6 ms·

Interesting, Apple is letting you change your default web browser with this new iOS version, but also adding Face ID and Touch ID to Safari. Why would anyone w

Interesting, Apple is letting you change your default web browser with this new iOS version, but also adding Face ID and Touch ID to Safari. Why would anyone want to build these features if they're so platform / browser specific? Does anyone know if these auth features might work on other browsers on iPhone?

aaomidi 6y ago
There isn't a reason it wouldn't work - the browsers all use the same engine anyway.
- abrowne 6y ago
  If Apple lets other browsers using the engine have access to this feature.
- throw03172019 6y ago
  There are some differences between Safari and WKWebView. Some features are blocked.
  - mathisonturing 6y ago
    It's funny how much bashing Google gets for monopoly with Android, pushing users to use Chrome, Play Store and whatnot. While all of that is relevant, Apple's stranglehold seems much more and worse.
    - naringas 6y ago
      at least apple never pretended like iOS was open source
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      Apple sells between 10-20% of smartphones per quarter[1], that implies Android makes up 80+% and Windows/Blackberry a neglible amount. How can Apple be a monopolist from such a small position, or have a "stranglehold" when they are outsold 4-8x by the competition? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...
      - Dahoon 6y ago
        So you are comparing Android vs iOS. You cannot see how that is Apples Vs Oranges? Just because something is based on Android doesn't make Everything Android vs iOS a direct comparison. Try Google Phones Vs Apple phones or Huawei vs Apple.
        azinman2 6y ago
        Sure it does. If what I want is not to be blocked by an OS that won’t let me write my own JIT, then any android phone will work. And in that case, there’s a ton of competition to chose from, and the JIT I write can (theoretically) work on any of them.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        It is a direct comparison, because Google control Android. The poster I replied to compared Google and Apple using the terms "stranglehold" and "monopoly". These terms don't work because Apple don't have control of most of the smartphone market, so they can't be a monopoly. Through Android, Google do control most of the smartphone market, so they might have a monopoly effect on the smartphone market. Apple aren't in any position to strongarm things. Google are. Therefore whatever Apple does with iOS can't be "worse" from this perspective. It could be worse for users, but it can't be "worse" monopolistically for Apple to affect 20% of the market in Apple's favour, than it is for Google to affect 80% of the market in Google's favour. Google could strongarm Huawei and Sony and LG and all the other Android manufacturers. Apple couldn't. Google could strongarm 80% of smartphone users, Apple only 20%.
      - greggman3 6y ago
        Monopolies have nothing to with world markets. There is no world government. Apple has a 49-60% share in the USA. Their next biggest competitor is Samsung with less than 1/2 of that.
        jodrellblank 6y ago
        Monopolies have nothing much to do with government, they're about being the only provider in a market. If Apple controls less than half, they're not the only provider even within the US, and that only makes it weird for you to say - effectively - only the US matters, other countries don't. Google controls Android which Samsung use, and the terms on which they're allowed to use it if they still want to allow Google apps. That means it's not Samsung vs Apple, it's Google vs Apple, especially when my reply was to someone comparing Google to Apple, not Samsung to Apple.
    - jsight 6y ago
      You are exactly right. I wish both platforms were more open.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      > how much bashing Google gets for monopoly with Android, pushing users to use Chrome, Play Store and whatnot I’ve never noticed that criticism come up in the wild. The criticism I’ve seen of Android is that it’s primarily a surveillance device with a questionable security model.
- playpause 6y ago
  This isn't really true any more. Apple requires their competitors' browser apps to use a 'webview' to display websites, and Safari does not use this. The iOS webview may share a layout/paint engine with Safari, but it is heavily restricted in other ways. Apps with webviews (like Chrome for iOS) can't have extensions, for example. But the subtlest, cleverest restriction is that webviews are forced to use an older and slower JavaScript engine. This ensures that websites feel a little slower in Apple's competitors' browsers. Another major upshot of this is non-Apple browsers can't offer the same modern JavaScript APIs to websites as Safari can. For example, last time I checked, 'getUserMedia' was not available on iOS outside Safari, meaning non-Apple browsers can't support web-based video conferencing tools like Jitsi. This also implies that websites running in non-Apple browsers won't necessarily have access to the APIs necessary request Face ID sign-in, unless Apple decides it is in their interests to make this available to webviews.
  - untog 6y ago
    > But the subtlest, cleverest restriction is that webviews are forced to use an older and slower JavaScript engine. AFAIK that hasn't been true for years. WKWebView (as opposed to the old UIWebView) lets you use the full speed JS engine.
    - playpause 6y ago
      Ah, just googled it, you're right, they did eventually make the Nitro engine available in webviews. But my main point is that it's not exactly the same, they restrict certain features, and so it should never be expected that modern functionality will work in webviews just because it works in Safari.
      - selykg 6y ago
        > they restrict certain features, and so it should never be expected that modern functionality will work in webviews just because it works in Safari. Questioning this because you were just proven wrong once, do you have a source that confirms what you're saying?
- jariel 6y ago
  "browsers all use the same engine anyway" Layout engine and even rendering etc. is quite distinct from the other browser features. What goes on in front of your eyes is fairly separate from networking, security all those other nice things.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jchw 6y ago
It appears to be the WebAuthn standard (based on a quick look at the video so far) and so implementing it would enable you to leverage other Webauthn targets as well, not just on iPhone but on Windows devices and more.
vbezhenar 6y ago
Last time I checked, efficient ad blocking worked only in Safari. If that did not change, it's another reason to stay on Safari.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  How do you mean? I use Focus and Safari is configured to use Focus as its content blocker. Is there some way Safari uses Focus better than Focus does?
devmunchies 6y ago
An example is the in-app browser that you see when clicking on a link in instagram, that goes to my online store. The browser is still in the instagram app, so they aren't already logged in to their account on my store. That person can quickly login without typing in an email and password.

