5 ms·

> You pay $1000 for a computer, and you are only allowed to install software on it that Apple says you are allowed to. For i-devices, yeah, true. > You can on

> You pay $1000 for a computer, and you are only allowed to install software on it that Apple says you are allowed to. For i-devices, yeah, true. > You can only pay for software on their own store. As nice as exposing the App store to more market effects might be, the app store monopoly enables them to force other companies to be less shitty on the platform (or else abandon it—but it's lucrative, so most don't), so it's a feature to me. I'd rather some of the behaviors they ban were simply illegal everywhere, but until then I like having the option to live the libertarian dream of paying for a private regulatory agency (Apple, that is). Beats having no option of that sort.

ASalazarMX 4y ago
That also enables unreasonable monopolistic behavior, like not allowing ANY browser besides Safari. Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? What about native ad blockers? Why not encourage privacy-friendly apps that don't collect data by lowering/waiving their fees?
- vbezhenar 4y ago
  Because everyone will use Chrome and websites will not support Safari. It happened with IE.
- lemonberry 4y ago
  "like not allowing ANY browser besides Safari" are you saying this is potentially an issue? Because I have Chrome and Firefox installed on my iPhone and MacBook Air. I also have DuckDuckGo's browser on my iPhone.
  - madars 4y ago
    Any browser on iPhone is just a skin for Mobile Safari. In particular, you can't install uBlock Origin/similar there. Every time I browse web on an iDevice I feel like I'm losing 20 IQ points.
  - teraflop 4y ago
    Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS except Webkit. Despite the branding, "Chrome for iOS" and "Firefox for iOS" are fundamentally different products than their Android or desktop counterparts. They're both just wrappers around the same bundled version of Webkit that Safari uses.
  - skissane 4y ago
    What the parent means to say, is not allowing any browser engine other than WebKit. Chrome, Firefox, Brave, etc, are just wrapping WebKit. The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter. (I wonder how it is implemented. I'm guessing that WebKit runs out-of-process, and that process has the JIT entitlement, whereas the host app process doesn't.)
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      > The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter. IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's. Having developed an app-building engine for Android in the days when some vendors shipped different engines to supply webview functionality (is that a thing? I actually don't know if they ever stopped) I can say I'm extremely in favor of this part of their policy. God that was a pain in the ass.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's. App Store guidelines say you have to use WebKit JavaScript for web browsing. I believe you are allowed to use third-party JavaScript for non-web-related purposes. That’s a rather small use case though. Also, we have to distinguish between App Store policy and technical constraints. If you are just running your own software (e.g. developer, adhoc distribution, enterprise distribution), you don’t need to care about the former only the later-lack of entitlements to JIT is still an issue for the later.
- dwaite 4y ago
  > Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? It isn't just a privacy argument. Browsers need security exceptions for full performance, such as compilation of Javascript/WebAssembly. The browsers may also not have enough process infrastructure to support their native sandboxing strategy on iOS. Someone can make arguments on whether Blink's rendering engine would have business motivation for an iOS port. However, the sandboxing and javascript differences were large motivating technical factors in Blink forking from WebKit in the first place.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? A few reasons for me, personally: 1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser. 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it. 3) From a big-picture perspective, Apple forcing Safari on iOS is the only reason the entire Web client space isn't completely dominated by Google and subject to that—omitting some words I might choose to describe them, for civility's sake—company's every whim (instead it's only mostly dominated by Google) 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. I have zero clue why I'd want another browser engine on my i-devices, and I've been doing this whole Web thing a while, long enough that I happily adopted and evangelized Firefox back when it was still called Phoenix—normal users have even less reason than I might. As in, I can't think of a single reason being able to install other browser engines would make my time using the devices better. Better battery life? LOL no, it'd be worse. Features I want? Nope, but several I actively do not want developers to even have as an option. I'd rather keep those capabilities away so developers can't start depending on them, so start forcing me to choose between using sites I want to use and avoiding things I don't think browsers should be able to do in the first place (I'm sad Safari's given up as much ground on this as they have, frankly, but again, it's only because of their i-device browser engine monopoly that they have any leverage at all here). 5) Meanwhile, this doesn't get in the way of my using the actually-important features of other browsers, they'll just have Safari's engine under the hood. Not a big deal, or even a small one (to me).
  - ohbtvz 4y ago
    > 1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences? > 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences? > 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?
fasthands9 4y ago
I'm pretty torn on all this. Obviously the 30% is exorbitant. But the positive effects from it are very hard to see once you are used to everything working.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Yeah, the 30% sucks and is one of many things I wish Apple'd do differently. But... where else am I gonna go? Ultimately, I really wish they had significant, competent competitors for the specific sort of thing they do. I like Apple because government has entirely failed to regulate absolutely horrible behavior by software vendors, so at least I can pay Apple to enforce some basic and largely no-brainer regulations instead, but I hate that the OS/platform market is so screwed-up that there's effectively no alternative that offers anything like what Apple does, and not just when it comes to defending against all-too-common bad actors.
- shagie 4y ago
  Most developers aren't paying 30%. From a bit ago: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... > The new App Store Small Business Program will benefit the vast majority of developers who sell digital goods and services on the store, providing them with a reduced commission on paid apps and in-app purchases. Developers can qualify for the program and a reduced, 15 percent commission if they earned up to $1 million in proceeds during the previous calendar year. --- If you are making more than $1M, then its 30%. If you are making less than $1M, its 15%. For subscriptions... https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-it-will-offer-app-store-subscriptions-take-smaller-15-cut https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-i... > Although the company's current 30 percent revenue cut will remain in most cases, once a customer maintains a subscription for over a year, that cut fall to 15 percent, giving developers a larger share of revenue for long-term subscribers, Schiller told The Verge. Subscriptions are also opening up to all kinds of apps, including games, instead of just categories like music services and magazines.
  - fasthands9 4y ago

