21 ms·

Apple considering dropping requirement for iPhone web browsers to use WebKit

411 points by alwillis 4y ago

nickthegreek 4y ago
This would be great. I don't want to install another app store or sideload much if that big change comes next year as I am a fan of the walled garden. My one worry was web browsing as I would prefer a firefox/ublock setup on my iphone.
- ouid 4y ago
  >"I am a fan of the walled garden". How on earth does this jibe with the rest of your comment? You immediately assert a fear that the removal of the walled garden would prevent you from doing a thing that the walled garden explicitly prevents.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    I trust Apple to do a decent job at protecting me (and more importantly, my less tech minded friends) more than a 3rd party app store. I dont mind using webkit, but I do recognize that its a shit move by Apple to not allow other rendering engines in the store. Just not a shitty enough for me to go F-Droid and micromanage my phone. I will not install a 3rd party app store if Apple allowed it I would sideload a browser from an official repository. But if apple loosened the webkit restriction, I could get my preferred browser without sideloading or using 3rd party appstore. Does that clear up any confusion?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      You don't even need a third-party app to get a virus on iPhone. As long as you're signed in with your Apple ID, you're vulnerable to Pegasus and a number of other decoder-based payloads that can crash, manipulate or create an entire VM inside your iPhone. Worrying about the contents of an Open-Source binary is small-fries, my friend.
      - nickthegreek 4y ago
        Guess we should just all throw away our phones then...
        smoldesu 4y ago
        Alternatively, just have realistic expectations of the devices you own. Everything you have is vulnerable to exploits and social engineering. Apple can't save you from that any more than Google, Microsoft, or even the Open Source community can. Apple pretending that they're poised to solve these problems is an illusion, and one you probably shouldn't argue in favor of.
        nickthegreek 4y ago
        What strawman are you fighting? What expectation did I say that isn't realistic? I did not state that I was against Apple allowing 3rd party appstores or against sideloading. I said that I prefer to use the offical app store, and I am happy that Apple is loosening the restrictions around 3rd party browser engines as I did not agree with it. Maybe I am misinterpreting your argument? I feel like you stated that since state actors can hack my phone, I should stop worrying about security. The appstore limited Facebooks ability to collect information on me. This is a fact.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I object to the line > I trust Apple to do a decent job at protecting me [...] more than a 3rd party app store. Arguing over App Store security borders on hypocrisy when there are gaping-wide exploits in the default iOS ecosystem. Also, this bit: > more importantly, my less tech minded friends If your friends can't be trusted to use the internet without direct supervision, maybe they shouldn't have access to Safari, YouTube, Twitter or an iPhone either. It's a hard argument to strongman when the iPhone has a web browser packed in.
  - tarboreus 4y ago
    - matthewmacleod 4y ago
      I wish people were better at understanding how comments like this make them come across. Like… it’s never feasible that people just disagree with you. It’s that they’ve been hoodwinked, brainwashed, or hypnotised.
      - tarboreus 4y ago
        pessimizer 4y ago
        There's nothing wrong with liking Apple's app store. I don't use Apple products, have never willingly used Apple products, and will not be using Apple products in the future, but this is crossing into Apple derangement syndrome. I just don't want Apple purchasers to be trapped in a manipulative relationship with the company for the life of the product, and I want developers to have alternative ways of reaching the customers who want their products. I'm not interested in making Apple users do anything they don't want to do, and I don't understand what you get out of insulting the people who enjoy the way Apple runs things. Is your sole aim to make Apple users defensive of the company? Because that's all this sort of talk is achieving.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      How am I hypnotized? I'm not even arguing against 3rd party app stores right to exist, nor am I arguing against the ability to sideload. Is it impossible to believe that some people want to able to go into a curated store of items and not a free for all where shady individuals could take advantage of people? I'll let you know right now that there is ZERO reason for my mother to install a 3rd party app store. And I believe that to be true for the majority of users.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Consider Kagi Orion browser with Ublock Origin on iOS today: https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/ Or, consider 1Blocker for Safari (or Adblock Pro for Safari, DNS, and network blocking).
jacooper 4y ago
Wow, who would've thought regulatory pressure would do so much /s.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  A great number of apologists and hand-wringers, that's who. Now we're here.
dljsjr 4y ago
I love Apple but I also know that in these situations where they're being forced to punch a whole in their walled garden that they'll usually just go about making the solution as shitty to use as possible. They might let other engines in, sure; but will they relax the restriction on their memory mapping entitlements to allow for optimizing JITs? Doubt it. Means you'll only be able to use alternative rendering engines that have JS interpreters with no optimizing JIT. Stuff like that.
- ouid 4y ago
  - dljsjr 4y ago
    Okay, "I love Apple Products" then. I certainly don't love any corporations.
    - ouid 4y ago
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        Your ability to interpret the original intent of OPs comms is inherently limited. Keep that in mind.
  - gxs 4y ago
    I think this is over analyzing OPs comment. Similar to how people say "I hate so and so" in sports - there's no actual hatred or ill will towards the person (although there are some nutcases out there that mean it), it's just easier than making up some new vocabulary to describe or to preamble everything with padding. As the Sports Guy said, there's sports hate and regular hate. It does dawn on me the possibility that I'm also over analyzing your comment :)
- ratg13 4y ago
  If it means that I can stop accidentally swiping left and right on webpages, and leaving web pages where I have entered text without prompting me, it’s unfortunately a solid trade off.
roody15 4y ago
Looks like they are trying to stay ahead of incoming EU action.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  I disagree. The EU is already forcing them through the DMA and the writing was on the wall the second alternative app stores were even an option. If Google wasn't going to get Chrome into the app store, they'd get it into Google Play for iOS. Staying ahead of EU action would've involved appeasing the antitrust worries when the DMA was still taking shape. Google has done so in small ways by redesigning Android's package installer APIs to make alternative app stores more feasible. Of course there are no popular app stores outside of open source and piracy circles because there's usually little to gain in using them on Android. Amazon's app store is available as a normal download, though I don't think they've marketed that enough for it to be any kind of success.
Gareth321 4y ago