aaomidi 6y ago

There isn't a reason it wouldn't work - the browsers all use the same engine anyway.

abrowne 6y ago
If Apple lets other browsers using the engine have access to this feature.
throw03172019 6y ago
There are some differences between Safari and WKWebView. Some features are blocked.
- mathisonturing 6y ago
  It's funny how much bashing Google gets for monopoly with Android, pushing users to use Chrome, Play Store and whatnot. While all of that is relevant, Apple's stranglehold seems much more and worse.
  - naringas 6y ago
    at least apple never pretended like iOS was open source
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    Apple sells between 10-20% of smartphones per quarter[1], that implies Android makes up 80+% and Windows/Blackberry a neglible amount. How can Apple be a monopolist from such a small position, or have a "stranglehold" when they are outsold 4-8x by the competition? [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...
    - Dahoon 6y ago
      So you are comparing Android vs iOS. You cannot see how that is Apples Vs Oranges? Just because something is based on Android doesn't make Everything Android vs iOS a direct comparison. Try Google Phones Vs Apple phones or Huawei vs Apple.
      - azinman2 6y ago
        Sure it does. If what I want is not to be blocked by an OS that won’t let me write my own JIT, then any android phone will work. And in that case, there’s a ton of competition to chose from, and the JIT I write can (theoretically) work on any of them.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        It is a direct comparison, because Google control Android. The poster I replied to compared Google and Apple using the terms "stranglehold" and "monopoly". These terms don't work because Apple don't have control of most of the smartphone market, so they can't be a monopoly. Through Android, Google do control most of the smartphone market, so they might have a monopoly effect on the smartphone market. Apple aren't in any position to strongarm things. Google are. Therefore whatever Apple does with iOS can't be "worse" from this perspective. It could be worse for users, but it can't be "worse" monopolistically for Apple to affect 20% of the market in Apple's favour, than it is for Google to affect 80% of the market in Google's favour. Google could strongarm Huawei and Sony and LG and all the other Android manufacturers. Apple couldn't. Google could strongarm 80% of smartphone users, Apple only 20%.
    - greggman3 6y ago
      Monopolies have nothing to with world markets. There is no world government. Apple has a 49-60% share in the USA. Their next biggest competitor is Samsung with less than 1/2 of that.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        Monopolies have nothing much to do with government, they're about being the only provider in a market. If Apple controls less than half, they're not the only provider even within the US, and that only makes it weird for you to say - effectively - only the US matters, other countries don't. Google controls Android which Samsung use, and the terms on which they're allowed to use it if they still want to allow Google apps. That means it's not Samsung vs Apple, it's Google vs Apple, especially when my reply was to someone comparing Google to Apple, not Samsung to Apple.
  - jsight 6y ago
    You are exactly right. I wish both platforms were more open.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    > how much bashing Google gets for monopoly with Android, pushing users to use Chrome, Play Store and whatnot I’ve never noticed that criticism come up in the wild. The criticism I’ve seen of Android is that it’s primarily a surveillance device with a questionable security model.
playpause 6y ago
This isn't really true any more. Apple requires their competitors' browser apps to use a 'webview' to display websites, and Safari does not use this. The iOS webview may share a layout/paint engine with Safari, but it is heavily restricted in other ways. Apps with webviews (like Chrome for iOS) can't have extensions, for example. But the subtlest, cleverest restriction is that webviews are forced to use an older and slower JavaScript engine. This ensures that websites feel a little slower in Apple's competitors' browsers. Another major upshot of this is non-Apple browsers can't offer the same modern JavaScript APIs to websites as Safari can. For example, last time I checked, 'getUserMedia' was not available on iOS outside Safari, meaning non-Apple browsers can't support web-based video conferencing tools like Jitsi. This also implies that websites running in non-Apple browsers won't necessarily have access to the APIs necessary request Face ID sign-in, unless Apple decides it is in their interests to make this available to webviews.
- untog 6y ago
  > But the subtlest, cleverest restriction is that webviews are forced to use an older and slower JavaScript engine. AFAIK that hasn't been true for years. WKWebView (as opposed to the old UIWebView) lets you use the full speed JS engine.
  - playpause 6y ago
    Ah, just googled it, you're right, they did eventually make the Nitro engine available in webviews. But my main point is that it's not exactly the same, they restrict certain features, and so it should never be expected that modern functionality will work in webviews just because it works in Safari.
    - selykg 6y ago
      > they restrict certain features, and so it should never be expected that modern functionality will work in webviews just because it works in Safari. Questioning this because you were just proven wrong once, do you have a source that confirms what you're saying?
jariel 6y ago
"browsers all use the same engine anyway" Layout engine and even rendering etc. is quite distinct from the other browser features. What goes on in front of your eyes is fairly separate from networking, security all those other nice things.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jchw 6y ago

It appears to be the WebAuthn standard (based on a quick look at the video so far) and so implementing it would enable you to leverage other Webauthn targets as well, not just on iPhone but on Windows devices and more.

vbezhenar 6y ago

Last time I checked, efficient ad blocking worked only in Safari. If that did not change, it's another reason to stay on Safari.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
How do you mean? I use Focus and Safari is configured to use Focus as its content blocker. Is there some way Safari uses Focus better than Focus does?

devmunchies 6y ago

An example is the in-app browser that you see when clicking on a link in instagram, that goes to my online store. The browser is still in the instagram app, so they aren't already logged in to their account on my store. That person can quickly login without typing in an email and password.