3 ms·

It's the usual HN bias where if Google does something it's bad, but when Apple does it it's suddenly okay.

• ntauthority 4y ago
  With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before. Compare 'some ad blocking' to 'no ad blocking at all' - you go from 100% of ads being shown to maybe 5-10% (and a lot of broken sites due to less advanced rules). Still not the ~0% people are used to on an open platform, but the iOS default was worse.
  • lapcat 4y ago
    > With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before. Incorrect. uBlock Origin previously existed for Safari, but Safari version 13 removed support for the old safariextz format and the Safari Extension Gallery.
  • kouteiheika 4y ago
    > With Chrome, it's taking away. With Safari extensions, it's adding functionality that didn't exist before. Except on PC and Android you have the choice of either a) using something else (e.g. Firefox) or b) revert the changes you don't like, compile your own Chromium and use it. Apple doesn't give you any choice on iOS, it's either their way or highway. Apple is not the savior here. Yes, Google doesn't act in the best interest of the open web, but if Apple was in charge there'd be no open web in the first place.
• liminvorous 4y ago
  I mean I basically want Apple to do this to any proprietary software and untrustworthy free software, I just want to be able to make an exception for trustworthy free software. Given what I use my phone for I’m happy enough with the current compromise, so long as I have access to a general purpose computer. Even if Apple allows other browser engines I think they should still ban Chrome.