6 ms·

I agree. Apple is stifling innovation by not supporting certain APIs. They need to stop doing this, or they will hurt themselves in the long run. As it is, mos

by osrec 6y ago

I agree. Apple is stifling innovation by not supporting certain APIs. They need to stop doing this, or they will hurt themselves in the long run. As it is, most people use Safari on iOS because they are forced to - all other browsers on iOS are forced to use WKWebView, which basically means they are wrappers around Safari's view. To this day, I can't understand why their users stand for this. In this regard, Apple reminds me of a cult leader brainwashing their followers into believing the cult's way is the best way. Makes me a little sick actually.

EvanWinget 6y ago
I wish that Apple had better support for PWAs and allowed alternative rendering engines. The issue is that they are the only major player in mobile that cares about user privacy, and this allows them to maintain their monopoly for many users. If the option is Android + first-class support for PWAs vs. Apple with limited support for PWAs, I’ll go for the latter every time.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  The caring for privacy is only lip service. Consider that on iOS, you cannot get your location without also sending that location to Apple. You cannot install an app without telling Apple what you installed. You cannot install your own app on your device in a usable manner without giving banking details to Apple. You cannot subscribe to a service that has an associated app from that app without telling Apple that you've subscribed to it. To show how much it really cares, Apple moved Chinese users' data to allow the CCP unfettered access. Facebook also says it cares about privacy, and I consider both claims to be equally believable.
  - millstone 6y ago
    This is a bad-faith distraction from the topic at hand. The privacy work that Apple has done on the web is real and significant. We know because ad pricing for Safari users has dropped 60%, while for Chrome users it's increased. That means tracking is working on Chrome and not Safari.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      GGP was talking about iOS devices specifically, and I showed how they are worse for privacy than their alternatives due to long-standing and long-complained-about practices by Apple. Do you disagree? You have not given any reason why anybody should. As far as ad prices, you are citing a report from 2019. Since then, Safari ITP has been thoroughly compromised to the point where it leaks more information when it's on than when it's off. Meanwhile, Chrome supports uBlock Origin, just like Firefox (and unlike Safari).
      - millstone 6y ago
        The report is from December 2019, it has relevance in July 2020. Android Chrome does not support uBlock Origin. Mobile Safari prevents more tracking than Chrome, which is reflected in the lower ad prices. "Safari ITP is compromised" is a lie.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > "Safari ITP is compromised" is a lie. Saying that statement is a lie is itself a lie. https://www.imore.com/google-engineer-says-apples-intelligent-tracking-prevention-issue-has-not-been-fixed https://www.imore.com/google-engineer-says-apples-intelligen... The way that Apple addressed the ITP bugs is in fact a wonderful example of privacy lip service. > Android Chrome does not support uBlock Origin. Android allows you to run actual Firefox, which does support uBlock Origin. As a bonus, it doesn't even require you to tell anybody that you have installed Firefox. That is what actual privacy looks like.
bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
99.9% of users don’t even know what a browser engine is. Why would they care that they’re using WebKit instead of gecko or chromium? What they want is their bookmarks and such to sync between browsers across devices, and Apple lets that work just fine. As an iPhone user I actually like that all phones use the same engine. It prevents the “this website is better viewed in <browser>” pop up from affecting mobile users (and in particular it forces google to support a browser other than chrome). In other words, the engine monoculture means that making a site work for any iOS users means it will work for every iOS user, which I as a user really appreciate.
- ptx 6y ago
  If the last period of monoculture (the IE one) had persisted, most sites wouldn't have worked for any iOS users. iOS might not been feasible at all.
  - millstone 6y ago
    Yes, and the monoculture is Chrome, with Mobile Safari the holdout
    - osrec 6y ago
      Holdout or simply holding back?
alwillis 6y ago
In this regard, Apple reminds me of a cult leader brainwashing their followers into believing the cult's way is the best way. Makes me a little sick actually. Are you sure you aren’t the one being brainwashed? Why should anyone trust Google, since they make virtually all of their revenue from ad tech, which means tracking users across the web, even when they don't want to be. Advertisers are Google's customers, not the users of their browsers or operating systems. And since Apple makes virtually all of their revenue from selling devices and services, who's more credible on the issue of privacy? If we are to believe Apple cares about its users, then it makes perfect sense why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS. "But shouldn't this be up to the user?" some will say ask. Yes, but to a point. There are already so many ways on the web to shoot yourself in the foot. Apple is making it clear that if you want a platform where there are no safeguards, then this isn't the platform for you. There are certainly a tiny, vocal minority of iOS users who complain a lot about wanting the ability to shoot themselves in the foot if they so choose. But Apple knows those aren't their core users and their revenue show that. They need to stop doing this, or they will hurt themselves in the long run. People have been saying this for many years and now they're valued at over $1.5 trillion during an economic collapse and global pandemic. Please tell me when the lack of web APIs that would make it easier for their users to be tracked on the web is going to have any material effect on them.
- tapoxi 6y ago
  > If we are to believe Apple cares about its users, then it makes perfect sense why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS. Caring would mean giving people a choice. The real reason is they're pivoting into services and other forms of recurring revenue. They don't want people building platform-independent apps that don't need Apple approval and can bill outside of their 30% cut.
- vially 6y ago
  > [...] why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS Do you have a source that shows how chromium/edge/firefox/etc are inferior to safari in this regard?
millstone 6y ago
Apple is making the right decision here. My iOS device has never once shown me "this website requires Chrome." I get to use the mobile web without needing Google. And Apple is the only reason why. Maybe some day, web apps will become so undeniably awesome that Safari's position is untenable. But the agitation is not coming from iOS users missing out on awesome PWAs. Instead it's web developers, who are just annoyed that they have to actually respect the conventions of the platform they're building for.
- Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  >My iOS device has never once shown me "this website requires Chrome." Why would any PWA say that, if Safari had proper support for PWA? >Instead it's web developers, who are just annoyed that they have to actually respect the conventions of the platform they're building for. Say the developer is from a village in India or Nigeria who has just a Raspberry Pi to develop apps - •What if the developer didn't have thousands of dollars to invest in new equipments just to develop for iOS? •What if the developer wasn't able pay $99 every year for the Apple developer license? •What if the just didn't want to give 30% cut to Apple from the revenue each time? For all the times Apple uses 'Equality' in its marketing, the Apple platform & ecosystem restrictions clearly seems to be aimed at the privileged, pushing the agenda that 'Privileged is good' and 'Everyone should aim at being privileged'. Less empathetic would respond, 'Well that's not Apple's fault that they aren't privileged'; Well then, we have to go back into colonial imperialism & American capitalism to prove why they aren't privileged in the first place and why Apple holds a responsibility every time it uses 'Equality, Human etc.' in it's marketing; which would be digressing from the topic.
  - millstone 6y ago
    > Why would any PWA say that, if Safari had proper support for PWA? For the same reason that far too many desktop websites say that today. > Say the developer is from a village in India or Nigeria who has just a Raspberry Pi to develop apps Apple is not catering to this developer demographic. > For all the times Apple uses 'Equality' in its marketing, the Apple platform & ecosystem restrictions clearly seems to be aimed at the privileged You're conflating developers with users. What fraction of iPhone users are writing apps? If you wanted to prioritize users, there's much tougher questions you could ask.

