5 ms·

Apple is plainly saying that they are best positioned to protect iOS users privacy and security. One way they do that is by not allowing any app to use anything

Apple is plainly saying that they are best positioned to protect iOS users privacy and security. One way they do that is by not allowing any app to use anything other than WebKit. If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an update. >All this to say, I'm skeptical of the suggestion that a Blink-powered Chrome for iOS would not "protect users as adequately as our WebKit protections." Maybe Google is excellent at updating their browser to address security issues, but Apple's concern isn't purely security. It's also privacy. And Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good that incorporates all of those things and more. They take end to end responsibility for their products and it would be frankly uncharacteristic of Apple to have any other position than extreme self-reliance.

izacus 7y ago
You really don't need to go this far out on a limb to defend Apple, their lawyers will do that better than you.
rgovostes 7y ago
> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Certainly I would say Apple is doing better on privacy than Google, but when it comes to the browser specifically, I don't think they're doing significantly better. Google, for instance, pioneered Incognito mode (edit: nope, Safari beat them). They developed and deployed their privacy-preserving telemetry tool RAPPOR in Chrome a few years before Apple adopted the technology for anything. Chrome allowed you to configure DuckDuckGo as your default search engine pretty much from the beginning (as long as you did it manually), whereas Safari took years to allow it. Safari has been slowly shutting out many forms of third-party extensions which are frequently for ad and tracker blocking. (To be fair Apple has a design that reduces the amount of trust you need to put in an ad blocker to see your browsing behavior, but it is far more limited, and likely sees far lower adoption.) I do think Apple is prioritizing privacy-protecting features higher than Google is, so it would not surprise me to see Safari come ahead with features like Intelligent Tracking Prevention which conflict with Google's business interests.
- millstone 7y ago
  I think there's an excellent case for Safari. It had private browsing in 2005, before Chrome even existed. It was the first to block third party cookies by default, and today only Chrome still allows them. It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year.
  - rgovostes 7y ago
    > It had private browsing in 2005 I stand corrected. > It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year. There's a nuance here. Apple's list of search engines comes from a cryptographically signed file which only they can modify. Chrome allowed you to manually configure DDG, but omitted it from the pre-configured list of search engines that included Bing and Yahoo!.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Interestingly, the ability to add a new search engine has been removed from Safari with the deprecation of legacy extensions.
    - millstone 7y ago
      It's true that you couldn't add it as an option to the fixed list, but in practice there were extensions that enabled it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3770958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3770958 is a fun trip down memory lane.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    >It was the first to block third party cookies by default Which led to the FTC collecting a scalp for it. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/googl...
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      Should mention that that’s Google paying a fine, not Apple. Your wording makes it sound like it’s the latter.
farisjarrah 7y ago
> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone Uhh... Mozilla Firefox anybody? If Apple cares about privacy so much then why don't they allow ad blockers on safari? I mean, even the Brave browser on iOS is better then Safari at blocking trackers and advertisements. Firefox also tells me how many trackers they have blocked and also give me the option to completely opt out of any telemetry data collection.
- rgovostes 7y ago
  There is a content blocker API that has been available for a few years on both macOS and iOS, and there are third-party ad blockers that use it. 1Blocker is a popular one. The design is more performant than holding each load up on a traditional browser extension's decision, and does not permit the content blocker to track your browsing history and then upload it somewhere. It also conveniently allows Apple to get away with not providing a more flexible browser extension API while supporting the most common use case. https://webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/ https://webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/
- scarface74 7y ago
  Apple has had a content blocking framework on iOS for years that not only works with Safari, but also works with embedded web views that use the SafariViewController.
- zepto 7y ago
  They do.
- briandear 7y ago
  > why don't they allow ad blockers on safari? They do. I am running Crystal right now on mobile Safari. I also have ad blockers on desktop Safari as well.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    Safari has its problems: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158 https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158 Though you can get some ad blockers which do less.
