8 ms·

It sure would be nice if Apple stopped forcing web browsers to be reskins of Safari, and allowed full implementations of 3rd party web browsers like Firefox and

It sure would be nice if Apple stopped forcing web browsers to be reskins of Safari, and allowed full implementations of 3rd party web browsers like Firefox and Chrome. Then we wouldn't have such a monoculture on iOS

mistrial9 4y ago
I think the idea is that another browser is a "good thing" as along as there is more than .. three? include non-English world-power languages for the full puzzle
sofixa 4y ago
And/or allow Safari to be updated independently from the OS. Chrome/Firefox/etc. and Android WebView are updatable as normal apps outside of the Android lifecycle, there's no excuse for Apple's self-imposed limitations here.
- Bud 4y ago
  1) Apple doesn't need an "excuse", it only needs a reason, and it has one 2) The reason is, they know that the moment they allow all the stuff you're talking about, we'll all be in the wild West again, with God knows what fucking version of Chrome being run, and it will be a nightmare to support, and a nightmare environment in which to protect privacy and security 3) Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way. We know it's this way and we're still buying iPhones instead of Android. What's annoying to me is that people like you, a lot of people, are still unable to summon any respect for the legitimacy of THAT choice. You can only think of the choice that YOU want.
  - v0idzer0 4y ago
    Yeah the people who think they want this really don’t want this. One of the biggest advantages of the iPhone over Android is the lack of version fragmentation. Not just in the OS but in the browser. It’s a better developer experience which leads to a better user experience.
  - Finnucane 4y ago
    I think you underestimate the number of iphone/ipad users who would switch browsers if there was a meaningful choice.
    - sgammon 4y ago
      I think you overestimate the number of iphone/ipad users who can point to the app that is their "browser"
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way. We know it's this way and we're still buying iPhones instead of Android. That's like saying that every voter in a democracy approves of every policy implemented by the politician they voted for (especially if they re-elect that politician). The world is not as simple as that, and I think the general term for this erroneous line of thinking is "the fallacy of division". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
    - Bud 4y ago
      No, it's not even close to that. I'm referring to one issue, obviously, and it's a fairly clear and major issue. The issue in question is also representative of larger and even more obvious issues regarding the inherent conflict between total user choice on one hand, and a degree of top-down OS control that keeps users in a walled garden but provides some protections, on the other.
      - v0idzer0 4y ago
        Users don’t know what they want. They don’t deserve to make every decision, because they’re often missing context or misinformed. For example, you think you want this, but as soon as you get it, you’ll want the opposite. Version fragmentation leads to bugs, security vulnerabilities and poor overall user experience which is all you’ll really get with this change. Perhaps you’d make that tradeoff for the illusion of freedom, but the vast majority would not and Apple has to consider all their customers.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way I'm pretty confident that you'll need to interview a lot of iphone users from the general population before finding one that even knows about browser implementation internals in iOS, let alone who cares enough to have voted with their wallet for this particular reason. So no, users have not voted conclusively for it to be that way.
    - Bud 4y ago
      Could we at least argue honestly? This isn't about "browser implementation internals". A lot of users are aware of the basic issue about browser choice in iOS. Granted, some are oblivious, but a lot know the basics of what is going on.
- charles_kaw 4y ago
  Something akin to this is coming in ios16.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    If you're talking about lockdown mode, that's a totally different feature from shipping browser updates independent of the OS. I think Apple fell down the design flaw that Microsoft went down of bundling the browser so tightly into the OS.
    - dustyharddrive 4y ago
    - charles_kaw 4y ago
      I am not talking about lockdown mode. I am talking about security updates.
      - zenexer 4y ago
        I’m on iOS 16 beta, but I have to do go through the full update process to receive security updates for Safari. What am I missing?
        charles_kaw 4y ago
        It's in beta, and they may not have built everything out; however, ios16 allows for small delta updates (rapid response) and has further packaged everything neatly. As ios16 isn't out yet, I don't expect the features to be functional. They may not even ship full functionality for the .0 release, although they have added small allusions and options here and there. They haven't talked about it much, although I expect we'll see a bigger announcement in the next few weeks.
Cyberdog 4y ago
On the other hand, allowing other web engines to run on the phone would increase the number of potential vectors for this sort of attack. I personally would prefer if I could make the choice to do this, but I can also see the issues with that from Apple's perspective.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- riquito 4y ago
  More web engines means less revenue for hack (more engines to spend time/money to research on, less victimes for engine). Keeping only one makes it much more attractive as a target
jdminhbg 4y ago
The Safari engine would still need to be embedded in the OS for things like web views, so it wouldn't really solve any problems.
- notsapiensatall 4y ago
  Android uses your default browser for webviews, and that works fine. It's not hardcoded to Chrome, and there's no reason it should be. With Firefox, your extensions like adblockers and NoScript also run in webviews.
  - sgammon 4y ago
    You mean to tell me, a developer, that the app I am building, my app, might be injected with user code which I do not have visibility into or control over (as a matter of definition)? And that one of those is an ad blocker which might (A) circumvent my source of revenue for a free app, and (B) arbitrarily decide to break my app too? Well why didn't you say so this sounds great
    - notsapiensatall 4y ago
      Well as a user, it helps to protect me against the tracking scripts which IG/TikTok/etc inject into their webviews. I bought my phone, I own it. I know that disabling JS breaks some things, but I don't want random fly-by-night app developers injecting code into my web browser. It is great.
      - iggldiggl 4y ago
        You are somewhat conflating Android's additional "custom tab" API and traditional webviews. To some extent both of them can be used for similar purposes (I need to display some web content in my app), but only the former allows the user to choose any arbitrary browser that supports that API [1], whereas the latter always uses an app-specfic browser profile and is always powered by Chrome/Blink. It's up to the app developer to choose which of the two implementations to use. [1] Though some apps still used to (or still do?) hard-code Chrome there.

mistrial9 4y ago

I think the idea is that another browser is a "good thing" as along as there is more than .. three? include non-English world-power languages for the full puzzle

sofixa 4y ago

And/or allow Safari to be updated independently from the OS. Chrome/Firefox/etc. and Android WebView are updatable as normal apps outside of the Android lifecycle, there's no excuse for Apple's self-imposed limitations here.

