13 ms·

Apple neutered ad blockers in Safari, and users didn't say a thing

190 points by jmsflknr 7y ago

fourthark 7y ago
I thought, "This article is based on a Hacker News comment." And it was.
discordance 7y ago
I noticed this overnight when uBlock Origin wasn't working. I've been slowly transitioning over to Firefox over the last few months, but still end up in Safari quite often. This motivates me more to move over to Firefox permanently. Battery life might take a hit, but the philosophical and political motivation is too high not to use Firefox.
- whalesalad 7y ago
  Safari is SO much more efficient than Firefox. I find it to be more performant while also using a lot less juice on my MBP.
  - panpanna 7y ago
    But ads often slowdown browsing significantly and cause unwanted cpu work and network traffic. Then there is tracking and sometimes even malware...
    - xodice 7y ago
      So just install a content blocker? I don't get what you're trying to say. Plenty of them out there for iOS and macOS and they work well.
    - 693471 7y ago
      Safari is aggressively attacking the tracking problem as a code browser feature, and the as blocking capabilities are sufficient for blocking all the ads you need blocked anyway. It just can't do all the other page optimization / CSS stuff to strip out elements completely, so you might have some empty divs or whatever; who cares
    - whalesalad 7y ago
      I have Pihole on my network doing DNS/ad-blocking.
  - mfer 7y ago
    FYI, In the next Firefox release there's a change that should dramatically improve Firefox battery use.
  - dreamcompiler 7y ago
    I tried Safari for the first time in a while a few days ago and I agree with you. But the amount of ads, videos, popups, and sticky crap all over the screen makes reading web sites impossible. I didn't realize just how bad the web browsing experience had become without an ad blocker. I'm rebuilding my Pihole at the moment so this nonsense will go away soon. But it's really, really bad to be without it.
    - galad87 7y ago
      But you can still use ad-blockers in Safari… it's not like now it's impossible to block ads in Safari…
    - whalesalad 7y ago
      Yeah, I was on vacation recently and didn’t have my pihole. It was also eye opening for me too. Before my next trip I want to get a VPN configured so that when I am remote I can 1, access my home network/lab and 2. Take advantage of pihole (not to mention encrypting my traffic)
      - dreamcompiler 7y ago
        I'm putting my next pihole on a cloud VPS so I can use it from anywhere. It's an experiment; I want to see how long I can keep it from becoming part of a botnet. Ideas welcome.
        whalesalad 7y ago
        It’s totally doable. You want to run a VPN server on the host so that you can connect to it and have your network traffic go through it. You could tunnel all traffic thru the VPN, or only the DNS traffic. Then you could have the pihole bound to the local interface only, not accepting connections from outside that host. I’m making it sound easier than it is, but it’s still pretty straightforward. There’s actually a doc on the official pihole site that explains how to do this but I haven’t read it completely.
- rudiv 7y ago
  IIRC Mozilla said recently (last week or two) that they had managed to patch the bug responsible for the majority of battery issues on macOS.
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    Tests showed this finally brought power usage inline with Chrome, but not down to Safari levels.
  - submeta 7y ago
    I can confirm: Been using Firefox for months on my Mac, and it is not draining my battery like it did a few years ago. It used to be very resource hungry, not anymore.
- Angostura 7y ago
  Why not just move to a content blocker?
- dubya 7y ago
  The other issue is that uBlock Origin development on Safari stopped sometime last year. I still prefer Safari, but Firefox is a close second so I'll just switch if I can't find a good enough adblocker for Safari. And whatever adblock works on mobile Safari (I'm using Refine, but haven't looked at others) is already pretty good.
givinguflac 7y ago
Adblock is stupid. Block hosts and be done with it. Pihole/pixelserv/diversion for the lan, gas mask for Mac, AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS. No ads, no stupid adblocker blockers bs.
- bitcurious 7y ago
  Does pihole block Facebook ads on Facebook.com, google ads on YouTube.com?
  - conchy 7y ago
    nope
  - cameronbrown 7y ago
    And to be honest, that's probably not a bad thing. Majority here are worried about cross site tracking and not advertising itself.
    - hrunt 7y ago
      Citation needed. In all seriousness, I think the performance issue of ad-blocking is much more beneficial to me than the cross-site tracking. While cross-site tracking may end up being more nefarious or theoretically worse, the slowdown in reading and interaction is a definite real-world pain solved by blocking ads, even same-site ones.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Performance too. Honestly I'm not citing anything it's just my personal opinion. I have no issues with advertising beyond privacy, performance, and obviously advertising overload (there is a limit).
    - danShumway 7y ago
      I'm worried about advertising itself. I believe pervasive, omnipresent advertising is bad for society, even if it's native, and even if it respects people's privacy. Even in the real world, if there was some way of blocking billboards or posters on the subway, I'd be all for it. I really don't like companies inserting themselves into my life without my permission. I don't know how typical that is -- almost certainly people like me are a minority, but I suspect that there's a non-trivial number of people who feel the same.
izacus 7y ago
