4 ms·

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.

by vlunkr 4y ago

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.)
        afavour 4y ago
        One benefit that immediately comes to mind is the ability to protect yourself against a major security flaw in Safari: https://safarileaks.com/ https://safarileaks.com/ Apple did issue a fix after a few weeks but with no alternative browser engines the only alternative was “don’t use the web on your iPhone”, which is absurd. Other user benefits might include better performance, more capabilities (it took Apple years to implement WebRTC, for example) and in general more competition that might spur Safari into becoming a better browser.
- 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.

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.

by 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.)
      - afavour 4y ago
        One benefit that immediately comes to mind is the ability to protect yourself against a major security flaw in Safari: https://safarileaks.com/ https://safarileaks.com/ Apple did issue a fix after a few weeks but with no alternative browser engines the only alternative was “don’t use the web on your iPhone”, which is absurd. Other user benefits might include better performance, more capabilities (it took Apple years to implement WebRTC, for example) and in general more competition that might spur Safari into becoming a better browser.
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.