Bud 4y ago
1) Apple doesn't need an "excuse", it only needs a reason, and it has one 2) The reason is, they know that the moment they allow all the stuff you're talking about, we'll all be in the wild West again, with God knows what fucking version of Chrome being run, and it will be a nightmare to support, and a nightmare environment in which to protect privacy and security 3) Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way. We know it's this way and we're still buying iPhones instead of Android. What's annoying to me is that people like you, a lot of people, are still unable to summon any respect for the legitimacy of THAT choice. You can only think of the choice that YOU want.
- v0idzer0 4y ago
  Yeah the people who think they want this really don’t want this. One of the biggest advantages of the iPhone over Android is the lack of version fragmentation. Not just in the OS but in the browser. It’s a better developer experience which leads to a better user experience.
- Finnucane 4y ago
  I think you underestimate the number of iphone/ipad users who would switch browsers if there was a meaningful choice.
  - sgammon 4y ago
    I think you overestimate the number of iphone/ipad users who can point to the app that is their "browser"
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way. We know it's this way and we're still buying iPhones instead of Android. That's like saying that every voter in a democracy approves of every policy implemented by the politician they voted for (especially if they re-elect that politician). The world is not as simple as that, and I think the general term for this erroneous line of thinking is "the fallacy of division". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
  - Bud 4y ago
    No, it's not even close to that. I'm referring to one issue, obviously, and it's a fairly clear and major issue. The issue in question is also representative of larger and even more obvious issues regarding the inherent conflict between total user choice on one hand, and a degree of top-down OS control that keeps users in a walled garden but provides some protections, on the other.
    - v0idzer0 4y ago
      Users don’t know what they want. They don’t deserve to make every decision, because they’re often missing context or misinformed. For example, you think you want this, but as soon as you get it, you’ll want the opposite. Version fragmentation leads to bugs, security vulnerabilities and poor overall user experience which is all you’ll really get with this change. Perhaps you’d make that tradeoff for the illusion of freedom, but the vast majority would not and Apple has to consider all their customers.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Users have conclusively voted for it to be this way I'm pretty confident that you'll need to interview a lot of iphone users from the general population before finding one that even knows about browser implementation internals in iOS, let alone who cares enough to have voted with their wallet for this particular reason. So no, users have not voted conclusively for it to be that way.
  - Bud 4y ago
    Could we at least argue honestly? This isn't about "browser implementation internals". A lot of users are aware of the basic issue about browser choice in iOS. Granted, some are oblivious, but a lot know the basics of what is going on.
charles_kaw 4y ago
Something akin to this is coming in ios16.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  If you're talking about lockdown mode, that's a totally different feature from shipping browser updates independent of the OS. I think Apple fell down the design flaw that Microsoft went down of bundling the browser so tightly into the OS.
  - dustyharddrive 4y ago
  - charles_kaw 4y ago
    I am not talking about lockdown mode. I am talking about security updates.
    - zenexer 4y ago
      I’m on iOS 16 beta, but I have to do go through the full update process to receive security updates for Safari. What am I missing?
      - charles_kaw 4y ago
        It's in beta, and they may not have built everything out; however, ios16 allows for small delta updates (rapid response) and has further packaged everything neatly. As ios16 isn't out yet, I don't expect the features to be functional. They may not even ship full functionality for the .0 release, although they have added small allusions and options here and there. They haven't talked about it much, although I expect we'll see a bigger announcement in the next few weeks.

Cyberdog 4y ago

On the other hand, allowing other web engines to run on the phone would increase the number of potential vectors for this sort of attack. I personally would prefer if I could make the choice to do this, but I can also see the issues with that from Apple's perspective.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
riquito 4y ago
More web engines means less revenue for hack (more engines to spend time/money to research on, less victimes for engine). Keeping only one makes it much more attractive as a target

jdminhbg 4y ago

The Safari engine would still need to be embedded in the OS for things like web views, so it wouldn't really solve any problems.

notsapiensatall 4y ago
Android uses your default browser for webviews, and that works fine. It's not hardcoded to Chrome, and there's no reason it should be. With Firefox, your extensions like adblockers and NoScript also run in webviews.
- sgammon 4y ago
  You mean to tell me, a developer, that the app I am building, my app, might be injected with user code which I do not have visibility into or control over (as a matter of definition)? And that one of those is an ad blocker which might (A) circumvent my source of revenue for a free app, and (B) arbitrarily decide to break my app too? Well why didn't you say so this sounds great
  - notsapiensatall 4y ago
    Well as a user, it helps to protect me against the tracking scripts which IG/TikTok/etc inject into their webviews. I bought my phone, I own it. I know that disabling JS breaks some things, but I don't want random fly-by-night app developers injecting code into my web browser. It is great.
    - iggldiggl 4y ago
      You are somewhat conflating Android's additional "custom tab" API and traditional webviews. To some extent both of them can be used for similar purposes (I need to display some web content in my app), but only the former allows the user to choose any arbitrary browser that supports that API [1], whereas the latter always uses an app-specfic browser profile and is always powered by Chrome/Blink. It's up to the app developer to choose which of the two implementations to use. [1] Though some apps still used to (or still do?) hard-code Chrome there.