ASalazarMX 4y ago

That also enables unreasonable monopolistic behavior, like not allowing ANY browser besides Safari. Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? What about native ad blockers? Why not encourage privacy-friendly apps that don't collect data by lowering/waiving their fees?

vbezhenar 4y ago
Because everyone will use Chrome and websites will not support Safari. It happened with IE.
lemonberry 4y ago
"like not allowing ANY browser besides Safari" are you saying this is potentially an issue? Because I have Chrome and Firefox installed on my iPhone and MacBook Air. I also have DuckDuckGo's browser on my iPhone.
- madars 4y ago
  Any browser on iPhone is just a skin for Mobile Safari. In particular, you can't install uBlock Origin/similar there. Every time I browse web on an iDevice I feel like I'm losing 20 IQ points.
- teraflop 4y ago
  Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS except Webkit. Despite the branding, "Chrome for iOS" and "Firefox for iOS" are fundamentally different products than their Android or desktop counterparts. They're both just wrappers around the same bundled version of Webkit that Safari uses.
- skissane 4y ago
  What the parent means to say, is not allowing any browser engine other than WebKit. Chrome, Firefox, Brave, etc, are just wrapping WebKit. The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter. (I wonder how it is implemented. I'm guessing that WebKit runs out-of-process, and that process has the JIT entitlement, whereas the host app process doesn't.)
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    > The big issue, as I understand it, is JIT. You can run any browser engine you like on iOS, but only WebKit (its JavaScriptCore component) is allowed to JIT JavaScript. Without JIT, the JavaScript performance will be bad; and considering the contemporary JavaScript-heavy nature of the web, that makes any alternative browser engine a non-starter. IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's. Having developed an app-building engine for Android in the days when some vendors shipped different engines to supply webview functionality (is that a thing? I actually don't know if they ever stopped) I can say I'm extremely in favor of this part of their policy. God that was a pain in the ass.
    - skissane 4y ago
      > IDK how it is now, but Apple used not to allow e.g. alternative Javascript engines in apps—you had to use Webkit's. App Store guidelines say you have to use WebKit JavaScript for web browsing. I believe you are allowed to use third-party JavaScript for non-web-related purposes. That’s a rather small use case though. Also, we have to distinguish between App Store policy and technical constraints. If you are just running your own software (e.g. developer, adhoc distribution, enterprise distribution), you don’t need to care about the former only the later-lack of entitlements to JIT is still an issue for the later.
dwaite 4y ago
> Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? It isn't just a privacy argument. Browsers need security exceptions for full performance, such as compilation of Javascript/WebAssembly. The browsers may also not have enough process infrastructure to support their native sandboxing strategy on iOS. Someone can make arguments on whether Blink's rendering engine would have business motivation for an iOS port. However, the sandboxing and javascript differences were large motivating technical factors in Blink forking from WebKit in the first place.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> Why not allow alternative browser engines that follow strict privacy practices? A few reasons for me, personally: 1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser. 