One by one, the rumours indicate that Apple will be complying with each and every requirement under the EU Digital Markets Act. These include: * Install any software * Install any App Store and choose to make it default * Use third party payment providers and choose to make them default * Use any voice assistant and choose to make it default * Use any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default * Use any messaging app and choose to make it default * Make core messaging functionality interoperable. They lay out concrete examples like file transfer * Use existing hardware and software features without competitive prejudice. E.g. NFC * Not preference their services. This includes CTAs in settings to encourage users to subscribe to Gatekeeper services, and ranking their own services above others in selection and advertising portals
- likeabbas 4y ago
  What about any music player? I want Spotify to be the default, dammit.
  - shellac 4y ago
    I only see the Apple Music app when I open it explicitly. Are there situations where a 'default' music app might appear?
    - RockRobotRock 4y ago
      Asking Siri to play music on Spotify without having to say "on Spotify" every time.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - entropicdrifter 4y ago
        Yeah, Google Assistant lets you set a default music player or if you already have one open it'll try to use that one by default
Permik 4y ago
This policy change is actually just a direct consequence of the upcoming 2024 EU law that forces Apple to allow third party app stores for iOS devices. Because Apple can't control what applications get uploaded to the third party stores, like browsers that use a different web engine, then they try to lax the rules in their own store to desperately keep developers from jumping the ship.
- sidlls 4y ago
  The kind of developers who’d “jump ship”, especially for developing web apps, make the kinds of apps that I want to avoid anyway. Third party app stores will be a cesspool of malware and garbage, like they are on Android now.
  - koshergweilo 4y ago
    I don't understand, what's wrong with fdroid? Have you ever used Cydia?
    - least 4y ago
      F-Droid is an odd one. The apps aren't malware but in my experience most of the apps on it are pretty low quality in at least one area (especially in user interface and experience), but that's a problem prevalent in FOSS in general, not just F-Droid. I'd say the Google Play store is the one actually full of awful software a lot of which is actually malware. Part of this can be attributed to Google's loose requirements and the other perhaps Android's security model in general is too permissive. It's very easy to fuck up your Android phone in a way that you simply can't on iOS. I'm not terribly concerned about it since I think a lot of it comes down to how iOS and Android are designed, but it's not not a concern.
  - tick_tock_tick 4y ago
    > The kind of developers who’d “jump ship”, especially for developing web apps It would be to allow you to install chrome or firefox on your iPhone.
- 4y ago
mrpippy 4y ago
I don't fundamentally have a problem with Chrome or Firefox on iOS being able to use their own engine. They're responsible, competent organizations who will regularly update and maintain their browsers. What worries me is every app that's not a dedicated browser suddenly including an entire browser engine (the way that every app on macOS/Windows now does). Apps will import one version of Chromium and then not update it for *years*, long past the point where it contains security holes and lacks support for new platform features. Steam on Win/Mac/Linux is still using Chromium 85! That's 2 years old, and it's a piece of software under active development. I know of an actively-developed Windows game using CEF 3!! In other words: do you want your favorite bank/airline/restaurant/government agency's app to be 100+ MB bigger and contain a growing number of vulnerabilities? I don't, and neither does Apple. If this goes ahead, I hope the App Store rules around it are thorough. Shipping a browser is a huge responsibility, one that most organizations are not prepared for.
- 0x0 4y ago
  And then people are going to complain about not getting JIT access is unfair advantage to safari, but then if they do get a JIT entitlement they are going to slack on patching vulnerabilities...
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  The solution to this is simple, Apple needs to make their browser usable enough that people don't go to extremes such as packaging entire browsers with their code. In many cases Safari's Javascript engine will even beat Chromium's engine. Android allows any browser engine you like (even Webkit if someone would manage to compile it) and people don't generally do nonsense this on Android. I don't see why the situation would be any different here. The reason is simple: the web view API is easy to use, automatically updated, and backwards compatible. As another benefit, devices that have fallen out of support may receive updates for browsers, making them usable again.
  - plastiquebeech 4y ago
    Developers will package browsers in their code as a way to spy on users with fewer restrictions, not because Safari is unusable. That being said, I returned my first and last iPhone after realizing that Firefox on iOS couldn't run the NoScript extension. It is frankly shocking that Apple has managed to go this long while blatantly contravening the precedent set by United States v. Microsoft Corp., and I'm glad the EU is finally taking a stand on that front.
Synaesthesia 4y ago
It would be really nice to get proper Firefox browser on iPhone/iPad. I like it a lot on Android.
acdha 4y ago
I have really mixed feelings about this. From an open source and general fairness perspective, I would really like to have a true Firefox on iOS but I'm also cognizant of the fact that iOS' browser restriction is basically the only reason why “web” is not a synonym for “whatever the Google Chrome team chooses to ship”. It feels like this would be best if paired with some regulatory pressure banning cross-promotion of Chrome on Google properties and requiring Google to actually do QA rather than accidentally breaking YouTube, Gmail, Google Cloud, etc. for users other browsers. For all of the “Safari is the new IE6” memes posted, I have far more frequently encountered cases where a Google web application is doing something which only works in Chrome but there is no technical why it could not work just as well in any other modern browser engine.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Well, two wrongs didn't make this a right. If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > Well, two wrongs didn't make this a right. That was basically my point? > If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again. Since this is behaviour Google is already doing and has been doing for a decade, it seems like the EU could just skip to the part of actually doing something.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      > Since this is behaviour Google is already doing How so? There are a number of features Apple dragged their feet on (WebRTC, push notifications, WebM support, AV1, the list goes on), it could be argued that Apple was intentionally stifling the capabilities of the browser to enforce the profitability of the App Store. I understand your concern, but Apple's failure to compete with Google is not Google's fault. Apple had a chance to make a browser that Chrome users switched to, but they didn't. Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined. Regulators can't see into the future. Thus-far, Chrome's behavior might be frustrating but totally fair game relative to the way Apple plays. Once Safari is competing on it's own merits, we'll see how things go and respond accordingly. If it's anything like the App Store, it'll take us ~8 years to observe the abuse and respond effectively.