vthriller 7y ago
> Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good Microsoft didn't sell IE either, it too was once part of a package called Windows.
- Despegar 7y ago
  The key difference being that Microsoft was found to have market dominance and using that position anticompetitvely.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    This. It wasn’t Microsoft having a “monopoly” (quotes because they weren’t by definition a monopoly), but then being anticompetitive.
- Shank 7y ago
  There's an important distinction though. Windows is a de facto monopoly in the sense that almost every PC built has Windows installed on it, but not all PCs built are by Microsoft. Apple has always maintained that the physical object is tied to its software and vice versa, on the other hand. They have no interest in running on the vast majority of mobile devices (android handsets control the majority of smartphone market share by a wide margin). The only exception to this is when Apple is selling services, in which case they let you run iTunes on Windows and Apple Music on Android. It's not like you can install macOS or iOS in any supported method on a non-Apple product.
  - summerlight 7y ago
    This is an irrelevant argument in a perspective of monopoly and its market definition. Even Apple itself gives a list of competing web browsers in the iOS ecosystem to refute App Store monopoly arguments, but this also strongly suggests that iOS and Safari are separate products and browsers in iOS itself is a competing market. The only possible argument is that iOS is not in a dominant position in the smartphone market thus Apple cannot exercise monopolistic powers. But people doesn't change their phone because of web browser engine since its prohibitively expensive for this purpose. The result is that an Android phone doesn't work as an alternative for iPhone, thus iOS can be defined as a sole market for browser products (in terms of monopoly of course). This could've been solved if Apple allowed installation of other OS in iPhone, but they've made their choice a long time ago.
greggman2 7y ago
> If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an update. they could fix the bug iOS that allowed an app to escape it's sandbox. Exactly the same as every other OS including MacOS one interpretation is they are claiming the are incompetent at securing iOS but somehow competent at securing Safari. Those seem like opposing statements. Either they are competent at both and so 3rd party browsers are fine or they are competent at neither and we need access to more competent browser teams. I would like to believe they are competent and that their excuses are untrue. Otherwise we should go back to the world of no Firefox or Chrome because that same argument would apply to MacOS and Windows
pjc50 7y ago
> Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. Well, yes, that is the battlefield here: should the market in software, services, and media exist, or should consumers have to pick which vertical silo to use and then be unable to switch without prohibitive re-purchasing and setup costs?
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  User experience is vastly better in the vertical silo of Apple for 99% of my family members, especially the older ones and those who aren’t as versed in English or messing with their devices. I have a mid 90s uneducated great grandmother who grew up and still is in a rural village in a poor country able to contact all of her great grandchildren and video chat with them for the past 7 years.
- Terretta 7y ago
  The iPhone is a PDA is a toaster. Splitting the software from the hardware is like splitting the coils from the chrome. The consumer just wants perfectly consistently browned toast, while not dying from electrical shock or setting her house on fire. She’s not really buying a toaster, she’s buying no-hassle toast. If you allow that’s what an iPhone is, rather than a general personal computing device, Apple’s stance makes more sense.
  - vageli 7y ago
    > The iPhone is a PDA is a toaster. Splitting the software from the hardware is like splitting the coils from the chrome. The consumer just wants perfectly consistently browned toast, while not dying from electrical shock or setting her house on fire. She’s not really buying a toaster, she’s buying no-hassle toast. > If you allow that’s what an iPhone is, rather than a general personal computing device, Apple’s stance makes more sense. But the iPhone is _not_ a toaster. To characterize the consumer wants around an iPhone and its variable uses as akin to the near uniform customer expectation to have a toaster that doesn't burn their house down while doing its job is hard for me to accept. If a customer is really seeking "no hassle toast" when buying a toaster, what is the customer buying in an iPhone? No-hassle phone? If so, are we construing "giving the consumer the option of installing software on their own device" as a hassle? With something like a phone, I believe users have come to expect the ability to install software of their choosing on the device, which is very different from expectations of software installation for something like a toaster.

