantime:
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home?tab=readme-ov-file
(it's great)
Probably not, as the same rules were applied to Apple devices in EU earlier, and no third party browser engines appeared.
But right now you can use uBlock origin lite in Safari. Or any other of multitude of other adblockers.
You can actually use full uBlock origin in Kagi's Orion iOS browser.
FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
Oh definitely! I know you’re just using the phrase and don’t imply otherwise, but to clarify the word “imitation”, uBO lite is not a fake imitation but actually an official thing from uBO and Raymond Hill: see https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
How does it compare to 1Blocker? I use that in Safari and also a VPN when I'm away back to my home connection so it uses my NextDNS which also blocks a lot of in-app ads.
are there major sites that don't work for you?
Could’ve happened some time ago already in the EU, so there must be reasons for Firefox an Google not to ship their own engines (yet?).
uBO lite works pretty well on ios/safari for me.
Nope. Apple has successfully made the rules so complicated that we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines in the EU, more than a year later.
The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious:
> Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer.
Apple does not comply with this.
2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone.
At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.
Lectures and admonitions won’t change anything. People will move to Graphene and Linux when it’s better for them.
Coercion and surveillance problems are pretty far down the list of complaints most people have with their personal devices.
Making "tech-minded persons" dump apple etc does NOTHING to move the needle in terms of what most people use.
For example I'm running a pretty sweet calibre-web automated setup with Kobo readers. Ive changed the storefront on my kobo and have seemless sync OTA of selected shelves. And even I struggle to get my wife to choose that setup over Amazon kindle. The very minute there is a single snag, normies (sorry wife dear) lose interest.
I’m doing the same thing with a Boox and Amazon couldn’t pay me to go back. Calibre is a godsend.
This is profoundly out of touch with how almost everyone who isn’t a particularly zealous member of certain movements lives their lives.
Unfortunately, I appreciate the deep integration between my phone and my laptop too much to drop either
I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
Unfortunately the integration is really quite weak with Apple. KDE Connect cannot remain active while the application is not in the foreground. It’s possibly a packaging issue but pairing from fedora is also quite flakey.
As absurd as this sounds windows -> iPhone via their phone link is actually almost as good as apples built in ecosystem to the point where I can make phone calls and send texts on my computer. It’s not quite as seamless especially the setup but that is a well done wizard and it mostly works.
> KDE Connect cannot remain active while the application is not in the foreground.
Looks like you can thank Apple for that one.
https://github.com/KDE/kdeconnect-ios?tab=readme-ov-file#kno...
Quite delayed, however windows phone link can show me notifications and notice incoming calls while the phone is locked so I can only assume there is some set of magical entitlements they need.
KDE Connect with iOS, while useful, is terrible.
So far as I can tell, Linux phones are still ass.
Linux on mobile is probably even more behind than Linux on desktop was in the 90s.
I don't think they're terrible, but there are two main issues: (i) lack of flagship-level hardware, (ii) app compatibility. Issue (ii) is largely mitigated by Waydroid. For the time being, Graphene on a modern Pixel is still the best compromise of freedom and usability though (>99% Android app compatibility, fully degoogled).
> 2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good
Why? I am a very tech-minded person but simply don't care about running alternative browser engines on my phone. Am I "wrong" in your opinion?
Huge benefits: the ability to run any website as an app (dramatically cutting back on development costs and allowing us to finally replace Electron with PWAs), 30% cheaper apps (no Apple tax), ad-blocking, and better performance since WebKit will finally have some real competition.
UX is much worse imo on graphene compared to iOS
I disagree. I had an iPhone in the past and find the minimalist Graphene UI refreshing. It's like comparing KDE on Arch to Windows 11 or MacOS. Nothing gets in your way or distracts you, the OS is what an OS is supposed to be, a platform for managing and launching apps.
It’s definitely something that varies from person to person. I tried putting Graphene on a secondary Android device (an old Pixel 3XL) and compared to the stock ROM or more typical AOSP fork (e.g. LineageOS or Pixel Experience), I found it rather frustrating. I can’t imagine running it on my daily driver.
Similarly with Linux, the sheer number of rough edges, papercuts, and quirks is still too high (regardless of if I’m using a big name DE or hyper minimal tiling WM or somewhere in between) for them to serve as my main desktop environment.
