5 ms·

The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions de

The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions developed for iOS and apple refuses to host them, it's a statement of fact. `a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".

lern_too_spel 8y ago
Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.
- djrogers 8y ago
  Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.
  - brewdad 8y ago
    Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    What makes you say that? It is clearly false.
scarface74 8y ago
It's not strictly "Safari only*. It works with any embedded web view that uses the SFSafariViewController. For instance, ad blocking also works with Feedly - my RSS reader.
- kps 8y ago
  Isn't that all of them? It was my understanding that Apple forbids any non-Apple web view.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    There are two modern web views in iOS. The SFSafariViewController is an out of process view. The hosting app doesn't have access to the DOM or what the user enters. The user has access to all of the same cookies, saved passwords, and ad blockers that they would have in Safari. The other (WKviewController?) is your standard embedded web view. It doesn't share cookies, passwords, etc and the embedded app has more access to the web view.
    - shaggerty 8y ago
      The latter is WKWebView https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview
    - ryanpetrich 8y ago
      As of iOS 11, cookies are no longer shared between SFSafariViewController and Safari or instances of SFSafariViewController in other apps.
- ballenf 8y ago
  That's a rather uncommon exception. Very few apps load ads in a web view. Mainly because, imo, the ad platforms want a lot more user data than they'd get that way. And fraud would be a bit harder to detect.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    And hey fuck users, the ad platforms are the real good guys in all this right?
    - deleted 8y ago
danpalmer 8y ago
Only VPN apps doing regular VPNs are allowed, obviously they have a performance impact, but that’s necessary for what they do. Anything using a VPN to implement other behaviour is not. Apps get judged on usability when it comes to system level concepts like VPNs all the time - keyboards are an example where there’s a lot more review for usability and “playing nicely”.
- eridius 8y ago
  Not quite true. Charles Proxy uses a VPN in order to inspect network traffic, and that was approved. But I think in the general case what you said is correct and that Charles Proxy's approval is an exception.
  - danpalmer 8y ago
    True. I wonder if that’s because it’s explicitly a developer tool, and developers will understand what’s going on, and the risks/benefits of using a VPN. I think the main reason they block apps using VPNs for other things is that it’s very easy for them to break internet on the whole phone with buggy software, and Apple don’t want lots of support time at the Genius Bar of turning off crappy ad blocking VPN apps.
    - eridius 8y ago
      It's probably partially that, and partially the fact that the VPN usage here is obviously beneficial. The information doesn't leave the device and it doesn't interfere with the normal workings of the apps (like ad blocking does). There's no reasonable complaint to levy against what Charles Proxy is doing. Versus ad blocking, which many people think is beneficial but which is clearly detrimental to app developers (especially when they end up blocking more than just ads, as sometimes happens).

lern_too_spel 8y ago

Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.

djrogers 8y ago
Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.
- brewdad 8y ago
  Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  What makes you say that? It is clearly false.

scarface74 8y ago

It's not strictly "Safari only*. It works with any embedded web view that uses the SFSafariViewController. For instance, ad blocking also works with Feedly - my RSS reader.

kps 8y ago
Isn't that all of them? It was my understanding that Apple forbids any non-Apple web view.
- scarface74 8y ago
  There are two modern web views in iOS. The SFSafariViewController is an out of process view. The hosting app doesn't have access to the DOM or what the user enters. The user has access to all of the same cookies, saved passwords, and ad blockers that they would have in Safari. The other (WKviewController?) is your standard embedded web view. It doesn't share cookies, passwords, etc and the embedded app has more access to the web view.
  - shaggerty 8y ago
    The latter is WKWebView https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview
  - ryanpetrich 8y ago
    As of iOS 11, cookies are no longer shared between SFSafariViewController and Safari or instances of SFSafariViewController in other apps.
ballenf 8y ago
That's a rather uncommon exception. Very few apps load ads in a web view. Mainly because, imo, the ad platforms want a lot more user data than they'd get that way. And fraud would be a bit harder to detect.
- stephenr 8y ago
  And hey fuck users, the ad platforms are the real good guys in all this right?
  - deleted 8y ago

danpalmer 8y ago

Only VPN apps doing regular VPNs are allowed, obviously they have a performance impact, but that’s necessary for what they do. Anything using a VPN to implement other behaviour is not. Apps get judged on usability when it comes to system level concepts like VPNs all the time - keyboards are an example where there’s a lot more review for usability and “playing nicely”.

eridius 8y ago
Not quite true. Charles Proxy uses a VPN in order to inspect network traffic, and that was approved. But I think in the general case what you said is correct and that Charles Proxy's approval is an exception.
- danpalmer 8y ago
  True. I wonder if that’s because it’s explicitly a developer tool, and developers will understand what’s going on, and the risks/benefits of using a VPN. I think the main reason they block apps using VPNs for other things is that it’s very easy for them to break internet on the whole phone with buggy software, and Apple don’t want lots of support time at the Genius Bar of turning off crappy ad blocking VPN apps.
  - eridius 8y ago
    It's probably partially that, and partially the fact that the VPN usage here is obviously beneficial. The information doesn't leave the device and it doesn't interfere with the normal workings of the apps (like ad blocking does). There's no reasonable complaint to levy against what Charles Proxy is doing. Versus ad blocking, which many people think is beneficial but which is clearly detrimental to app developers (especially when they end up blocking more than just ads, as sometimes happens).