ramesh31 4y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. This would be suicide for Safari as a relevant platform.
- clownabsuer 4y ago
  Or, Apple could actually invest in Safari to make it better than the competition, instead of artificially making it the best browser on iThings. As one of the founder members of Open Web Advocacy (the group who have been briefing UK, EU, Japanese and Australian regulators) wrote, "But let’s set out aspirations higher. Imagine a fantastic Safari on iOS, Mac, Android, Windows and Linux, giving Chrome a run for its money. If anyone can take on Google, Apple can. It has talented WebKit engineers, excellent Standards experts, a colossal marketing budget, and great brand recognition. If Apple allowed Safari to actually compete, it would be better for web developers, businesses, consumers, and for the health of the web. Come on, Apple, set Safari free!" https://brucelawson.co.uk/2021/set-safari-free/ https://brucelawson.co.uk/2021/set-safari-free/
  - ZekeSulastin 4y ago
    I thought a large part of the Chromium argument is that Google et al would be able to just put “use Chrome” banners on their site and provide a worse experience for other browsers.
ecshafer 4y ago
Not being able to use firefox + ublock origin is the only negative of ios I have after moving from Android. That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also.
- Terretta 4y ago
  You can use Kagi Orion browser with Ublock Origin on iOS today. https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/
  - gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
    Really like Kagi and their web browser but I can't justify the price relative to my location (I'm pretty sure it's reasonable on the US/West cost of living scale).
- bioemerl 4y ago
  > That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also. Yep. Android decided to compete with apple. They're almost entirely worse at it and by competing by turning off all the features the once had they've just become a worse phone alternative that's cheaper and also lets you install custom apps. Apple allows custom apps and apps stores and that's the death of Android as far as I'm concerned.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > > That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also. There are plenty of Android smartphones, including from major manufacturers, that have 3.5mm jacks; they tend to not be flagships, because that’s not where the demand for them is, but they aren’t hard to find. > Android decided to compete with apple. “Android” is a large number of different manufacturers, many of which individually produce many more smartphone models targeting different market segments than Apple. > They're almost entirely worse at it and by competing by turning off all the features the once had they've just become a worse phone alternative that's cheaper and also lets you install custom apps I’ve never regreted leaving the iPhone ecosystem for Android, and I’ve pretty consistently been buying Samsung flagships, which aren’t particularly cheaper than Apple. And sideloading or using alternate app stores isn’t a huge part of that, though its nice to have the option.
taylorius 4y ago
I'm not used to cheering on the EU - but if Chrome is no longer restricted to Webkit, they could enable WebXR integration - which would be jolly nice.
freediver 4y ago
Even if the WebKit requirement is lifted, it is likely that it will take months if not years for any Blink/Gecko browsers to show up on iOS/iPadOS after the lift. The reason is the sheer complexity of building for a mobile OS with very deep native integrations, that was out of their reach for a decade. More likely scenario is that we will see browsers using forked versions of WebKit running to enable more features (yes that would make uBlock Origin possible on iOS for example).
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Is there really such a big difference between iOS and macOS? Sure, there are APIs that the browser can't access (or, rather, shouldn't access according to Apple) that are usable on macOS, but my understanding is that large swathes of the API is kept relatively compatible. Also remember that Chromium was WebKit based way back when, the Android API for the chromium web view still uses WebKit terminology as a result. If Google were to open a Google Play Store for iOS and put Chrome in there, I'd expect building the basic browser to take less than a month. The UI framework and designs are all there from their current Webkit version. Same with Firefox, though Mozilla has significantly fewer resources available.
  - freediver 4y ago
    I'd say yes there is especially if you are trying to optimize for low-level, close to hardware features, like rendering performance and battery life, both crucial on a phone. No browsing engine comes close to WebKit for those even on macOS. My best guess is that it would take a few years on iOS (at least) to get to the current difference that Blink/Geck have to WebKit on macOS, which is already considerable in favor to WebKit to begin with, despite being able to develop for this platform for decades.
- clownabsuer 4y ago
  "it is likely that it will take months if not years for any Blink/Gecko browsers to show up on iOS/iPadOS after the lift." Mozilla demoed a Gecko browser on a jailbroken iPhone. They've done the work once. The combined heft of Google, Samsung and Microsoft could surely get Chrome running on iOS, given that Chrome was originally a fork of WebKit.
nabla9 4y ago
That and allowing side-loading and other app stores happens because... EU does its job.
mullingitover 4y ago
Looking forward to people installing a third party browser from a third party app store, loading it up with random malware-infested plugins, and then complaining that iPhones are slow. This was the thing that sank OG Firefox before Chrome came along. There was a plethora of garbage browser plugins everyone installed, and it tanked performance. Chrome wasn't that much faster than FF, but on a fresh install and without any plugins it seemed screaming fast.
- sureglymop 4y ago
  Serious question... why do you care about users doing that? As long as you yourself can avoid that, what's the issue? I, on the other hand want to be able to install my own applications on my phone without having to buy an apple developer license or having them signed by apple. After all it is my phone...
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    I personally care because I think it'll make the system less secure, which is something I've been able to take for granted. iOS security wasn't perfect, but it was pretty decent and I think this is opening pandora's box. > After all it is my phone... It's not your platform, though, and writing your own apps doesn't happen in a vacuum, they work by integrating with Apple's OS that they pour oceans of money into developing and maintaining. It's not a general purpose computing device and it was never advertised as such. I get it though, it is your hardware. I think the way to go about this, since it's your hardware, is to allow users to opt to do a complete wipe of the device, get their own OS, write their own drivers, and use the hardware for whatever they wish with the understanding that they're completely on their own.
themadturk 4y ago
I don't dislike Safari at all. I just like Firefox more.
navs 4y ago
This better not lead to any “best viewed in chrome” banners. At this point the only reason some of my fellow engineers even test outside of Chrome is because of Mobile Safari.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
I don't understand the "considering" part. Don't they have to do this, at least in the EU, to comply with the Digital Markets Act?
- mtomweb 4y ago
