4 ms·

Now just put a usb-c port on the phone and allow me to use any web browser.

Spivak 4y ago
Web browsers, like communism, is a red herring. There would be absolutely no point to using alternative browser engines on an iPhone unless they got super special second party access. Not being able to run any downloaded code, no JIT, or extensions would make them useless, and allowing those things effectively breaks the iOS security model. Most obviously with screen time, and parental control, but Apple also disables their JIT in lockdown mode. I think the sanest compromise would be adopting Firefox, Chrome, and/or Edge as second party browsers. I guess we will see what happens in 2024 because I doubt it will be opening the floodgates.
- moffkalast 4y ago
  I don't understand how it's not possible to just sandbox all of that in iOS, like you would on desktop.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Web browsers could be given super special access or some other suitable sandbox. We know how to do it, even if it comes with some tradeoffs. Communism is a thought experiment about how people might organize if we ever achieved post-scarcity. We haven't yet figured out how to achieve post-scarcity. We have absolutely no idea how to do it, if it is possible at all. Quite different.
- postalrat 4y ago
  Apples own browser downloads code that can download more code that itself can download even more code before finally executing the last bit of code. The technology to secure it surely already exists or ios devices are already insecure.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    Apple's own code also implements all the security of the device. The mechanism Apple has to run arbitrary untrusted code on the device is their JavaScript engine. Whatever you want to replace JSC with, like V8, isn't the thing that's constrained by the sandbox, it's the thing that implements the sandbox. Everyone who's like "just sandbox it" -- yeah that's exactly what JSC is for.
    - postalrat 4y ago
      What protects an ios user from a malicious app? Just the agreement the app developer made with apple?
      - Spivak 4y ago
        Sorta kinda, iOS apps are jailed using all the normal stuff you might find in a hardened Linux distribution but there isn't a system in the whole wide world that is confident that these kinds of jails are sufficient to safely run arbitrary untrusted code. This is half the reason Firecracker exists on Linux because containerization just isn't enough. Hence why it's only allowed to run actually sandboxed in the JavaScript VM and even then the JIT makes it not airtight. This is how past Jailbreak exploits worked. Like we're talking about code running in a VM completely isolated from the host system but has one teeeeny tiny escape hatch, a single WX page used by the JIT and that has been exploited multiple times.
post_break 4y ago
Not just USB C, but USB C 3.1 or higher. If they put USB C 2.0 I'll rage.
- daxelrod 4y ago
  It would make sense for Apple to tout a replacement connector as being faster, so I'd imagine they would go above the USB 3.0 that Lightning is capable of.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  USB-C 3.2 2x2 gen 2 mode 7
skunkworker 4y ago
They should just do Thunderbolt 3 on the iPhone 15 and rename it the iPhone T1 (thunderbolt/titanium etc). With the way cameras are going and the use of iPad external docks, it would be a pretty great ultimate mobile device.
Gigachad 4y ago
Feels like the real reason to not allow alt browsers would be because it results in Chrome being the only browser anyone uses. Firefox is already effectively dead and Safari can't be ignored because having a website broken on safari means ios users can't use it, rather than being able to tell them to install chrome for the "best experience"
- bogwog 4y ago
  Pretending like there's a healthy market for browsers because one monopoly is standing in front of the other monopoly is not ideal. If Chrome finally gets that 90% market share, maybe regulators will finally start doing something. ...well, except for Edge which is a third monopoly in this equation forcing itself onto unsuspecting consumers. Even if it's still Chrome under the hood, that probably looks like "healthy competition" from the clueless people at the FTC.

Web browsers, like communism, is a red herring. There would be absolutely no point to using alternative browser engines on an iPhone unless they got super special second party access. Not being able to run any downloaded code, no JIT, or extensions would make them useless, and allowing those things effectively breaks the iOS security model. Most obviously with screen time, and parental control, but Apple also disables their JIT in lockdown mode. I think the sanest compromise would be adopting Firefox, Chrome, and/or Edge as second party browsers. I guess we will see what happens in 2024 because I doubt it will be opening the floodgates.

moffkalast 4y ago
I don't understand how it's not possible to just sandbox all of that in iOS, like you would on desktop.
randomdata 4y ago
Web browsers could be given super special access or some other suitable sandbox. We know how to do it, even if it comes with some tradeoffs. Communism is a thought experiment about how people might organize if we ever achieved post-scarcity. We haven't yet figured out how to achieve post-scarcity. We have absolutely no idea how to do it, if it is possible at all. Quite different.
postalrat 4y ago
Apples own browser downloads code that can download more code that itself can download even more code before finally executing the last bit of code. The technology to secure it surely already exists or ios devices are already insecure.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Apple's own code also implements all the security of the device. The mechanism Apple has to run arbitrary untrusted code on the device is their JavaScript engine. Whatever you want to replace JSC with, like V8, isn't the thing that's constrained by the sandbox, it's the thing that implements the sandbox. Everyone who's like "just sandbox it" -- yeah that's exactly what JSC is for.
  - postalrat 4y ago
    What protects an ios user from a malicious app? Just the agreement the app developer made with apple?
    - Spivak 4y ago
      Sorta kinda, iOS apps are jailed using all the normal stuff you might find in a hardened Linux distribution but there isn't a system in the whole wide world that is confident that these kinds of jails are sufficient to safely run arbitrary untrusted code. This is half the reason Firecracker exists on Linux because containerization just isn't enough. Hence why it's only allowed to run actually sandboxed in the JavaScript VM and even then the JIT makes it not airtight. This is how past Jailbreak exploits worked. Like we're talking about code running in a VM completely isolated from the host system but has one teeeeny tiny escape hatch, a single WX page used by the JIT and that has been exploited multiple times.

post_break 4y ago

Not just USB C, but USB C 3.1 or higher. If they put USB C 2.0 I'll rage.

daxelrod 4y ago
It would make sense for Apple to tout a replacement connector as being faster, so I'd imagine they would go above the USB 3.0 that Lightning is capable of.
Gigachad 4y ago
USB-C 3.2 2x2 gen 2 mode 7

skunkworker 4y ago

They should just do Thunderbolt 3 on the iPhone 15 and rename it the iPhone T1 (thunderbolt/titanium etc). With the way cameras are going and the use of iPad external docks, it would be a pretty great ultimate mobile device.

Gigachad 4y ago

Feels like the real reason to not allow alt browsers would be because it results in Chrome being the only browser anyone uses. Firefox is already effectively dead and Safari can't be ignored because having a website broken on safari means ios users can't use it, rather than being able to tell them to install chrome for the "best experience"

bogwog 4y ago
Pretending like there's a healthy market for browsers because one monopoly is standing in front of the other monopoly is not ideal. If Chrome finally gets that 90% market share, maybe regulators will finally start doing something. ...well, except for Edge which is a third monopoly in this equation forcing itself onto unsuspecting consumers. Even if it's still Chrome under the hood, that probably looks like "healthy competition" from the clueless people at the FTC.