izacus 7y ago

You really don't need to go this far out on a limb to defend Apple, their lawyers will do that better than you.

rgovostes 7y ago

> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone. Certainly I would say Apple is doing better on privacy than Google, but when it comes to the browser specifically, I don't think they're doing significantly better. Google, for instance, pioneered Incognito mode (edit: nope, Safari beat them). They developed and deployed their privacy-preserving telemetry tool RAPPOR in Chrome a few years before Apple adopted the technology for anything. Chrome allowed you to configure DuckDuckGo as your default search engine pretty much from the beginning (as long as you did it manually), whereas Safari took years to allow it. Safari has been slowly shutting out many forms of third-party extensions which are frequently for ad and tracker blocking. (To be fair Apple has a design that reduces the amount of trust you need to put in an ad blocker to see your browsing behavior, but it is far more limited, and likely sees far lower adoption.) I do think Apple is prioritizing privacy-protecting features higher than Google is, so it would not surprise me to see Safari come ahead with features like Intelligent Tracking Prevention which conflict with Google's business interests.

millstone 7y ago
I think there's an excellent case for Safari. It had private browsing in 2005, before Chrome even existed. It was the first to block third party cookies by default, and today only Chrome still allows them. It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year.
- rgovostes 7y ago
  > It had private browsing in 2005 I stand corrected. > It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year. There's a nuance here. Apple's list of search engines comes from a cryptographically signed file which only they can modify. Chrome allowed you to manually configure DDG, but omitted it from the pre-configured list of search engines that included Bing and Yahoo!.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Interestingly, the ability to add a new search engine has been removed from Safari with the deprecation of legacy extensions.
  - millstone 7y ago
    It's true that you couldn't add it as an option to the fixed list, but in practice there were extensions that enabled it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3770958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3770958 is a fun trip down memory lane.
- Despegar 7y ago
  >It was the first to block third party cookies by default Which led to the FTC collecting a scalp for it. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/googl...
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    Should mention that that’s Google paying a fine, not Apple. Your wording makes it sound like it’s the latter.

farisjarrah 7y ago

> Safari's track record on privacy technologies is longer and better than everyone Uhh... Mozilla Firefox anybody? If Apple cares about privacy so much then why don't they allow ad blockers on safari? I mean, even the Brave browser on iOS is better then Safari at blocking trackers and advertisements. Firefox also tells me how many trackers they have blocked and also give me the option to completely opt out of any telemetry data collection.

rgovostes 7y ago
There is a content blocker API that has been available for a few years on both macOS and iOS, and there are third-party ad blockers that use it. 1Blocker is a popular one. The design is more performant than holding each load up on a traditional browser extension's decision, and does not permit the content blocker to track your browsing history and then upload it somewhere. It also conveniently allows Apple to get away with not providing a more flexible browser extension API while supporting the most common use case. https://webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/ https://webkit.org/blog/3476/content-blockers-first-look/
scarface74 7y ago
Apple has had a content blocking framework on iOS for years that not only works with Safari, but also works with embedded web views that use the SafariViewController.
zepto 7y ago
They do.
briandear 7y ago
> why don't they allow ad blockers on safari? They do. I am running Crystal right now on mobile Safari. I also have ad blockers on desktop Safari as well.
- diffeomorphism 7y ago
  Safari has its problems: https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158 https://github.com/el1t/uBlock-Safari/issues/158 Though you can get some ad blockers which do less.

vthriller 7y ago

> Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. They sell a finished good Microsoft didn't sell IE either, it too was once part of a package called Windows.