  Yes. They are being compelled to do it. Considering makes it sound like this is a deliberate Apple PR leak
msoad 4y ago
Chrome on iOS will allow Service Workers drain your battery in the background. It's gonna be great!
pedrocr 4y ago
I wonder if Apple would have ended up better off if they had made iOS devices friendly to third-party OSs. Maybe a nice homebrew culture would have emerged and LineageOS would have a nice set of images to install and all the geeks would have been satisfied. I know I would. But most users wouldn't bother, and it would be an all-or-nothing choice. Meanwhile they'd have quite a bit more ability to argue for their walled garden in the OS to regulators. It might still not have worked but they would have had a much better chance I think. For most users this is a much better outcome though and maybe someday Google will let me buy a Pixel phone...
- philistine 4y ago
  It is indeed a shame that no alternative OS is available for iPhone. With how long its taking to get Macs to boot Linux without caveats though, one can understand why it never happened. Hopefully, the ability to select an OS upon boot will come to iPhone someday.
shmerl 4y ago
Long overdue. Apple shouldn't be left off the hook for violating competition law for so long though. They should pay for it.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  1. Whether Apple is violating the law is up to the legal system to decide. 2. A lifting of the requirement is an implicit endorsement of a Chrome monopoly. This seems difficult to square with the intent of lifting the requirement.
  - shmerl 4y ago
    The legal system didn't decide anything because it's reactive (i.e. someone has to go after Apple for this to happen and Apple gladly use the fact that no one bothered enough). And in general competition law became so toothless that it's rarely applied even in such glaringly egregious cases. I don't really care what their motivation for lifting it is. They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web.
    - vehemenz 4y ago
      > They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web. How are you defining progress here? "Progress" is inherently value-laden. Are you defining it only in terms of developer convenience, with the goal of making the web like an operating system? Or are you defining the web's progress in terms of freely available information and as a document retrieval system? It has obviously regressed in the latter sense. Why isn't it just as reasonable to suggest that iOS Safari is the last bastion against the decline of the web?
      - shmerl 4y ago
        Sabotaging interoperability is a big example. Apple are using that ban on competing browsers as leverage. iOS is a drag on progress which could have been avoided if competition laws would have been applied and Apple couldn't get away with this stuff.
substation13 4y ago
Now the Apple have announced side-loading for 2024, will we see a proper Firefox via side-load?
skrowl 4y ago
Great news! Now what about - No alternative launchers / home apps - Real filesystem access / real file browser apps - No emulators - No compilers / code interpreters etc - No adult apps - Multiple accounts / users on a device - Plug it in to any computer and use it as a USB drive - Act as a USB host
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kjksf 4y ago
Those rumors are not really providing new information. The EU law has passed. It's pretty clear that it requires Apple to do the things those reports say Apple is "considering" (allow truly alternative browsers, allow other app stores etc.). The law is taking effect soon. Apple has little choice but to comply. It would be news if Apple was considering not complying with EU law. Which would likely be suicidal but it's not like Apple wasn't jerking around South Korea and some european country with fake compliance. What I would like to know: will Apple give US a big middle finger by only implementing this in EU or globally. Again, I think excluding US from those changes would lead to blowback but Apple was so arrogant about those things in the past that I wouldn't consider that impossible.
- MBCook 4y ago
  The information is that Apple is working to comply with it, not refuse and start a lawsuit. That was not a given.
- themagician 4y ago
  It feels like Apple has actually been moving in this direction for a while now, it's just that you don't see it because all of the visible movement has been happening on the macOS side. The security model in macOS has changed dramatically since 2019 with Catalina—so much so that the OS is basically unrecognizable to me from an admin level. It is likely that iOS is going to get the same Full Security, Reduced Security, and Permissive Security options as macOS. It seems like the only thing that Apple hasn't decided on yet is whether or not they will continue to allow signed, non-App Store apps under the default Full Security policy. I suspect they will not or that this is where iOS and macOS will diverge in terms of security policy, or that possibly one other category is created under Full Security that allows this. I would not be that surprised if the next version of macOS requires you to boot into the startup utility to set "App store and identified developers" as an option and further restricts what signed applications are allowed to do. Apple is going to go the extra mile and allow companies like Epic and Spotify to do whatever they want. But they don't have to sign their apps and let them do it under the default security policy. They can simply say, "You can ask your customers to switch their security policy to Reduced Security if they want to install unsigned apps." And then customers can decide if they'd rather play Fornite or use ApplePay.
JustSomeNobody 4y ago
This is just signaling. They're trying to hold off the EU legislating the hell out of them.
rnk 4y ago
I naively thought because I could install my own web browser on android that I got more privacy than having any web browser on ios having to use webkit underneath (where they could centrally "spy" or get info for ad targeting). For example if look for tor on ios, you find info reminding you of using the system webkit. Has anyone looked into whether (1) android does provide you more privacy by bringing your own browser or not, (2) whether apple in fact has no privacy when using a browser?
ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
I really don't want this
Kiro 4y ago
This is massive news for mobile web game developers. It's currently suicide to try to support iOS Safari. It's actually really sad that you make something that should be cross-platform by default but breaks because iOS Safari lacks support for the most basic things. You make something that works identical on Android Chrome and Firefox at 60fps but as soon as you try it on iPhone you're bombarded with glitches and problems that you don't even know where to start. If you want to make a cross-platform mobile game you're currently forced to go native.
tinus_hn 4y ago
An important argument against third party browsers is the requirement of a third party JIT compiler for Javascript, which means Apple needs to allow a third party app to cause unsigned code to be run from other sources than a signed package.
xsmasher 4y ago
I understood there was a technical limitation here too - * apps can't write to a page and mark it executable * therefore you can't JIT compile JS * therefore any alt-browsers will be slow as sin. Did I understand wrong? Or are they also going to loosen the sandbox to allow JIT compilation? That seems unwise.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
"I like walled gardens" - hacker What?
yencabulator 4y ago
"Apple considering [...]" You mean is being forced to, and is trying to find ways to avoid having to do that. Try "EU is considering making Apple [...]"