by osrec 6y ago

EvanWinget 6y ago

I wish that Apple had better support for PWAs and allowed alternative rendering engines. The issue is that they are the only major player in mobile that cares about user privacy, and this allows them to maintain their monopoly for many users. If the option is Android + first-class support for PWAs vs. Apple with limited support for PWAs, I’ll go for the latter every time.

lern_too_spel 6y ago
The caring for privacy is only lip service. Consider that on iOS, you cannot get your location without also sending that location to Apple. You cannot install an app without telling Apple what you installed. You cannot install your own app on your device in a usable manner without giving banking details to Apple. You cannot subscribe to a service that has an associated app from that app without telling Apple that you've subscribed to it. To show how much it really cares, Apple moved Chinese users' data to allow the CCP unfettered access. Facebook also says it cares about privacy, and I consider both claims to be equally believable.
- millstone 6y ago
  This is a bad-faith distraction from the topic at hand. The privacy work that Apple has done on the web is real and significant. We know because ad pricing for Safari users has dropped 60%, while for Chrome users it's increased. That means tracking is working on Chrome and not Safari.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    GGP was talking about iOS devices specifically, and I showed how they are worse for privacy than their alternatives due to long-standing and long-complained-about practices by Apple. Do you disagree? You have not given any reason why anybody should. As far as ad prices, you are citing a report from 2019. Since then, Safari ITP has been thoroughly compromised to the point where it leaks more information when it's on than when it's off. Meanwhile, Chrome supports uBlock Origin, just like Firefox (and unlike Safari).
    - millstone 6y ago
      The report is from December 2019, it has relevance in July 2020. Android Chrome does not support uBlock Origin. Mobile Safari prevents more tracking than Chrome, which is reflected in the lower ad prices. "Safari ITP is compromised" is a lie.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > "Safari ITP is compromised" is a lie. Saying that statement is a lie is itself a lie. https://www.imore.com/google-engineer-says-apples-intelligent-tracking-prevention-issue-has-not-been-fixed https://www.imore.com/google-engineer-says-apples-intelligen... The way that Apple addressed the ITP bugs is in fact a wonderful example of privacy lip service. > Android Chrome does not support uBlock Origin. Android allows you to run actual Firefox, which does support uBlock Origin. As a bonus, it doesn't even require you to tell anybody that you have installed Firefox. That is what actual privacy looks like.