UX, not UI. perfect example is you copy something on your laptop and paste it on your phone. trivial on iDevice.
Trivial as in it works well sometimes and badly in other times with no explanation for why. That’s my experience anyway.
It literally always works flawlessly for me unless Bluetooth is turned off.
KDE connect over Bluetooth or WiFi seems ideal for this, so it's definitely possible. I am not sure how the iDevices deal with this, but I really don't want anything cloud-connected.
KDE Connect is more reliable than Continuity Clipboard, in my experience.
so you have your file on a laptop running linux, and its just easy to move the file to your iOS phone?
this doesn't work sometimes. my wife complains frequently
Tailscale drop is better and works across devices.
tail scale drop is much more complicated than literally copying and pasting on iDevice. that's literally all you do, no setup, nothing and this is just one example for one type of action.
https://tailscale.com/kb/1106/taildrop
look at all of that, lol. iDevice is literally copy and paste any file or text. the end - you don't even have to set it up.
How do I copy it from my Mac to my Android?
This sounds like hyperbole. I've never used tailscale, but reading that doc:
Installation: Install the tailscale client
Sharing: Click on the share menu and select tailscale
It's a beta feature so there's also a switch you have to flip for now.
you don't need to believe me. I use it daily. don't know why you're so defensive lol - it's our own opinion. fyi I didn't have to do anything for this to work (clipboard laptop to phone)
Meanwhile, for Apple:
Installation: nothing.
Sharing: Cmd+C/Cmd+V
>UX is much worse imo on graphene compared to iOS
Freedom and privacy exist on graphene.
Unfortunately, I prefer smooth animations.
Can you please elaborate on how iPhones are instruments of mass surveillance?
Among others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM
https://sneak.berlin/20201112/your-computer-isnt-yours/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/apple-siri-lawsuit-settlement-i...
2026 should be the last year when anyone technical-minded comes around to the realization that Google/Apple are in the Fed's pocket. If you're making the switch in 2027 or 2028, it's probably too late for you.
Especially with Apple, I often see people scared that if they open up their ecosystem, then users will lose one of the most consumer friendly tech companies out there. It’s not just “if apple allows alternative browsers then Chrome will win”, which is (probably) true. It’s:
* If Apple allows alternative app stores then the whole ios ecosystem will rot and be foooded with malware, brough up during the Apple vs. Epic cases
* If Apple can’t control the data on their user’s phones, then privacy rights will disappear, a common talking point during the Apple vs. Facebook case for opt-in data collection.
And like, these points are correct — Apple kind of acts like a “benevolent dictator” when it comes to their ecosystem. But shouldn’t there be alternatives between “Apple can control all software on the hardware they sell” and “the moment Apple doesn’t have control of their user’s experience then it’ll be far worse”? Like, we should have more tech companies, more options to pick from between these two extremes. The market needs to be more competitive, and if that isn’t possible shouldn’t there be regulation to protect users and devs better? This constantly feels like a “pick your poison“ kind of deal, where we can only pick between a company locking down their hardware or abuse of users via. software. If Microsoft banned alternative browser engines there’d be riots in these comments. Apple is just better to its users.
Giving companies the power to lock down hardware they sell isn’t a solution that will work when Apple inevitably turns against its users, and is a horrible precedent to set legally. Lord knows John Deere and a million other predatory hardware companies are salivating at the idea of users of their hardware not having control over what they bought, and Meta and Microsoft love the idea of users not having control of the software they run and the data it collects. We can’t just picking between the least worst of two companies.
It's weird that people never distill those arguments to their most basic logic.
Apple directly dictate the shape, speed, and existence of any innovation on iOS, and by extension, any innovation involving mobile phones or meant to run on mobile phones. They don't simply have "power" over it, in the sense that they get to say "Yes" or "No". iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it.
Browsers didn't exist when Windows 1.0 came out. But they happened. If it had been iOS, there would have been no networking, no JIT (I know that came later, bear with me), Firefox/Gecko could never have existed and been able to fix the web. Apple alone would have controlled the evolution of the most important tech of the past few decades. It couldn't have existed in the first place unless Apple, and no one else, invented it and put it in iOS themselves. Basic OS features: files and the filesystem, sharing, casting your screen, communicating with other devices. It doesn't exist until Apple makes it. It doesn't change until Apple changes it.