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it. 3) From a big-picture perspective, Apple forcing Safari on iOS is the only reason the entire Web client space isn't completely dominated by Google and subject to that—omitting some words I might choose to describe them, for civility's sake—company's every whim (instead it's only mostly dominated by Google) 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. I have zero clue why I'd want another browser engine on my i-devices, and I've been doing this whole Web thing a while, long enough that I happily adopted and evangelized Firefox back when it was still called Phoenix—normal users have even less reason than I might. As in, I can't think of a single reason being able to install other browser engines would make my time using the devices better. Better battery life? LOL no, it'd be worse. Features I want? Nope, but several I actively do not want developers to even have as an option. I'd rather keep those capabilities away so developers can't start depending on them, so start forcing me to choose between using sites I want to use and avoiding things I don't think browsers should be able to do in the first place (I'm sad Safari's given up as much ground on this as they have, frankly, but again, it's only because of their i-device browser engine monopoly that they have any leverage at all here). 5) Meanwhile, this doesn't get in the way of my using the actually-important features of other browsers, they'll just have Safari's engine under the hood. Not a big deal, or even a small one (to me).
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  > 1) I like the consistency of all web pages being rendered by the same engine and having access to similar capabilities, no matter if it's a web-view inside an app, or in a browser. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences? > 2) Safari's a pretty great default for mobile devices, so I don't feel like I'm losing out by being "stuck" with it. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences? > 4) Conveniently for me, I also happen to have no interest in having other browser engines on my phone or tablets, since this one's pretty good, and in some ways best-available, anyway. Then use Safari and don't install another browser. Why should other people be prevented from installing other browsers based on your preferences?

fasthands9 4y ago

I'm pretty torn on all this. Obviously the 30% is exorbitant. But the positive effects from it are very hard to see once you are used to everything working.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Yeah, the 30% sucks and is one of many things I wish Apple'd do differently. But... where else am I gonna go? Ultimately, I really wish they had significant, competent competitors for the specific sort of thing they do. I like Apple because government has entirely failed to regulate absolutely horrible behavior by software vendors, so at least I can pay Apple to enforce some basic and largely no-brainer regulations instead, but I hate that the OS/platform market is so screwed-up that there's effectively no alternative that offers anything like what Apple does, and not just when it comes to defending against all-too-common bad actors.
shagie 4y ago
Most developers aren't paying 30%. From a bit ago: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-store-small-business-program/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/11/apple-announces-app-s... > The new App Store Small Business Program will benefit the vast majority of developers who sell digital goods and services on the store, providing them with a reduced commission on paid apps and in-app purchases. Developers can qualify for the program and a reduced, 15 percent commission if they earned up to $1 million in proceeds during the previous calendar year. --- If you are making more than $1M, then its 30%. If you are making less than $1M, its 15%. For subscriptions... https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-it-will-offer-app-store-subscriptions-take-smaller-15-cut https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/06/08/apple-announces-i... > Although the company's current 30 percent revenue cut will remain in most cases, once a customer maintains a subscription for over a year, that cut fall to 15 percent, giving developers a larger share of revenue for long-term subscribers, Schiller told The Verge. Subscriptions are also opening up to all kinds of apps, including games, instead of just categories like music services and magazines.
- fasthands9 4y ago