Well, it's Apple ain't it? It it would be Google or Microsoft, HN would have 16 upvoted posts. Brand cheerleading is, and always have been, alive and well.
- bluesign 7y ago
  Because Apple doing this transition in a much better way. First they introduce some better system (for ex: content blockers), waiting for it to be successful from user perspective, then replacing old system with this new accepted one.
  - Nextgrid 7y ago
    Content blockers are inferior to extensions such as uBlock Origin.
    - kemayo 7y ago
      It's complicated? They have advantages and disadvantages over extensions. For most people who just installed an adblocker and never touched its settings, I bet they're practically equivalent. Advantages: privacy, efficiency Disadvantages: lack of flexibility, some things they just can't do
      - pythux 7y ago
        If you have some source about the efficiency advantage, could you please share? I only ever read that hypothetically it could be more efficient but never stumbled upon actual measurements/benchmarks. Also, extension adblockers are already so efficient that I would doubt there is a perceptible difference.
  - creato 7y ago
    "The bottom line is that there's no way to install a classic Safari ad blocker starting this week, and that Apple is expected to remove or disable old Safari legacy extensions from users' browsers sometime in the future, for good." How is that different from what chrome is doing? There's a deprecation plan, it doesn't appear to be significantly shorter in time scale than what apple did.
rdtwo 7y ago
I use brave it seems to work great
- mthoms 7y ago
  Here here. Even though they use the same browser engine as Chrome, the Brave team have chosen not to include the blocker limitation introduced by Google[0]. [0]https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/ https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/
  - pythux 7y ago
    Chrome did not introduce any limitation yet and it’s gonna take a while before they do it (they only started showing part of Manifest v3 changes in canary versions). So nothing changes for forks of Chrome for now.
krtkush 7y ago
The only two extensions I used - AdGuard and Feeder are not working anymore.
- ameshkov 7y ago
  There's new AG for Safari: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari
  - krtkush 7y ago
    Thanks.
yodsanklai 7y ago
> users didn't say a thing Maybe most users are simply not aware of this? As a Safari user, I did notice that Adblock wasn't working so well lately. I didn't know it has to do with Apple, I just assumed that I had to wait for the next update.
thoughtsimple 7y ago
Just use 1Blocker. It works fine. Extensions are battery killers.
- lightedman 7y ago
  "Extensions are battery killers." ANY processing is a battery killer. It's as if people forgot every single thing done on a computer system STILL REQUIRES ENERGY TO DO.
- neurobashing 7y ago
  Not just "just use 1Blocker", but isn't the mechanism 1Blocker uses functionally equivalent to the "old" mechanism? Whereas Chrome just turned it off without offering a different route to the same functionality?
  - danpalmer 7y ago
    To my knowledge, 1Blocker uses the iOS/macOS content blocking APIs, which essentially allow an app to provide lists of content to block to the system, which pre-computes a fast/efficient ruleset for use while browsing. This results in lower energy usage, faster browsing, and more privacy during browsing. Chrome does not to my knowledge provide an API like this, and extensions are still roughly a JS bundle that defines blocking rules at runtime, slowly, using more energy, and potentially having access to your browser history while it does it.
  - vatueil 7y ago
    The posted article is all about how the changes Apple made to Safari mirror the proposed changes to Chrome. Safari content blockers such as 1Blocker are pretty much exactly how Chrome adblockers will work in the future. Chrome has not changed how extensions work yet. That's all in the future. Currently, nothing has been turned off and the "old" mechanism still works. Eventually that will change, just as Safari has already done.
- quotemstr 7y ago
  "Extensions are battery killers" is simplistic, and, well, wrong. Like any program, efficiency depends on what a program actually does. Some extensions use a lot of power. Others don't. The anti-extension animus on this thread is weird.
xodice 7y ago
Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads. I switched to Wipr on my devices and ads are still blocked, for basic ad blocking it gets the job done easily and quickly. I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.)
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions This is why content blockers are actually better, extensions are huge security holes. Setting aside the whole issue of content v ad blocking, anything that locks down the capabilities of extensions on your system is only a plus for your security.
  - close04 7y ago
    Why not have a content blocker with much higher limits? If security is the aim why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time?
    - xodice 7y ago
      I've yet to see a iOS or macOS content blocker that doesn't use multiple filter rules to bypass the 50k limit.
      - danShumway 7y ago
        I'm not sure I understand. If everybody can bypass the 50k limit, what's the point of the limit? If the 50k limit isn't sufficiently high, I don't think, "they're trying to restrict blockers, but don't worry they're bad at it" is a great defense. And if the 50k limit is high enough, and it's a reasonable tradeoff between privacy and performance, then why are content blockers putting in extra work to bypass it? Should we expect that Apple will block the limit workaround in the future?
caymanjim 7y ago
How many Safari users even know what an ad blocker is? It's not exactly a power feature, but people using the stock browser shipped with their OS probably aren't aware that it's even an option.