Even something as simple as file syncing. They forced Dropbox, GDrive, OneDrive to adopt their shitty, buggy backend. Those services all had to drop basic features to adapt. Those features can't ever come back unless Apple allows them. Any hypothetical new features won't exist unless Apple, and no one else, thinks of them and adds them.
How is this sane?
> iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it.
No platform highlights the issue you hit on here like VisionOS.
It is barren. Not just because of the lack of customer base for paid apps, that hurts too, but because the APIs aren't there, and because you can't hack on the private APIs or the hardware directly...they won't be. The app store on Vision Pro is filled with half-assed "spatial computing" consumption apps (Wow, I can put the stock tickers on the wall! That I can only see with these huge goggles on! Neat!), "showroom" apps that are just pure consumption, mostly 3D models of products, and media consumption apps. The games that exist are all pretty lame, and you can't enjoy any of the backcatalog of games written for VR because A. They'd never pass app review, and B. you can only use the PSVR controllers with it, so my Index controllers that I already have are useless.
The Vision Pro demands being as open as the Mac. The problem space is too ill defined and the hardware too packed with interesting use cases to gate behind the restrictive App Store rules. The iPad model worked because it was 2010 and had all the upward momentum of the iPhone to ride. Here and now, on a stagnant, occupied app market where room for innovation is small, on a device with far less promise, the App Store restrictions take all the air out of the room. The entire device is suffocated by Apple's iron grip and belief that they are entitled to own any good ideas that happen on the device, and that they are entitled to 15-30% of any economic exchange happening on the device. Just an utterly kneecapped platform right out of the gate, pricing, specs, weight, and everything else aside. There are no good apps because you just can't write the sort of apps your imagination is likely to want to make. Hell, accessing the main camera wasn't allowed until visionOS 2.0, and you have to use the "enterprise apps" API/entitlement to access it.
Apple's grip has killed it. It is a glorified TV you can wear on your face. It's a very good TV. It's even alright as an external monitor for a *real* computer.
Isn’t the alternative Android?
The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible.
It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.
> They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because...
If by "this", you mean "a set of rules so complicated that no 3rd party will ever ship a browser"...
In practice, they've shipped a whole lot of nothing, and we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines available in the EU
> The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious.
To be honest, I suspect that Apple is purposefully doing this to make alternatives a logistical and legal nightmare vs their own App store.
By having different rules for different countries, different fee structures, etc, Apple is basically making alternatives as inconvenient and painful as legally possible
The US not getting these features is on purpose, it makes the entire idea of "alternatives on iOS" extremely inconvenient vs just using the App store.
Apple didn't donate to Trump's inauguration, give him a gold and glass paperweight, and donate to his demolishing of the East Wing so that they would have to open up the app store in the USA
Did Japan decide to push proper competition laws?
Time to force Apple to do it everywhere. Very long overdue.
I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem.
I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
It hasn’t on Macs. Safari is still popular among non-tech folk
It’s still got popularity within tech-inclined Mac/iOS circles too because it’s easier on the battery than Chrome (+derivatives) and Firefox. Some would like to switch but because neither Google nor Mozilla has much to lose for their browsers being battery hogs, relatively little engineering effort gets dedicated to improving efficiency compared to WebKit (which is similarly efficient under Linux in e.g. GNOME Web, proving it’s not purely first-party advantage).
That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
This needs a big ol’ “citation needed” slapped across it.
I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up.
Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.
The reason Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS is due to them collecting up to 30% of purchases made through the apps from the app store. If a developer can do the same things with a capable web browser, then they won't need to create a native iOS app and that cuts into Apple's app revenue. So Apple purposely hobbles Safari so it doesn't have any advanced browser APIs for stuff like bluetooth or other APIs that apps have access to, forcing developers to create an app, where Apple can then cut into purchases made through the app.
It has nothing to do with people no longer using Safari and Apple being sad about that. Other browsers can technically be installed on iOS, but the underlying browser engine is forced to be Safari, which lacks many APIs other web browsers could implement, reducing the need for a native app. It's purely Apple's anti-competitive greed that drives this situation. And the EU, Japan, and the US DOJ have noticed. So far only the EU and Japan have actually taken measures to force Apple to change this.