411 points by alwillis 4y ago

This would be great. I don't want to install another app store or sideload much if that big change comes next year as I am a fan of the walled garden. My one worry was web browsing as I would prefer a firefox/ublock setup on my iphone.

ouid 4y ago
>"I am a fan of the walled garden". How on earth does this jibe with the rest of your comment? You immediately assert a fear that the removal of the walled garden would prevent you from doing a thing that the walled garden explicitly prevents.
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  I trust Apple to do a decent job at protecting me (and more importantly, my less tech minded friends) more than a 3rd party app store. I dont mind using webkit, but I do recognize that its a shit move by Apple to not allow other rendering engines in the store. Just not a shitty enough for me to go F-Droid and micromanage my phone. I will not install a 3rd party app store if Apple allowed it I would sideload a browser from an official repository. But if apple loosened the webkit restriction, I could get my preferred browser without sideloading or using 3rd party appstore. Does that clear up any confusion?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    You don't even need a third-party app to get a virus on iPhone. As long as you're signed in with your Apple ID, you're vulnerable to Pegasus and a number of other decoder-based payloads that can crash, manipulate or create an entire VM inside your iPhone. Worrying about the contents of an Open-Source binary is small-fries, my friend.
    - nickthegreek 4y ago
      Guess we should just all throw away our phones then...
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Alternatively, just have realistic expectations of the devices you own. Everything you have is vulnerable to exploits and social engineering. Apple can't save you from that any more than Google, Microsoft, or even the Open Source community can. Apple pretending that they're poised to solve these problems is an illusion, and one you probably shouldn't argue in favor of.
        nickthegreek 4y ago
        What strawman are you fighting? What expectation did I say that isn't realistic? I did not state that I was against Apple allowing 3rd party appstores or against sideloading. I said that I prefer to use the offical app store, and I am happy that Apple is loosening the restrictions around 3rd party browser engines as I did not agree with it. Maybe I am misinterpreting your argument? I feel like you stated that since state actors can hack my phone, I should stop worrying about security. The appstore limited Facebooks ability to collect information on me. This is a fact.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        I object to the line > I trust Apple to do a decent job at protecting me [...] more than a 3rd party app store. Arguing over App Store security borders on hypocrisy when there are gaping-wide exploits in the default iOS ecosystem. Also, this bit: > more importantly, my less tech minded friends If your friends can't be trusted to use the internet without direct supervision, maybe they shouldn't have access to Safari, YouTube, Twitter or an iPhone either. It's a hard argument to strongman when the iPhone has a web browser packed in.
- tarboreus 4y ago
  - matthewmacleod 4y ago
    I wish people were better at understanding how comments like this make them come across. Like… it’s never feasible that people just disagree with you. It’s that they’ve been hoodwinked, brainwashed, or hypnotised.
    - tarboreus 4y ago
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        There's nothing wrong with liking Apple's app store. I don't use Apple products, have never willingly used Apple products, and will not be using Apple products in the future, but this is crossing into Apple derangement syndrome. I just don't want Apple purchasers to be trapped in a manipulative relationship with the company for the life of the product, and I want developers to have alternative ways of reaching the customers who want their products. I'm not interested in making Apple users do anything they don't want to do, and I don't understand what you get out of insulting the people who enjoy the way Apple runs things. Is your sole aim to make Apple users defensive of the company? Because that's all this sort of talk is achieving.
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    How am I hypnotized? I'm not even arguing against 3rd party app stores right to exist, nor am I arguing against the ability to sideload. Is it impossible to believe that some people want to able to go into a curated store of items and not a free for all where shady individuals could take advantage of people? I'll let you know right now that there is ZERO reason for my mother to install a 3rd party app store. And I believe that to be true for the majority of users.
Terretta 4y ago
Consider Kagi Orion browser with Ublock Origin on iOS today: https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/ Or, consider 1Blocker for Safari (or Adblock Pro for Safari, DNS, and network blocking).

jacooper 4y ago

Wow, who would've thought regulatory pressure would do so much /s.

smoldesu 4y ago
A great number of apologists and hand-wringers, that's who. Now we're here.

dljsjr 4y ago

I love Apple but I also know that in these situations where they're being forced to punch a whole in their walled garden that they'll usually just go about making the solution as shitty to use as possible. They might let other engines in, sure; but will they relax the restriction on their memory mapping entitlements to allow for optimizing JITs? Doubt it. Means you'll only be able to use alternative rendering engines that have JS interpreters with no optimizing JIT. Stuff like that.