- maccard 7y ago
  Many people using Mac will use safari because it's power usage is incredibly low compared to the others. Im a Firefox user, but on a MacBook, safari is the only option.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    I think many people using a Mac use Safari because it’s the default.
    - bni 7y ago
      I use it because it has the best looking font rendering and the smoothest scrolling
      - BlackRing 7y ago
        This is why I use it. I haven't upgraded to Safari 13 yet so if that's where the change is it hasn't hit me yet. Still using an old version of ublock origin that has updated lists and between that and pihole it's going strong. Firefox is nice and chrome is ok but they're a distant second at the moment due to the ecosystem with iOS
  - chrischen 7y ago
    To further add to that EVERY person using an iPhone is using Safari. If they search the app store for adblock or some other name brand blocker, they’ll be instructed to turn on content blockers.
  - toyg 7y ago
    Firefox is supposed to have fixed that in nightly builds. Can’t land in the main channel soon enough.
sys_64738 7y ago
That is naughty. I haven't used Safari for a few years as I have Vivaldi always running. But this change is just not right.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
I just stopped using both Safari and Chrome, ditched them for Firefox on all my devices. Also, I'm almost exclusively use Duckduckgo now for search. Yes, Firefox does drain MBP battery, that's sad, but they promise to fix it.
chaostheory 7y ago
I use other browsers for general browsing. I only use safari for specific tasks like shopping at sites I’m already familiar with
st3fan 7y ago
Isn't this article incorrect? Apple changed the _distribution_ mechanism for Safari extensions, something they have been communicating for a year to developers. And many developers, like 1Blocker, have already moved on to the new extension packaging format and work just fine like they did. What they have not done is cripple Safari's web extension capabilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure developers can still use the exact same blocklists that they used before. Same as documented on https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/creating_a_content_blocker https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/cre... Comparing this to what Chrome pulled is not fair - I think Chrome actually crippled ad blocker capabilities, while Apple only changed the format of a packaged extension. Right?
- danpalmer 7y ago
  Not quite. Safari extensions were, like other browsers, a package of JS that could mostly run as it liked in your tab. The new app extensions system is more generally applicable across the system, but more precise in what it allows. For example, it allows an app to provide a sharing target – so that other apps can share content to it. The relevant thing that's provided here is a content blocking extension point. Unlike ad blockers providing a bundle of JS that may or may not block ads, record your browser history, etc, the content blocking extension point is a pull-based system. Safari asks the app for its list of content to block, then computes that into a fast lookup table of some sort, and never talks to the app during browsing. This means ad blocker app built with the app extensions API is more secure, more private, and in all likelihood, faster. Potential complexity is reduced, but that may be worth it.
Shank 7y ago
I've tried to switch to Safari about 10 different times, and each time some random different missing feature stopped me from being able to do it. It's got low market share relative to the other browsers and the most picky users are going to be those who weren't satisfied with it in the first place (like me). Safari content blockers are okay, but not great, and 1Blocker didn't block nearly the amount of ads that were blocked by uBlock Origin on Firefox/Chrome, so I just decided to stay with Chrome/FF.
junkblocker 7y ago
Maybe there aren't that many Safari users at all and the remaining just moved to Firefox/Chrome.
- junkblocker 7y ago
  Really? That was downvote worthy?
mfer 7y ago
Honest question.... Is the problem of content blockers using rule lists? Or, is the issue that Chrome proposes to limit the number of rules. Quickly looking at Safari there isn't this limit to the number of rules. I understand change being a problem and maybe uBlock Origin can't work in the new Safari model. But, could a new project do just a well based on similar blocking ideas?
- joeblau 7y ago
  IIRC, the limit is 50k a list, but you can have unlimited lists. That is the difference between 1Blocker and 1Blocker X.
  - TingPing 7y ago
    This is correct: https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionParser.cpp?rev=246490#L329 https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/...
- hrunt 7y ago
  The article states that Safari does have a limit of 50,000 rules, and that this is less than Google's updated proposed limit of 120,000 rules that ad blockers have stated is too low. I believe ad blockers like uBlock Origin also do some dynamic detection of behavior so that certain types of ad-serving that come from hosts you do not want to block. CBS Sports, for example, requires special handling -- in Google Chrome, accomplished by a separate extension for uBlock Origin -- to properly block ads on their site without destroying login and video functionality. This kind of blocking cannot be performed with host lists.
  - mackey 7y ago
    Safari allows 50,000 rules per list and an extension can have unlimited lists. Google is doing "a global maximum of 150k rules" per extension. https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarative-net-request.html https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...
- 7y ago
cde-v 7y ago
