4 ms·

And even worse, it's for (and only works with) Safari, not Firefox.

by 0942v8653 11y ago

FussyZeus 11y ago
Content blockers are only supported in Safari, per Apple.
- 0942v8653 11y ago
  Yes. It just seems misleading to say "by Firefox" for the majority of users, who don't know that.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    That's true, I was wondering myself why it wasn't "by Mozilla."
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Maybe that's hopefulness that Apple reverses its decision. "Why doesn't Focus by Firefox work on Firefox?" is an amusing and fair question for Apple.
  - lkiernan 11y ago
    It feels excessive to call this misleading. The web browser team within Mozilla must be pretty well placed to be significant in creating an app for mobile web browser experiences.
- 01Michael10 11y ago
  What? When is someone going to sue Apple? Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions?
  - shinratdr 11y ago
    > When is someone going to sue Apple? For what? Not writing an API so that their software that runs on 15% of phones works the way you want it to? Good luck. > Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions? The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      > The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it. I wouldn't use a browser that was crippled like most people... Actually, I'd move to a different platform.
      - shinratdr 11y ago
        That's fine, do what works for you. Many don't care though, and browser vendors are happy to cater to them as well.
  - e1ven 11y ago
    IANAL, but I'm not sure anyone would have a legal leg to stand on. Microsoft's legal troubles about bundling IE were possible because MS was ruled to have a monopoly position in desktop PCs. Apple has around 14% of the smartphone market, by no means a monopoly. Their share gets even smaller when you look at the total cellphone market. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything illegal about using product A to promote product B, or having a restricted platform. You need some other trigger, such as having a dominant market position, or collusion between vendors, etc..
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      > There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. That hasn't been the case for Google... > I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point. That is another ridiculous restriction...
      - detaro 11y ago
        > That hasn't been the case for Google... On what platform? Google in web search is a monopoly, Google or Apple in Smartphones are not. That matters for most of these things.
      - FussyZeus 11y ago
        Apple isn't stopping you from making a web browser. The "restriction" is that the development tools are still going to use the same underlying web engine. You can make all the browsers you want, but you couldn't, for example, create a web browser using Mozilla's engine. It would still report itself as webkit/Safari.
- bydo 11y ago
  Safari and anything using the Safari View Controller. Which is, admittedly, a bit limited to use for a full custom browser. The faster JS engine was also limited to Safari for a few iOS versions before it was extended to third-party applications, so perhaps they're taking the same approach here. It's worth noting that they could also integrate their own ad blocking into their custom browser, which other third-party iOS browsers have been doing for years.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Didn't know it also applied in the safari view controller. +1 Informative.

And even worse, it's for (and only works with) Safari, not Firefox.

FussyZeus 11y ago

Content blockers are only supported in Safari, per Apple.

0942v8653 11y ago
Yes. It just seems misleading to say "by Firefox" for the majority of users, who don't know that.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  That's true, I was wondering myself why it wasn't "by Mozilla."
- ethbro 11y ago
  Maybe that's hopefulness that Apple reverses its decision. "Why doesn't Focus by Firefox work on Firefox?" is an amusing and fair question for Apple.
- lkiernan 11y ago
  It feels excessive to call this misleading. The web browser team within Mozilla must be pretty well placed to be significant in creating an app for mobile web browser experiences.
01Michael10 11y ago
What? When is someone going to sue Apple? Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions?
- shinratdr 11y ago
  > When is someone going to sue Apple? For what? Not writing an API so that their software that runs on 15% of phones works the way you want it to? Good luck. > Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions? The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    > The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it. I wouldn't use a browser that was crippled like most people... Actually, I'd move to a different platform.
    - shinratdr 11y ago
      That's fine, do what works for you. Many don't care though, and browser vendors are happy to cater to them as well.
- e1ven 11y ago
  IANAL, but I'm not sure anyone would have a legal leg to stand on. Microsoft's legal troubles about bundling IE were possible because MS was ruled to have a monopoly position in desktop PCs. Apple has around 14% of the smartphone market, by no means a monopoly. Their share gets even smaller when you look at the total cellphone market. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything illegal about using product A to promote product B, or having a restricted platform. You need some other trigger, such as having a dominant market position, or collusion between vendors, etc..
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    > There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. That hasn't been the case for Google... > I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point. That is another ridiculous restriction...
    - detaro 11y ago
      > That hasn't been the case for Google... On what platform? Google in web search is a monopoly, Google or Apple in Smartphones are not. That matters for most of these things.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Apple isn't stopping you from making a web browser. The "restriction" is that the development tools are still going to use the same underlying web engine. You can make all the browsers you want, but you couldn't, for example, create a web browser using Mozilla's engine. It would still report itself as webkit/Safari.
bydo 11y ago
Safari and anything using the Safari View Controller. Which is, admittedly, a bit limited to use for a full custom browser. The faster JS engine was also limited to Safari for a few iOS versions before it was extended to third-party applications, so perhaps they're taking the same approach here. It's worth noting that they could also integrate their own ad blocking into their custom browser, which other third-party iOS browsers have been doing for years.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Didn't know it also applied in the safari view controller. +1 Informative.