ouid 4y ago
- dljsjr 4y ago
  Okay, "I love Apple Products" then. I certainly don't love any corporations.
  - ouid 4y ago
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      Your ability to interpret the original intent of OPs comms is inherently limited. Keep that in mind.
- gxs 4y ago
  I think this is over analyzing OPs comment. Similar to how people say "I hate so and so" in sports - there's no actual hatred or ill will towards the person (although there are some nutcases out there that mean it), it's just easier than making up some new vocabulary to describe or to preamble everything with padding. As the Sports Guy said, there's sports hate and regular hate. It does dawn on me the possibility that I'm also over analyzing your comment :)
ratg13 4y ago
If it means that I can stop accidentally swiping left and right on webpages, and leaving web pages where I have entered text without prompting me, it’s unfortunately a solid trade off.

roody15 4y ago

Looks like they are trying to stay ahead of incoming EU action.

jeroenhd 4y ago
I disagree. The EU is already forcing them through the DMA and the writing was on the wall the second alternative app stores were even an option. If Google wasn't going to get Chrome into the app store, they'd get it into Google Play for iOS. Staying ahead of EU action would've involved appeasing the antitrust worries when the DMA was still taking shape. Google has done so in small ways by redesigning Android's package installer APIs to make alternative app stores more feasible. Of course there are no popular app stores outside of open source and piracy circles because there's usually little to gain in using them on Android. Amazon's app store is available as a normal download, though I don't think they've marketed that enough for it to be any kind of success.

Gareth321 4y ago

One by one, the rumours indicate that Apple will be complying with each and every requirement under the EU Digital Markets Act. These include: * Install any software * Install any App Store and choose to make it default * Use third party payment providers and choose to make them default * Use any voice assistant and choose to make it default * Use any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default * Use any messaging app and choose to make it default * Make core messaging functionality interoperable. They lay out concrete examples like file transfer * Use existing hardware and software features without competitive prejudice. E.g. NFC * Not preference their services. This includes CTAs in settings to encourage users to subscribe to Gatekeeper services, and ranking their own services above others in selection and advertising portals

likeabbas 4y ago
What about any music player? I want Spotify to be the default, dammit.
- shellac 4y ago
  I only see the Apple Music app when I open it explicitly. Are there situations where a 'default' music app might appear?
  - RockRobotRock 4y ago
    Asking Siri to play music on Spotify without having to say "on Spotify" every time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - entropicdrifter 4y ago
      Yeah, Google Assistant lets you set a default music player or if you already have one open it'll try to use that one by default

Permik 4y ago

This policy change is actually just a direct consequence of the upcoming 2024 EU law that forces Apple to allow third party app stores for iOS devices. Because Apple can't control what applications get uploaded to the third party stores, like browsers that use a different web engine, then they try to lax the rules in their own store to desperately keep developers from jumping the ship.

sidlls 4y ago
The kind of developers who’d “jump ship”, especially for developing web apps, make the kinds of apps that I want to avoid anyway. Third party app stores will be a cesspool of malware and garbage, like they are on Android now.
- koshergweilo 4y ago
  I don't understand, what's wrong with fdroid? Have you ever used Cydia?
  - least 4y ago
    F-Droid is an odd one. The apps aren't malware but in my experience most of the apps on it are pretty low quality in at least one area (especially in user interface and experience), but that's a problem prevalent in FOSS in general, not just F-Droid. I'd say the Google Play store is the one actually full of awful software a lot of which is actually malware. Part of this can be attributed to Google's loose requirements and the other perhaps Android's security model in general is too permissive. It's very easy to fuck up your Android phone in a way that you simply can't on iOS. I'm not terribly concerned about it since I think a lot of it comes down to how iOS and Android are designed, but it's not not a concern.
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  > The kind of developers who’d “jump ship”, especially for developing web apps It would be to allow you to install chrome or firefox on your iPhone.
4y ago

mrpippy 4y ago

I don't fundamentally have a problem with Chrome or Firefox on iOS being able to use their own engine. They're responsible, competent organizations who will regularly update and maintain their browsers. What worries me is every app that's not a dedicated browser suddenly including an entire browser engine (the way that every app on macOS/Windows now does). Apps will import one version of Chromium and then not update it for *years*, long past the point where it contains security holes and lacks support for new platform features. Steam on Win/Mac/Linux is still using Chromium 85! That's 2 years old, and it's a piece of software under active development. I know of an actively-developed Windows game using CEF 3!! In other words: do you want your favorite bank/airline/restaurant/government agency's app to be 100+ MB bigger and contain a growing number of vulnerabilities? I don't, and neither does Apple. If this goes ahead, I hope the App Store rules around it are thorough. Shipping a browser is a huge responsibility, one that most organizations are not prepared for.

0x0 4y ago
And then people are going to complain about not getting JIT access is unfair advantage to safari, but then if they do get a JIT entitlement they are going to slack on patching vulnerabilities...
jeroenhd 4y ago
The solution to this is simple, Apple needs to make their browser usable enough that people don't go to extremes such as packaging entire browsers with their code. In many cases Safari's Javascript engine will even beat Chromium's engine. Android allows any browser engine you like (even Webkit if someone would manage to compile it) and people don't generally do nonsense this on Android. I don't see why the situation would be any different here. The reason is simple: the web view API is easy to use, automatically updated, and backwards compatible. As another benefit, devices that have fallen out of support may receive updates for browsers, making them usable again.
- plastiquebeech 4y ago
  Developers will package browsers in their code as a way to spy on users with fewer restrictions, not because Safari is unusable. That being said, I returned my first and last iPhone after realizing that Firefox on iOS couldn't run the NoScript extension. It is frankly shocking that Apple has managed to go this long while blatantly contravening the precedent set by United States v. Microsoft Corp., and I'm glad the EU is finally taking a stand on that front.