Because Safari has no users.
- xodice 7y ago
  Safari has tons of users, the majority being on mobile. Safari has functioning content blocking. What is the point of your comment?
submeta 7y ago
I was using Safari every now and then, replaced it with Firefox not long ago. Now I won‘t use Safari at all.
greendude29 7y ago
Sad, but not surprising. Apple release crap feature under the misguided marketing term "privacy". Droves of fans accept and cheer them on building a more closed Internet at their own uninformed peril. "Master has given us more..."
sambe 7y ago
Where does "users didn't say a thing" come from? The version that really makes the difference was only released a few days ago... and there has been lots of news/criticism in tech circles about it.
- toyg 7y ago
  This. I started Safari today for the first time in weeks, and I was greeted by a popup saying they’ve broken most of the extensions I have, including Bitwarden (!). Well then, even less of an incentive to ever use Safari again. Already I started it only when I actually wanted to be tracked (with referral-generating sites like quidco and so on), now I’ll just never use it. And to think I even went to the trouble of building an extension for it, so many years ago.... Apple really, really hates the desktop these days.
  - satysin 7y ago
    FYI there is a beta for a new Safari extension for Bitwarden you can use https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664 https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664 I have been using it for a week or so now and other than the known issues mentioned it works the same as before.
    - xxkylexx 7y ago
      It’s actually released now on the website.
jen20 7y ago
I noticed this for the first time this morning - I hadn't heard about any changes ahead of time. I accidentally used the web for about three minutes a few weeks ago without Ghostery installed, and the experience was quite miserable. It actually led me to finally buy a Raspberry Pi and put PiHole on my home network. If Safari doesn't continue to support ad blocking for when I'm outside my home network ("Ghostery Lite" is in the App Store, but I haven't fully evaluated it yet), I will switch away from Safari as a primary browser - probably to Firefox. I'm not sure I view this in the same light as a Google, however. There is a content-blocking API which seems to work OK, and Apple do not rely on privacy invasion for a substantial portion of their income.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
  Safari supports the same sort of ad blocking as a pi hole -- specifying a list of domains to block. This is available in so-called content blocking extensions.
  - jen20 7y ago
    So far I haven't spotted a problem with Safari's new content blocking mechanism (using Ghostery Lite). I still prefer the PiHole because it applies to all devices without additional configuration.
Grustaf 7y ago
I don’t get it, is this separate from the native content blockers they introduced to big fanfare a few years back? If so, what’s the problem, why would we need two systems for blocking ads?
Bootwizard 7y ago
Who the hell uses Safari? And why? Google Chrome works perfectly on my Macbook. I don't see a reason to use anything else.
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Here's a thread in this very comments section with some answers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21035826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21035826
- pascoej 7y ago
  The power efficiency of Safari is much better.
- auslander 7y ago
  Google is Skynet.
- jorisw 7y ago
  I use Safari because it is lightweight, fast, and imho, better looking (compact, minimalist) than Chrome. It uses WebKit, like Chrome, so it renders pages the same, but I simply find the app much simpler, faster, and comfortable to use. Give it a try some time.
- villgax 7y ago
  POWER EFFICIENCY is the only thing, also sync across devices is bonus.
runjake 7y ago
Because we saw it coming. Apple made no secret of it. And when running uBlock Origin on Safari became untenable, I switched to Firefox full-time and its been great.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
craftinator 7y ago
Cause sheeple gonna sheep.
techslave 7y ago
because of the difficulty in policing extensions, this is decidedly a good thing. that ad blocking and privacy tracking precision suffers is not great, but with safari’s cookie policy it makes up for it. such a content blocker method doesn’t work for chrome because ghostery and the like won’t work. with safari it doesn’t matter as much (if at all) because the core browser handles this much better.
StreamBright 7y ago
One more reason to block everything at the DNS level.
untitled87 7y ago
Firefox or tor are the only good browsers left, that you can trust. Bromite for Android is amazing too, honestly the browsing experience because of the free high quality adblockers is so much better on Android compared to IOS. Nothing comes close t0 ublock origin.
untitled87 7y ago
Firefox or tor are the only good browsers left, that you can trust. Bromite for Android is amazing too, honestly the browsing experience because of the free high quality adblockers is so much better on Android compared to IOS. Nothing comes close t0 ublock origin. Safari on osx is like Windows Microsoft Edge or Android Chrome, they're both quite useful for downloading Firefox.
untitled87 7y ago
While "Power Users" make up a small amount of total users. (Something like only 20% of people use an adblocker). These power users have tremendous sway on the masses, they're the IT/tech savvy people setting things up for other people and people listen to them. I trust Gorhill and ublock origin a lot more than I trust Apple and whatever closed source shitty adblocker the put in Safari. At this point Chrome (run by an ad company, but chromium is open source)is looking better then Safari.

