3 ms·

Hard to know. If a court decision forces them to allow other browser (engines) on iOS and people start moving away from Safari Apple may decide that it is in th

by sgift 10y ago

Hard to know. If a court decision forces them to allow other browser (engines) on iOS and people start moving away from Safari Apple may decide that it is in their best interest to make Safari the best web experience if they want to (re)attract those customers. See Microsoft and Edge.

fen4o 10y ago
Exactly. Competition drives innovation and progress.
- scarface74 10y ago
  And there is plenty of competition for the iPhone.
simonh 10y ago
Right, but I know Apple has argued at W3C against certain web standards and for others on the basis of security in a mobile context, power efficiency and functional alignment with touch UI behaviours. We don't know why Apple has chosen to implement some features (so far) and not others. Do you really want French courts deciding those kinds of technical decisions or taking those decisions away from mobile platform vendors?
- DougWebb 10y ago
  Sure, that's the point of the standards process. Apple made their argument as a full member of the W3C and other standards committees. If they weren't convincing enough and the committee choose to go another way with the standard, then it's Apple's responsibility to accept that decision. After all, if the decision had gone their way, they'd expect the other vendors to adhere to it.
  - saryant 10y ago
    A standards body is not a suicide pact. If the standard in insecure, Apple should absolutely refuse to implement it.
    - DougWebb 10y ago
      If a standard is insecure, all of the members of the standards body should be able to recognize that and change the standard. If that hasn't happened, then the other members must not agree that the standard has a security problem. Maybe it's something else Apple wanted to do that's conflicting with the standard and causing the security problem, just for them.
      - stephenr 10y ago
        You're not considering the obvious: different parties put different importance on security, performance, etc. Webrtc absolutely has a security/privacy issue whereby local network information is exposed to the JavaScript environment of the page. So, if Google don't think that's a problem, maybe you should ask them why not.
- o_____________o 10y ago
  Apple's lack of support goes far beyond conscientious protest like you're suggesting. Mobile Safari has simple, egregious bugs that have been open for years. We're talking about things like being able to crash the browser with CSS or file selection, etc. I know this discussion is more feature oriented, but it's impossible to make the case that Apple is just rejecting features for the sake of the user.
- cageface 10y ago
  Apple can make those arguments all they want but then they should allow third party browsers on iOS and let users have a choice. I don't buy the argument that browser engines somehow pose a unique security risk and have to be completely banned from the platform.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Web browsers are among the most compromised software targets of anything ever.

by sgift 10y ago

fen4o 10y ago

Exactly. Competition drives innovation and progress.

scarface74 10y ago
And there is plenty of competition for the iPhone.

simonh 10y ago

Right, but I know Apple has argued at W3C against certain web standards and for others on the basis of security in a mobile context, power efficiency and functional alignment with touch UI behaviours. We don't know why Apple has chosen to implement some features (so far) and not others. Do you really want French courts deciding those kinds of technical decisions or taking those decisions away from mobile platform vendors?

DougWebb 10y ago
Sure, that's the point of the standards process. Apple made their argument as a full member of the W3C and other standards committees. If they weren't convincing enough and the committee choose to go another way with the standard, then it's Apple's responsibility to accept that decision. After all, if the decision had gone their way, they'd expect the other vendors to adhere to it.
- saryant 10y ago
  A standards body is not a suicide pact. If the standard in insecure, Apple should absolutely refuse to implement it.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    If a standard is insecure, all of the members of the standards body should be able to recognize that and change the standard. If that hasn't happened, then the other members must not agree that the standard has a security problem. Maybe it's something else Apple wanted to do that's conflicting with the standard and causing the security problem, just for them.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      You're not considering the obvious: different parties put different importance on security, performance, etc. Webrtc absolutely has a security/privacy issue whereby local network information is exposed to the JavaScript environment of the page. So, if Google don't think that's a problem, maybe you should ask them why not.
o_____________o 10y ago
Apple's lack of support goes far beyond conscientious protest like you're suggesting. Mobile Safari has simple, egregious bugs that have been open for years. We're talking about things like being able to crash the browser with CSS or file selection, etc. I know this discussion is more feature oriented, but it's impossible to make the case that Apple is just rejecting features for the sake of the user.
cageface 10y ago
Apple can make those arguments all they want but then they should allow third party browsers on iOS and let users have a choice. I don't buy the argument that browser engines somehow pose a unique security risk and have to be completely banned from the platform.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Web browsers are among the most compromised software targets of anything ever.