Synaesthesia 4y ago

It would be really nice to get proper Firefox browser on iPhone/iPad. I like it a lot on Android.

acdha 4y ago

I have really mixed feelings about this. From an open source and general fairness perspective, I would really like to have a true Firefox on iOS but I'm also cognizant of the fact that iOS' browser restriction is basically the only reason why “web” is not a synonym for “whatever the Google Chrome team chooses to ship”. It feels like this would be best if paired with some regulatory pressure banning cross-promotion of Chrome on Google properties and requiring Google to actually do QA rather than accidentally breaking YouTube, Gmail, Google Cloud, etc. for users other browsers. For all of the “Safari is the new IE6” memes posted, I have far more frequently encountered cases where a Google web application is doing something which only works in Chrome but there is no technical why it could not work just as well in any other modern browser engine.

smoldesu 4y ago
Well, two wrongs didn't make this a right. If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again.
- acdha 4y ago
  > Well, two wrongs didn't make this a right. That was basically my point? > If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again. Since this is behaviour Google is already doing and has been doing for a decade, it seems like the EU could just skip to the part of actually doing something.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Since this is behaviour Google is already doing How so? There are a number of features Apple dragged their feet on (WebRTC, push notifications, WebM support, AV1, the list goes on), it could be argued that Apple was intentionally stifling the capabilities of the browser to enforce the profitability of the App Store. I understand your concern, but Apple's failure to compete with Google is not Google's fault. Apple had a chance to make a browser that Chrome users switched to, but they didn't. Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined. Regulators can't see into the future. Thus-far, Chrome's behavior might be frustrating but totally fair game relative to the way Apple plays. Once Safari is competing on it's own merits, we'll see how things go and respond accordingly. If it's anything like the App Store, it'll take us ~8 years to observe the abuse and respond effectively.

ramesh31 4y ago

I'll believe it when I see it. This would be suicide for Safari as a relevant platform.

clownabsuer 4y ago
Or, Apple could actually invest in Safari to make it better than the competition, instead of artificially making it the best browser on iThings. As one of the founder members of Open Web Advocacy (the group who have been briefing UK, EU, Japanese and Australian regulators) wrote, "But let’s set out aspirations higher. Imagine a fantastic Safari on iOS, Mac, Android, Windows and Linux, giving Chrome a run for its money. If anyone can take on Google, Apple can. It has talented WebKit engineers, excellent Standards experts, a colossal marketing budget, and great brand recognition. If Apple allowed Safari to actually compete, it would be better for web developers, businesses, consumers, and for the health of the web. Come on, Apple, set Safari free!" https://brucelawson.co.uk/2021/set-safari-free/ https://brucelawson.co.uk/2021/set-safari-free/
- ZekeSulastin 4y ago
  I thought a large part of the Chromium argument is that Google et al would be able to just put “use Chrome” banners on their site and provide a worse experience for other browsers.

ecshafer 4y ago

Not being able to use firefox + ublock origin is the only negative of ios I have after moving from Android. That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also.

Terretta 4y ago
You can use Kagi Orion browser with Ublock Origin on iOS today. https://browser.kagi.com/ https://browser.kagi.com/
- gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
  Really like Kagi and their web browser but I can't justify the price relative to my location (I'm pretty sure it's reasonable on the US/West cost of living scale).
bioemerl 4y ago
> That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also. Yep. Android decided to compete with apple. They're almost entirely worse at it and by competing by turning off all the features the once had they've just become a worse phone alternative that's cheaper and also lets you install custom apps. Apple allows custom apps and apps stores and that's the death of Android as far as I'm concerned.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > > That and a headphone jack, but that was impossible to find on Android also. There are plenty of Android smartphones, including from major manufacturers, that have 3.5mm jacks; they tend to not be flagships, because that’s not where the demand for them is, but they aren’t hard to find. > Android decided to compete with apple. “Android” is a large number of different manufacturers, many of which individually produce many more smartphone models targeting different market segments than Apple. > They're almost entirely worse at it and by competing by turning off all the features the once had they've just become a worse phone alternative that's cheaper and also lets you install custom apps I’ve never regreted leaving the iPhone ecosystem for Android, and I’ve pretty consistently been buying Samsung flagships, which aren’t particularly cheaper than Apple. And sideloading or using alternate app stores isn’t a huge part of that, though its nice to have the option.

taylorius 4y ago

I'm not used to cheering on the EU - but if Chrome is no longer restricted to Webkit, they could enable WebXR integration - which would be jolly nice.

freediver 4y ago

Even if the WebKit requirement is lifted, it is likely that it will take months if not years for any Blink/Gecko browsers to show up on iOS/iPadOS after the lift. The reason is the sheer complexity of building for a mobile OS with very deep native integrations, that was out of their reach for a decade. More likely scenario is that we will see browsers using forked versions of WebKit running to enable more features (yes that would make uBlock Origin possible on iOS for example).

jeroenhd 4y ago
Is there really such a big difference between iOS and macOS? Sure, there are APIs that the browser can't access (or, rather, shouldn't access according to Apple) that are usable on macOS, but my understanding is that large swathes of the API is kept relatively compatible. Also remember that Chromium was WebKit based way back when, the Android API for the chromium web view still uses WebKit terminology as a result. If Google were to open a Google Play Store for iOS and put Chrome in there, I'd expect building the basic browser to take less than a month. The UI framework and designs are all there from their current Webkit version. Same with Firefox, though Mozilla has significantly fewer resources available.
- freediver 4y ago
  I'd say yes there is especially if you are trying to optimize for low-level, close to hardware features, like rendering performance and battery life, both crucial on a phone. No browsing engine comes close to WebKit for those even on macOS. My best guess is that it would take a few years on iOS (at least) to get to the current difference that Blink/Geck have to WebKit on macOS, which is already considerable in favor to WebKit to begin with, despite being able to develop for this platform for decades.
clownabsuer 4y ago
"it is likely that it will take months if not years for any Blink/Gecko browsers to show up on iOS/iPadOS after the lift." Mozilla demoed a Gecko browser on a jailbroken iPhone. They've done the work once. The combined heft of Google, Samsung and Microsoft could surely get Chrome running on iOS, given that Chrome was originally a fork of WebKit.