190 points by jmsflknr 7y ago

I thought, "This article is based on a Hacker News comment." And it was.

I noticed this overnight when uBlock Origin wasn't working. I've been slowly transitioning over to Firefox over the last few months, but still end up in Safari quite often. This motivates me more to move over to Firefox permanently. Battery life might take a hit, but the philosophical and political motivation is too high not to use Firefox.

whalesalad 7y ago
Safari is SO much more efficient than Firefox. I find it to be more performant while also using a lot less juice on my MBP.
- panpanna 7y ago
  But ads often slowdown browsing significantly and cause unwanted cpu work and network traffic. Then there is tracking and sometimes even malware...
  - xodice 7y ago
    So just install a content blocker? I don't get what you're trying to say. Plenty of them out there for iOS and macOS and they work well.
  - 693471 7y ago
    Safari is aggressively attacking the tracking problem as a code browser feature, and the as blocking capabilities are sufficient for blocking all the ads you need blocked anyway. It just can't do all the other page optimization / CSS stuff to strip out elements completely, so you might have some empty divs or whatever; who cares
  - whalesalad 7y ago
    I have Pihole on my network doing DNS/ad-blocking.
- mfer 7y ago
  FYI, In the next Firefox release there's a change that should dramatically improve Firefox battery use.
- dreamcompiler 7y ago
  I tried Safari for the first time in a while a few days ago and I agree with you. But the amount of ads, videos, popups, and sticky crap all over the screen makes reading web sites impossible. I didn't realize just how bad the web browsing experience had become without an ad blocker. I'm rebuilding my Pihole at the moment so this nonsense will go away soon. But it's really, really bad to be without it.
  - galad87 7y ago
    But you can still use ad-blockers in Safari… it's not like now it's impossible to block ads in Safari…
  - whalesalad 7y ago
    Yeah, I was on vacation recently and didn’t have my pihole. It was also eye opening for me too. Before my next trip I want to get a VPN configured so that when I am remote I can 1, access my home network/lab and 2. Take advantage of pihole (not to mention encrypting my traffic)
    - dreamcompiler 7y ago
      I'm putting my next pihole on a cloud VPS so I can use it from anywhere. It's an experiment; I want to see how long I can keep it from becoming part of a botnet. Ideas welcome.
      - whalesalad 7y ago
        It’s totally doable. You want to run a VPN server on the host so that you can connect to it and have your network traffic go through it. You could tunnel all traffic thru the VPN, or only the DNS traffic. Then you could have the pihole bound to the local interface only, not accepting connections from outside that host. I’m making it sound easier than it is, but it’s still pretty straightforward. There’s actually a doc on the official pihole site that explains how to do this but I haven’t read it completely.
rudiv 7y ago
IIRC Mozilla said recently (last week or two) that they had managed to patch the bug responsible for the majority of battery issues on macOS.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  Tests showed this finally brought power usage inline with Chrome, but not down to Safari levels.
- submeta 7y ago
  I can confirm: Been using Firefox for months on my Mac, and it is not draining my battery like it did a few years ago. It used to be very resource hungry, not anymore.
Angostura 7y ago
Why not just move to a content blocker?
dubya 7y ago
The other issue is that uBlock Origin development on Safari stopped sometime last year. I still prefer Safari, but Firefox is a close second so I'll just switch if I can't find a good enough adblocker for Safari. And whatever adblock works on mobile Safari (I'm using Refine, but haven't looked at others) is already pretty good.

givinguflac 7y ago

Adblock is stupid. Block hosts and be done with it. Pihole/pixelserv/diversion for the lan, gas mask for Mac, AdGuard vpn with custom lists for iOS. No ads, no stupid adblocker blockers bs.

bitcurious 7y ago
Does pihole block Facebook ads on Facebook.com, google ads on YouTube.com?
- conchy 7y ago
  nope
- cameronbrown 7y ago
  And to be honest, that's probably not a bad thing. Majority here are worried about cross site tracking and not advertising itself.
  - hrunt 7y ago
    Citation needed. In all seriousness, I think the performance issue of ad-blocking is much more beneficial to me than the cross-site tracking. While cross-site tracking may end up being more nefarious or theoretically worse, the slowdown in reading and interaction is a definite real-world pain solved by blocking ads, even same-site ones.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Performance too. Honestly I'm not citing anything it's just my personal opinion. I have no issues with advertising beyond privacy, performance, and obviously advertising overload (there is a limit).
  - danShumway 7y ago
    I'm worried about advertising itself. I believe pervasive, omnipresent advertising is bad for society, even if it's native, and even if it respects people's privacy. Even in the real world, if there was some way of blocking billboards or posters on the subway, I'd be all for it. I really don't like companies inserting themselves into my life without my permission. I don't know how typical that is -- almost certainly people like me are a minority, but I suspect that there's a non-trivial number of people who feel the same.

