3 ms·
It is a system resource to Apple. There are a set of basic "protected" system resources you are not allowed to touch. You can debate if that is an ecosystem you
by oneplane 9y ago
It is a system resource to Apple. There are a set of basic "protected" system resources you are not allowed to touch. You can debate if that is an ecosystem you want, but that is what it currently is. You cannot replace the phone dialer, you cannot replace the SMS interface, you cannot modify buttons etc. It's mostly for two design reasons: maintain a consistent UX, and, protect users from themselves. And yes, users need that, and no, it's not forced upon them, you are free to not buy it.
The thing is, that for 99% of the users, the defaults work wonderfully and allow them to be super productive without having to toy with their device like they used to have to in the Windows Mobile and Palm days.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoWhile I think it's stupid that I can't use real Firefox or Chrome on iPhone, GP's point is that it's stupid that even Apple (forgetting third parties) can't update its browser without an OS update, and he understandably can't believe that people are defending this.
- oneplane 9y agoI suppose the reasoning is that it doesn't matter when you have a WebKit-flaw. It doesn't matter if the browser gets an update if the average user is using 3-5 apps every day that use WebKit themselves and are still vulnerable. For example, StackExchange has a built-in browser using WebKit, as do Twitter and Facebook. Updating Apple's Browser (is it called Safari on iOS as well?) separately would fix about 20% of the attack surface, totally not enough for any sensible company.
- lern_too_spel 9y agoThen they should update both simultaneously, like Android has done for years. But not even being able to update even the browser by itself shows an extreme level of incompetence.