5 ms·

I’m not sure why browsers are treated differently than other pieces of software. Operating systems ship a bundled calculator, text editor, email software, basic

I’m not sure why browsers are treated differently than other pieces of software. Operating systems ship a bundled calculator, text editor, email software, basic rich text editing, photo viewer, pdf viewer, etc. All of these are used much more than their quality would indicate simply because they are installed by default. Should an OS be required to interview the user on install for what their preferred choice of all of these products are?

vlunkr 4y ago
Well, you can install a different calculator. On iOS, you can install a different "browser," but under the hood they all have to be safari.
- bskan 4y ago
  And the user doesn’t even notice.
- tgv 4y ago
  What's the problem? The only people that complain about it are some web devs and companies that would love to get their grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope data.
  - magicalist 4y ago
    > What's the problem? If you're not asking rhetorically, that's one of the primary subjects of this report.
    - tgv 4y ago
      I've read the first 25 pages or so, and the question is not answered there. One takeaway that is important, IMO, is this one: > Without browser diversity, a single company’s influence can shape the internet. That would be a problem if iOS accounts for a large majority of all http traffic. That, however, is not the case. If there's one platform that accounts for the large majority of http traffic, it is Chrome. It's estimated market share is 65%. Its derivates take 10% more. Allowing Chrome on iOS will slowly but surely obliterate Safari. Firefox' market share is a joke to begin with (and I say this as a lifelong Firefox user; I even use Firefox on iOS). Browser diversity ends when Chrome arrives on iOS, and it would end the limited privacy we have on iOS, unless Apple would really tighten the rules.
  - afavour 4y ago
    > The only people that complain about it are some web devs and companies that would love to get their grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope data. Why would allowing more browser engines have even the slightest impact on that? Those are APIs available to all native apps they have literally nothing to do with underlying browser engines.
    - altairprime 4y ago
      Native apps go through App Store review, and can be permanently banned for misuse for tracking purposes without express user consent. Allowing more browser engines would require granting those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order for them to display per-site permission dialogs. This problem is unique to browser engines and no other kind of app, as browser engines are uniquely the only kind of app that needs this sort of permissions-granting per-site passthrough. Apple likely does not consider it interesting or relevant to their users to invest in validating the security models of third-party browser engines for their adherence to App Store standards, nor in providing a public API for third party engines to do so, and so closes off the entire problem space by refusing third-party engines altogether.
      - afavour 4y ago
        > Allowing more browser engines would require granting those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order for them to display per-site permission dialogs. ...a process which could be reviewed as part of the App Store review process. There isn't really any difference here. If your app reads gyroscope data App Store review will (theoretically!) make sure you're not doing anything nefarious with it. They could just as easily verify whether a browser passes data through correctly.
        altairprime 4y ago
        Correct: they are not doing something that is possible to do. What benefits to their users result from that choice? (I’m aware of what drawbacks result from it, but that’s been explained to death in a thousand replies in a hundred posts about this already, so no need to derail into them here.)
  - Beached 4y ago
    I complain about it as a user, and I take my money to android (reluctantly) as a result. I would love to run apple hardware for my phone, but their over the top control over the whole closed wall ecosystem is why I don't.
    - tgv 4y ago
      Good for you, but it doesn't tell me why allowing only a single HTML rendering engine on iOS is a problem.
neogodless 4y ago
That's a bit of a false dichotomy don't you think? You're looking at one extreme where the OS must hold the user's hand to get them to install alternatives. But that's not what users deserve. They just deserve to have the ability to choose to install what they want, rather than it being blocked, or deceptively hidden. See this from the article: > Operating systems regularly design their systems to undermine rather than facilitate consumer choice: they can make it difficult to change default settings; they can make it hard to install new browsers; they can deploy nudges and deceptive messaging to push consumers to their own products.
smoldesu 4y ago
This is a good example. If Apple treated their bundled calculators, text editors, email software, photo viewers and PDF viewers like they treated their browser, nobody would use MacOS.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  One of us is clearly confused. As far as I can tell, Apple does treat those bundled apps on MacOS exactly as they treat Safari. Any can be replaced, but all are good enough that most people don't bother. The most likely to be replaced is probably Safari (with Chrome). Are you perhaps thinking of iOS? Or are you trying to make some point I'm missing?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    The point I'm making is that if they treated their professionals the same way they treat iOS users, their professionals would no longer work with them.
    - adolph 4y ago
      > if they treated their professionals the same way they treat iOS users They seem to treat "professionals" and "users" the same in iOS. Maybe there is a counterfactual world where Apple does even better by treating "professionals" differently? If anything people, "professionals" or not, have long pulled iOS into enterprise contexts despite lagging and lackluster IT management support and Apple coop with corp IT.
      - Beached 4y ago
        he means if apple did the same garbo on osx, people would leave. if you couldn't install cs suite or final cut or whatever, because apple comes with its own default stuff, no one would use osx. I can't install my own browsers, my own antivirus, my own file explorer, my own shell, or my own applications in iOS as I see fit. but they do allow this on osx.
wtetzner 4y ago
It's not about bundling software with the OS, but _preventing other pieces of software from being installed_. iOS disallows alternative browser engines. When you install Chrome or Firefox on iOS, it's just a wrapper around the Safari browser engine.