izacus 7y ago

Well, it's Apple ain't it? It it would be Google or Microsoft, HN would have 16 upvoted posts. Brand cheerleading is, and always have been, alive and well.

bluesign 7y ago
Because Apple doing this transition in a much better way. First they introduce some better system (for ex: content blockers), waiting for it to be successful from user perspective, then replacing old system with this new accepted one.
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  Content blockers are inferior to extensions such as uBlock Origin.
  - kemayo 7y ago
    It's complicated? They have advantages and disadvantages over extensions. For most people who just installed an adblocker and never touched its settings, I bet they're practically equivalent. Advantages: privacy, efficiency Disadvantages: lack of flexibility, some things they just can't do
    - pythux 7y ago
      If you have some source about the efficiency advantage, could you please share? I only ever read that hypothetically it could be more efficient but never stumbled upon actual measurements/benchmarks. Also, extension adblockers are already so efficient that I would doubt there is a perceptible difference.
- creato 7y ago
  "The bottom line is that there's no way to install a classic Safari ad blocker starting this week, and that Apple is expected to remove or disable old Safari legacy extensions from users' browsers sometime in the future, for good." How is that different from what chrome is doing? There's a deprecation plan, it doesn't appear to be significantly shorter in time scale than what apple did.

rdtwo 7y ago

I use brave it seems to work great

mthoms 7y ago
Here here. Even though they use the same browser engine as Chrome, the Brave team have chosen not to include the blocker limitation introduced by Google[0]. [0]https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/ https://brave.com/improved-ad-blocker-performance/
- pythux 7y ago
  Chrome did not introduce any limitation yet and it’s gonna take a while before they do it (they only started showing part of Manifest v3 changes in canary versions). So nothing changes for forks of Chrome for now.

krtkush 7y ago

The only two extensions I used - AdGuard and Feeder are not working anymore.

ameshkov 7y ago
There's new AG for Safari: https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardForSafari
- krtkush 7y ago
  Thanks.

yodsanklai 7y ago

> users didn't say a thing Maybe most users are simply not aware of this? As a Safari user, I did notice that Adblock wasn't working so well lately. I didn't know it has to do with Apple, I just assumed that I had to wait for the next update.

thoughtsimple 7y ago

Just use 1Blocker. It works fine. Extensions are battery killers.

lightedman 7y ago
"Extensions are battery killers." ANY processing is a battery killer. It's as if people forgot every single thing done on a computer system STILL REQUIRES ENERGY TO DO.
neurobashing 7y ago
Not just "just use 1Blocker", but isn't the mechanism 1Blocker uses functionally equivalent to the "old" mechanism? Whereas Chrome just turned it off without offering a different route to the same functionality?
- danpalmer 7y ago
  To my knowledge, 1Blocker uses the iOS/macOS content blocking APIs, which essentially allow an app to provide lists of content to block to the system, which pre-computes a fast/efficient ruleset for use while browsing. This results in lower energy usage, faster browsing, and more privacy during browsing. Chrome does not to my knowledge provide an API like this, and extensions are still roughly a JS bundle that defines blocking rules at runtime, slowly, using more energy, and potentially having access to your browser history while it does it.
- vatueil 7y ago
  The posted article is all about how the changes Apple made to Safari mirror the proposed changes to Chrome. Safari content blockers such as 1Blocker are pretty much exactly how Chrome adblockers will work in the future. Chrome has not changed how extensions work yet. That's all in the future. Currently, nothing has been turned off and the "old" mechanism still works. Eventually that will change, just as Safari has already done.
quotemstr 7y ago
"Extensions are battery killers" is simplistic, and, well, wrong. Like any program, efficiency depends on what a program actually does. Some extensions use a lot of power. Others don't. The anti-extension animus on this thread is weird.

xodice 7y ago

Because content blockers are fine for the majority of users, IMO. Of course there will be power users who are buggered, but things like Wipr on iOS and macOS work just fine for blocking ads. I switched to Wipr on my devices and ads are still blocked, for basic ad blocking it gets the job done easily and quickly. I also did not join in the Chrome bashing as I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions. (Tho, I trust my goto extension uBlock Origin just fine.)

bilbo0s 7y ago
>I personally prefer the "security" of content blockers vs. extensions This is why content blockers are actually better, extensions are huge security holes. Setting aside the whole issue of content v ad blocking, anything that locks down the capabilities of extensions on your system is only a plus for your security.
- close04 7y ago
  Why not have a content blocker with much higher limits? If security is the aim why the limit for 50000 filter rules in use at one time?
  - xodice 7y ago
    I've yet to see a iOS or macOS content blocker that doesn't use multiple filter rules to bypass the 50k limit.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      I'm not sure I understand. If everybody can bypass the 50k limit, what's the point of the limit? If the 50k limit isn't sufficiently high, I don't think, "they're trying to restrict blockers, but don't worry they're bad at it" is a great defense. And if the 50k limit is high enough, and it's a reasonable tradeoff between privacy and performance, then why are content blockers putting in extra work to bypass it? Should we expect that Apple will block the limit workaround in the future?