Despegar 7y ago
The key difference being that Microsoft was found to have market dominance and using that position anticompetitvely.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  This. It wasn’t Microsoft having a “monopoly” (quotes because they weren’t by definition a monopoly), but then being anticompetitive.
Shank 7y ago
There's an important distinction though. Windows is a de facto monopoly in the sense that almost every PC built has Windows installed on it, but not all PCs built are by Microsoft. Apple has always maintained that the physical object is tied to its software and vice versa, on the other hand. They have no interest in running on the vast majority of mobile devices (android handsets control the majority of smartphone market share by a wide margin). The only exception to this is when Apple is selling services, in which case they let you run iTunes on Windows and Apple Music on Android. It's not like you can install macOS or iOS in any supported method on a non-Apple product.
- summerlight 7y ago
  This is an irrelevant argument in a perspective of monopoly and its market definition. Even Apple itself gives a list of competing web browsers in the iOS ecosystem to refute App Store monopoly arguments, but this also strongly suggests that iOS and Safari are separate products and browsers in iOS itself is a competing market. The only possible argument is that iOS is not in a dominant position in the smartphone market thus Apple cannot exercise monopolistic powers. But people doesn't change their phone because of web browser engine since its prohibitively expensive for this purpose. The result is that an Android phone doesn't work as an alternative for iPhone, thus iOS can be defined as a sole market for browser products (in terms of monopoly of course). This could've been solved if Apple allowed installation of other OS in iPhone, but they've made their choice a long time ago.

greggman2 7y ago

> If there's a flaw in some alternative browser that iOS app developers now have a dependency on, Apple would be unable to do anything about it other than wait for that other browser vendor to ship an update. they could fix the bug iOS that allowed an app to escape it's sandbox. Exactly the same as every other OS including MacOS one interpretation is they are claiming the are incompetent at securing iOS but somehow competent at securing Safari. Those seem like opposing statements. Either they are competent at both and so 3rd party browsers are fine or they are competent at neither and we need access to more competent browser teams. I would like to believe they are competent and that their excuses are untrue. Otherwise we should go back to the world of no Firefox or Chrome because that same argument would apply to MacOS and Windows

pjc50 7y ago

> Furthermore, Apple sells integrated products. They don't sell operating systems, browsers, app stores, and NFC chips. Well, yes, that is the battlefield here: should the market in software, services, and media exist, or should consumers have to pick which vertical silo to use and then be unable to switch without prohibitive re-purchasing and setup costs?

lotsofpulp 7y ago
User experience is vastly better in the vertical silo of Apple for 99% of my family members, especially the older ones and those who aren’t as versed in English or messing with their devices. I have a mid 90s uneducated great grandmother who grew up and still is in a rural village in a poor country able to contact all of her great grandchildren and video chat with them for the past 7 years.
Terretta 7y ago
The iPhone is a PDA is a toaster. Splitting the software from the hardware is like splitting the coils from the chrome. The consumer just wants perfectly consistently browned toast, while not dying from electrical shock or setting her house on fire. She’s not really buying a toaster, she’s buying no-hassle toast. If you allow that’s what an iPhone is, rather than a general personal computing device, Apple’s stance makes more sense.
- vageli 7y ago
  > The iPhone is a PDA is a toaster. Splitting the software from the hardware is like splitting the coils from the chrome. The consumer just wants perfectly consistently browned toast, while not dying from electrical shock or setting her house on fire. She’s not really buying a toaster, she’s buying no-hassle toast. > If you allow that’s what an iPhone is, rather than a general personal computing device, Apple’s stance makes more sense. But the iPhone is _not_ a toaster. To characterize the consumer wants around an iPhone and its variable uses as akin to the near uniform customer expectation to have a toaster that doesn't burn their house down while doing its job is hard for me to accept. If a customer is really seeking "no hassle toast" when buying a toaster, what is the customer buying in an iPhone? No-hassle phone? If so, are we construing "giving the consumer the option of installing software on their own device" as a hassle? With something like a phone, I believe users have come to expect the ability to install software of their choosing on the device, which is very different from expectations of software installation for something like a toaster.