vlunkr 4y ago

Well, you can install a different calculator. On iOS, you can install a different "browser," but under the hood they all have to be safari.

bskan 4y ago
And the user doesn’t even notice.
tgv 4y ago
What's the problem? The only people that complain about it are some web devs and companies that would love to get their grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope data.
- magicalist 4y ago
  > What's the problem? If you're not asking rhetorically, that's one of the primary subjects of this report.
  - tgv 4y ago
    I've read the first 25 pages or so, and the question is not answered there. One takeaway that is important, IMO, is this one: > Without browser diversity, a single company’s influence can shape the internet. That would be a problem if iOS accounts for a large majority of all http traffic. That, however, is not the case. If there's one platform that accounts for the large majority of http traffic, it is Chrome. It's estimated market share is 65%. Its derivates take 10% more. Allowing Chrome on iOS will slowly but surely obliterate Safari. Firefox' market share is a joke to begin with (and I say this as a lifelong Firefox user; I even use Firefox on iOS). Browser diversity ends when Chrome arrives on iOS, and it would end the limited privacy we have on iOS, unless Apple would really tighten the rules.
- afavour 4y ago
  > The only people that complain about it are some web devs and companies that would love to get their grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope data. Why would allowing more browser engines have even the slightest impact on that? Those are APIs available to all native apps they have literally nothing to do with underlying browser engines.
  - altairprime 4y ago
    Native apps go through App Store review, and can be permanently banned for misuse for tracking purposes without express user consent. Allowing more browser engines would require granting those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order for them to display per-site permission dialogs. This problem is unique to browser engines and no other kind of app, as browser engines are uniquely the only kind of app that needs this sort of permissions-granting per-site passthrough. Apple likely does not consider it interesting or relevant to their users to invest in validating the security models of third-party browser engines for their adherence to App Store standards, nor in providing a public API for third party engines to do so, and so closes off the entire problem space by refusing third-party engines altogether.
    - afavour 4y ago
      > Allowing more browser engines would require granting those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order for them to display per-site permission dialogs. ...a process which could be reviewed as part of the App Store review process. There isn't really any difference here. If your app reads gyroscope data App Store review will (theoretically!) make sure you're not doing anything nefarious with it. They could just as easily verify whether a browser passes data through correctly.
      - altairprime 4y ago
        Correct: they are not doing something that is possible to do. What benefits to their users result from that choice? (I’m aware of what drawbacks result from it, but that’s been explained to death in a thousand replies in a hundred posts about this already, so no need to derail into them here.)
- Beached 4y ago
  I complain about it as a user, and I take my money to android (reluctantly) as a result. I would love to run apple hardware for my phone, but their over the top control over the whole closed wall ecosystem is why I don't.
  - tgv 4y ago
    Good for you, but it doesn't tell me why allowing only a single HTML rendering engine on iOS is a problem.

neogodless 4y ago

That's a bit of a false dichotomy don't you think? You're looking at one extreme where the OS must hold the user's hand to get them to install alternatives. But that's not what users deserve. They just deserve to have the ability to choose to install what they want, rather than it being blocked, or deceptively hidden. See this from the article: > Operating systems regularly design their systems to undermine rather than facilitate consumer choice: they can make it difficult to change default settings; they can make it hard to install new browsers; they can deploy nudges and deceptive messaging to push consumers to their own products.

smoldesu 4y ago

This is a good example. If Apple treated their bundled calculators, text editors, email software, photo viewers and PDF viewers like they treated their browser, nobody would use MacOS.

pwinnski 4y ago
One of us is clearly confused. As far as I can tell, Apple does treat those bundled apps on MacOS exactly as they treat Safari. Any can be replaced, but all are good enough that most people don't bother. The most likely to be replaced is probably Safari (with Chrome). Are you perhaps thinking of iOS? Or are you trying to make some point I'm missing?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  The point I'm making is that if they treated their professionals the same way they treat iOS users, their professionals would no longer work with them.
  - adolph 4y ago
    > if they treated their professionals the same way they treat iOS users They seem to treat "professionals" and "users" the same in iOS. Maybe there is a counterfactual world where Apple does even better by treating "professionals" differently? If anything people, "professionals" or not, have long pulled iOS into enterprise contexts despite lagging and lackluster IT management support and Apple coop with corp IT.
    - Beached 4y ago
      he means if apple did the same garbo on osx, people would leave. if you couldn't install cs suite or final cut or whatever, because apple comes with its own default stuff, no one would use osx. I can't install my own browsers, my own antivirus, my own file explorer, my own shell, or my own applications in iOS as I see fit. but they do allow this on osx.

wtetzner 4y ago

It's not about bundling software with the OS, but _preventing other pieces of software from being installed_. iOS disallows alternative browser engines. When you install Chrome or Firefox on iOS, it's just a wrapper around the Safari browser engine.