bobbylarrybobby 6y ago

99.9% of users don’t even know what a browser engine is. Why would they care that they’re using WebKit instead of gecko or chromium? What they want is their bookmarks and such to sync between browsers across devices, and Apple lets that work just fine. As an iPhone user I actually like that all phones use the same engine. It prevents the “this website is better viewed in <browser>” pop up from affecting mobile users (and in particular it forces google to support a browser other than chrome). In other words, the engine monoculture means that making a site work for any iOS users means it will work for every iOS user, which I as a user really appreciate.

ptx 6y ago
If the last period of monoculture (the IE one) had persisted, most sites wouldn't have worked for any iOS users. iOS might not been feasible at all.
- millstone 6y ago
  Yes, and the monoculture is Chrome, with Mobile Safari the holdout
  - osrec 6y ago
    Holdout or simply holding back?

alwillis 6y ago

In this regard, Apple reminds me of a cult leader brainwashing their followers into believing the cult's way is the best way. Makes me a little sick actually. Are you sure you aren’t the one being brainwashed? Why should anyone trust Google, since they make virtually all of their revenue from ad tech, which means tracking users across the web, even when they don't want to be. Advertisers are Google's customers, not the users of their browsers or operating systems. And since Apple makes virtually all of their revenue from selling devices and services, who's more credible on the issue of privacy? If we are to believe Apple cares about its users, then it makes perfect sense why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS. "But shouldn't this be up to the user?" some will say ask. Yes, but to a point. There are already so many ways on the web to shoot yourself in the foot. Apple is making it clear that if you want a platform where there are no safeguards, then this isn't the platform for you. There are certainly a tiny, vocal minority of iOS users who complain a lot about wanting the ability to shoot themselves in the foot if they so choose. But Apple knows those aren't their core users and their revenue show that. They need to stop doing this, or they will hurt themselves in the long run. People have been saying this for many years and now they're valued at over $1.5 trillion during an economic collapse and global pandemic. Please tell me when the lack of web APIs that would make it easier for their users to be tracked on the web is going to have any material effect on them.

tapoxi 6y ago
> If we are to believe Apple cares about its users, then it makes perfect sense why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS. Caring would mean giving people a choice. The real reason is they're pivoting into services and other forms of recurring revenue. They don't want people building platform-independent apps that don't need Apple approval and can bill outside of their 30% cut.
vially 6y ago
> [...] why they don't allow slower, less power efficient, less secure and less private web engines available on iOS Do you have a source that shows how chromium/edge/firefox/etc are inferior to safari in this regard?

millstone 6y ago

Apple is making the right decision here. My iOS device has never once shown me "this website requires Chrome." I get to use the mobile web without needing Google. And Apple is the only reason why. Maybe some day, web apps will become so undeniably awesome that Safari's position is untenable. But the agitation is not coming from iOS users missing out on awesome PWAs. Instead it's web developers, who are just annoyed that they have to actually respect the conventions of the platform they're building for.

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
>My iOS device has never once shown me "this website requires Chrome." Why would any PWA say that, if Safari had proper support for PWA? >Instead it's web developers, who are just annoyed that they have to actually respect the conventions of the platform they're building for. Say the developer is from a village in India or Nigeria who has just a Raspberry Pi to develop apps - •What if the developer didn't have thousands of dollars to invest in new equipments just to develop for iOS? •What if the developer wasn't able pay $99 every year for the Apple developer license? •What if the just didn't want to give 30% cut to Apple from the revenue each time? For all the times Apple uses 'Equality' in its marketing, the Apple platform & ecosystem restrictions clearly seems to be aimed at the privileged, pushing the agenda that 'Privileged is good' and 'Everyone should aim at being privileged'. Less empathetic would respond, 'Well that's not Apple's fault that they aren't privileged'; Well then, we have to go back into colonial imperialism & American capitalism to prove why they aren't privileged in the first place and why Apple holds a responsibility every time it uses 'Equality, Human etc.' in it's marketing; which would be digressing from the topic.
- millstone 6y ago
  > Why would any PWA say that, if Safari had proper support for PWA? For the same reason that far too many desktop websites say that today. > Say the developer is from a village in India or Nigeria who has just a Raspberry Pi to develop apps Apple is not catering to this developer demographic. > For all the times Apple uses 'Equality' in its marketing, the Apple platform & ecosystem restrictions clearly seems to be aimed at the privileged You're conflating developers with users. What fraction of iPhone users are writing apps? If you wanted to prioritize users, there's much tougher questions you could ask.