Here's the entire DOJ lawsuit which includes many other instances of anti-competitive practices by Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
What evidence do you have, other than speculation, that Apple is so motivated? What standard features are missing from Safari’s rendering engine that makes it a less capable browser such that developers are forced to produce apps instead?
Specifically for me, my company has a product that could use Bluetooth, but Safari will never implement the Web Bluetooth API, where Chrome has for some time on Android. So the workaround is to use Wifi instead (my product supports both bluetooth and Wifi), which drains the phone battery faster.
No, we do not want to write our own iOS app where Apple can then extort us for a percentage of any sales through the app, and we have to pay for the priviledge to develop that app, as well as buy Apple hardware to do so.
So instead we use Wifi, where we can maintain one single codebase - the web application, which works on both Android and iOS, but has to use Wifi. If Apple allowed Chrome to use its own browser engine, we would simply tell users to install Chrome to interact with our device. Then we don't have to pay Apple for anything, nor should we have to.
Apple purposely won't implement some APIs so they can force developers to create an app for their app store where they can collect money from any additional sales through the app. It's all spelled out in the DOJ suit, why won't you just read it??
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
We’ve responded to this in a different thread. See elsewhere.
WebXR hasn't been supported for 10 years so they control their own AR market.
How does it compare to, say, the experience on Android?
The "monoculture" has never been less of a threat. WPT.FYI is driving towards asymptotically perfect compatibility and behavior. And the real web, the long-tail of websites, is too chaotic to be controlled by any entity regardless of browser market share. Chrome can cook up whatever API they want, no website can be forced to adopt it. And if someone can't use some WebMIDI site on Safari, well, they can't complain, they didn't want that site to exist in the first place.
It's simply not a good excuse to defend the iOS browser ban.
Banning competition can't possibly help increasing competition.
It would be good to see Firefox with its own engine there for example.
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit?
I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
They weren't going to title "Apple forced to allow alternative..."
They are the ones allowing the alternatives because they are the gate keepers. They have "the keys"
If I'm reading the requirements around being a "browser engine steward" correctly, does this mean essentially only Google and Mozilla can ever qualify for the "Embedded Browser Engine Entitlement"? Even Microsoft seems to be ruled out, give that Edge's engine is based on Blink. Any other smaller browser engines would be ruled out by the baseline web functionality requirements.
This hardly seems to allow anything.
Why only Japan? Seems like something forced them to in Japan.
The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Who knows if this will actually move forward now that "Tim Apple" gave the current leader a meaningless golden trophy.
It's in the EU and Japan, so basically all regions that have pushed back against Apple's anti-competitive ways.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
Yes, there is a new Japanese law that forces them.
For many Hacker News readers who check the website every day, this is not news:
• (4 years ago) Japan forces Apple to slightly loosen restrictions on ‘reader’ apps — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094
• (3 years ago) Japan pushes for Apple and Google to allow sideloading — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809
• (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735
• (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple- and Google-dominated phone apps to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398
• (3 years ago) Apple Japan hit with $98M in back taxes for missing duty-free abuses — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235
• (2 years ago) Japan to crack down on Apple and Google app store monopolies — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429
• (2 years ago) Japan forces Apple and Google to open their mobile platforms — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651
• (2 years ago) Japan enacts law to curb Apple, Google's app dominance — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162
• (5 months ago) Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061
• (5 months ago) Japan Law Will Require Apple to Allow Non-WebKit Browsers on iPhone — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077
• (15 days ago) Apple Announces Changes to iOS in Japan — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858
• (14 days ago) Apple and Google respond to new Japan smartphone law, including reduced app fees — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074
… and more here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple
It is amazing the lenghts Apple is willing to go to make exceptions only in individual places that force them to.
It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?
Because capitalism.
I wonder what technical detail makes this so hard to enable for other locales.
None. Apple doesn't pretend there are any.
I would love to have a browser that I can use my stylus to scribble with.
It will become a weird menagerie
So can people in Okinotorishima, Takeshima, Senkaku Islands use that alternative browser?
No, but Manchurians can
[dead]
[flagged]
iOS users love that Apple curates software for them.
>iOS users love that Apple curates software for them.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuck_chair
Hopefully with AI we will have other browser engines than Chrome and Firefox.
I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have.
Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set.
At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999.
This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC.
It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines.
I don't feel cornered by Apple on that one.