caymanjim 7y ago

How many Safari users even know what an ad blocker is? It's not exactly a power feature, but people using the stock browser shipped with their OS probably aren't aware that it's even an option.

maccard 7y ago
Many people using Mac will use safari because it's power usage is incredibly low compared to the others. Im a Firefox user, but on a MacBook, safari is the only option.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I think many people using a Mac use Safari because it’s the default.
  - bni 7y ago
    I use it because it has the best looking font rendering and the smoothest scrolling
    - BlackRing 7y ago
      This is why I use it. I haven't upgraded to Safari 13 yet so if that's where the change is it hasn't hit me yet. Still using an old version of ublock origin that has updated lists and between that and pihole it's going strong. Firefox is nice and chrome is ok but they're a distant second at the moment due to the ecosystem with iOS
- chrischen 7y ago
  To further add to that EVERY person using an iPhone is using Safari. If they search the app store for adblock or some other name brand blocker, they’ll be instructed to turn on content blockers.
- toyg 7y ago
  Firefox is supposed to have fixed that in nightly builds. Can’t land in the main channel soon enough.

sys_64738 7y ago

That is naughty. I haven't used Safari for a few years as I have Vivaldi always running. But this change is just not right.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

I just stopped using both Safari and Chrome, ditched them for Firefox on all my devices. Also, I'm almost exclusively use Duckduckgo now for search. Yes, Firefox does drain MBP battery, that's sad, but they promise to fix it.

chaostheory 7y ago

I use other browsers for general browsing. I only use safari for specific tasks like shopping at sites I’m already familiar with

st3fan 7y ago

Isn't this article incorrect? Apple changed the _distribution_ mechanism for Safari extensions, something they have been communicating for a year to developers. And many developers, like 1Blocker, have already moved on to the new extension packaging format and work just fine like they did. What they have not done is cripple Safari's web extension capabilities. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am sure developers can still use the exact same blocklists that they used before. Same as documented on https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/creating_a_content_blocker https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/cre... Comparing this to what Chrome pulled is not fair - I think Chrome actually crippled ad blocker capabilities, while Apple only changed the format of a packaged extension. Right?

danpalmer 7y ago
Not quite. Safari extensions were, like other browsers, a package of JS that could mostly run as it liked in your tab. The new app extensions system is more generally applicable across the system, but more precise in what it allows. For example, it allows an app to provide a sharing target – so that other apps can share content to it. The relevant thing that's provided here is a content blocking extension point. Unlike ad blockers providing a bundle of JS that may or may not block ads, record your browser history, etc, the content blocking extension point is a pull-based system. Safari asks the app for its list of content to block, then computes that into a fast lookup table of some sort, and never talks to the app during browsing. This means ad blocker app built with the app extensions API is more secure, more private, and in all likelihood, faster. Potential complexity is reduced, but that may be worth it.

Shank 7y ago

I've tried to switch to Safari about 10 different times, and each time some random different missing feature stopped me from being able to do it. It's got low market share relative to the other browsers and the most picky users are going to be those who weren't satisfied with it in the first place (like me). Safari content blockers are okay, but not great, and 1Blocker didn't block nearly the amount of ads that were blocked by uBlock Origin on Firefox/Chrome, so I just decided to stay with Chrome/FF.

junkblocker 7y ago

Maybe there aren't that many Safari users at all and the remaining just moved to Firefox/Chrome.

junkblocker 7y ago
Really? That was downvote worthy?

mfer 7y ago

Honest question.... Is the problem of content blockers using rule lists? Or, is the issue that Chrome proposes to limit the number of rules. Quickly looking at Safari there isn't this limit to the number of rules. I understand change being a problem and maybe uBlock Origin can't work in the new Safari model. But, could a new project do just a well based on similar blocking ideas?

joeblau 7y ago
IIRC, the limit is 50k a list, but you can have unlimited lists. That is the difference between 1Blocker and 1Blocker X.
- TingPing 7y ago
  This is correct: https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/contentextensions/ContentExtensionParser.cpp?rev=246490#L329 https://trac.webkit.org/browser/webkit/trunk/Source/WebCore/...
hrunt 7y ago
The article states that Safari does have a limit of 50,000 rules, and that this is less than Google's updated proposed limit of 120,000 rules that ad blockers have stated is too low. I believe ad blockers like uBlock Origin also do some dynamic detection of behavior so that certain types of ad-serving that come from hosts you do not want to block. CBS Sports, for example, requires special handling -- in Google Chrome, accomplished by a separate extension for uBlock Origin -- to properly block ads on their site without destroying login and video functionality. This kind of blocking cannot be performed with host lists.
- mackey 7y ago
  Safari allows 50,000 rules per list and an extension can have unlimited lists. Google is doing "a global maximum of 150k rules" per extension. https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarative-net-request.html https://blog.chromium.org/2019/06/web-request-and-declarativ...
7y ago

cde-v 7y ago

Because Safari has no users.

xodice 7y ago
Safari has tons of users, the majority being on mobile. Safari has functioning content blocking. What is the point of your comment?

submeta 7y ago

I was using Safari every now and then, replaced it with Firefox not long ago. Now I won‘t use Safari at all.

greendude29 7y ago

Sad, but not surprising. Apple release crap feature under the misguided marketing term "privacy". Droves of fans accept and cheer them on building a more closed Internet at their own uninformed peril. "Master has given us more..."

sambe 7y ago

Where does "users didn't say a thing" come from? The version that really makes the difference was only released a few days ago... and there has been lots of news/criticism in tech circles about it.

toyg 7y ago
This. I started Safari today for the first time in weeks, and I was greeted by a popup saying they’ve broken most of the extensions I have, including Bitwarden (!). Well then, even less of an incentive to ever use Safari again. Already I started it only when I actually wanted to be tracked (with referral-generating sites like quidco and so on), now I’ll just never use it. And to think I even went to the trouble of building an extension for it, so many years ago.... Apple really, really hates the desktop these days.
- satysin 7y ago
  FYI there is a beta for a new Safari extension for Bitwarden you can use https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664 https://github.com/bitwarden/browser/issues/664 I have been using it for a week or so now and other than the known issues mentioned it works the same as before.
  - xxkylexx 7y ago
    It’s actually released now on the website.

jen20 7y ago

I noticed this for the first time this morning - I hadn't heard about any changes ahead of time. I accidentally used the web for about three minutes a few weeks ago without Ghostery installed, and the experience was quite miserable. It actually led me to finally buy a Raspberry Pi and put PiHole on my home network. If Safari doesn't continue to support ad blocking for when I'm outside my home network ("Ghostery Lite" is in the App Store, but I haven't fully evaluated it yet), I will switch away from Safari as a primary browser - probably to Firefox. I'm not sure I view this in the same light as a Google, however. There is a content-blocking API which seems to work OK, and Apple do not rely on privacy invasion for a substantial portion of their income.

bobbylarrybobby 7y ago
Safari supports the same sort of ad blocking as a pi hole -- specifying a list of domains to block. This is available in so-called content blocking extensions.
- jen20 7y ago
  So far I haven't spotted a problem with Safari's new content blocking mechanism (using Ghostery Lite). I still prefer the PiHole because it applies to all devices without additional configuration.

Grustaf 7y ago

I don’t get it, is this separate from the native content blockers they introduced to big fanfare a few years back? If so, what’s the problem, why would we need two systems for blocking ads?

Bootwizard 7y ago

Who the hell uses Safari? And why? Google Chrome works perfectly on my Macbook. I don't see a reason to use anything else.

hombre_fatal 7y ago
Here's a thread in this very comments section with some answers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21035826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21035826
pascoej 7y ago
The power efficiency of Safari is much better.
auslander 7y ago
Google is Skynet.
jorisw 7y ago
I use Safari because it is lightweight, fast, and imho, better looking (compact, minimalist) than Chrome. It uses WebKit, like Chrome, so it renders pages the same, but I simply find the app much simpler, faster, and comfortable to use. Give it a try some time.
villgax 7y ago
POWER EFFICIENCY is the only thing, also sync across devices is bonus.

runjake 7y ago

Because we saw it coming. Apple made no secret of it. And when running uBlock Origin on Safari became untenable, I switched to Firefox full-time and its been great.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

craftinator 7y ago

Cause sheeple gonna sheep.

techslave 7y ago

because of the difficulty in policing extensions, this is decidedly a good thing. that ad blocking and privacy tracking precision suffers is not great, but with safari’s cookie policy it makes up for it. such a content blocker method doesn’t work for chrome because ghostery and the like won’t work. with safari it doesn’t matter as much (if at all) because the core browser handles this much better.

StreamBright 7y ago

One more reason to block everything at the DNS level.

untitled87 7y ago

Firefox or tor are the only good browsers left, that you can trust. Bromite for Android is amazing too, honestly the browsing experience because of the free high quality adblockers is so much better on Android compared to IOS. Nothing comes close t0 ublock origin. Safari on osx is like Windows Microsoft Edge or Android Chrome, they're both quite useful for downloading Firefox.

untitled87 7y ago

While "Power Users" make up a small amount of total users. (Something like only 20% of people use an adblocker). These power users have tremendous sway on the masses, they're the IT/tech savvy people setting things up for other people and people listen to them. I trust Gorhill and ublock origin a lot more than I trust Apple and whatever closed source shitty adblocker the put in Safari. At this point Chrome (run by an ad company, but chromium is open source)is looking better then Safari.