nabla9 4y ago

That and allowing side-loading and other app stores happens because... EU does its job.

mullingitover 4y ago

Looking forward to people installing a third party browser from a third party app store, loading it up with random malware-infested plugins, and then complaining that iPhones are slow. This was the thing that sank OG Firefox before Chrome came along. There was a plethora of garbage browser plugins everyone installed, and it tanked performance. Chrome wasn't that much faster than FF, but on a fresh install and without any plugins it seemed screaming fast.

sureglymop 4y ago
Serious question... why do you care about users doing that? As long as you yourself can avoid that, what's the issue? I, on the other hand want to be able to install my own applications on my phone without having to buy an apple developer license or having them signed by apple. After all it is my phone...
- mullingitover 4y ago
  I personally care because I think it'll make the system less secure, which is something I've been able to take for granted. iOS security wasn't perfect, but it was pretty decent and I think this is opening pandora's box. > After all it is my phone... It's not your platform, though, and writing your own apps doesn't happen in a vacuum, they work by integrating with Apple's OS that they pour oceans of money into developing and maintaining. It's not a general purpose computing device and it was never advertised as such. I get it though, it is your hardware. I think the way to go about this, since it's your hardware, is to allow users to opt to do a complete wipe of the device, get their own OS, write their own drivers, and use the hardware for whatever they wish with the understanding that they're completely on their own.

themadturk 4y ago

I don't dislike Safari at all. I just like Firefox more.

navs 4y ago

This better not lead to any “best viewed in chrome” banners. At this point the only reason some of my fellow engineers even test outside of Chrome is because of Mobile Safari.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago

I don't understand the "considering" part. Don't they have to do this, at least in the EU, to comply with the Digital Markets Act?

mtomweb 4y ago
Yes. They are being compelled to do it. Considering makes it sound like this is a deliberate Apple PR leak

msoad 4y ago

Chrome on iOS will allow Service Workers drain your battery in the background. It's gonna be great!

pedrocr 4y ago

I wonder if Apple would have ended up better off if they had made iOS devices friendly to third-party OSs. Maybe a nice homebrew culture would have emerged and LineageOS would have a nice set of images to install and all the geeks would have been satisfied. I know I would. But most users wouldn't bother, and it would be an all-or-nothing choice. Meanwhile they'd have quite a bit more ability to argue for their walled garden in the OS to regulators. It might still not have worked but they would have had a much better chance I think. For most users this is a much better outcome though and maybe someday Google will let me buy a Pixel phone...

philistine 4y ago
It is indeed a shame that no alternative OS is available for iPhone. With how long its taking to get Macs to boot Linux without caveats though, one can understand why it never happened. Hopefully, the ability to select an OS upon boot will come to iPhone someday.

shmerl 4y ago

Long overdue. Apple shouldn't be left off the hook for violating competition law for so long though. They should pay for it.

vehemenz 4y ago
1. Whether Apple is violating the law is up to the legal system to decide. 2. A lifting of the requirement is an implicit endorsement of a Chrome monopoly. This seems difficult to square with the intent of lifting the requirement.
- shmerl 4y ago
  The legal system didn't decide anything because it's reactive (i.e. someone has to go after Apple for this to happen and Apple gladly use the fact that no one bothered enough). And in general competition law became so toothless that it's rarely applied even in such glaringly egregious cases. I don't really care what their motivation for lifting it is. They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    > They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web. How are you defining progress here? "Progress" is inherently value-laden. Are you defining it only in terms of developer convenience, with the goal of making the web like an operating system? Or are you defining the web's progress in terms of freely available information and as a document retrieval system? It has obviously regressed in the latter sense. Why isn't it just as reasonable to suggest that iOS Safari is the last bastion against the decline of the web?
    - shmerl 4y ago
      Sabotaging interoperability is a big example. Apple are using that ban on competing browsers as leverage. iOS is a drag on progress which could have been avoided if competition laws would have been applied and Apple couldn't get away with this stuff.

substation13 4y ago

Now the Apple have announced side-loading for 2024, will we see a proper Firefox via side-load?

skrowl 4y ago

Great news! Now what about - No alternative launchers / home apps - Real filesystem access / real file browser apps - No emulators - No compilers / code interpreters etc - No adult apps - Multiple accounts / users on a device - Plug it in to any computer and use it as a USB drive - Act as a USB host

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kjksf 4y ago

Those rumors are not really providing new information. The EU law has passed. It's pretty clear that it requires Apple to do the things those reports say Apple is "considering" (allow truly alternative browsers, allow other app stores etc.). The law is taking effect soon. Apple has little choice but to comply. It would be news if Apple was considering not complying with EU law. Which would likely be suicidal but it's not like Apple wasn't jerking around South Korea and some european country with fake compliance. What I would like to know: will Apple give US a big middle finger by only implementing this in EU or globally. Again, I think excluding US from those changes would lead to blowback but Apple was so arrogant about those things in the past that I wouldn't consider that impossible.

MBCook 4y ago
The information is that Apple is working to comply with it, not refuse and start a lawsuit. That was not a given.
themagician 4y ago
It feels like Apple has actually been moving in this direction for a while now, it's just that you don't see it because all of the visible movement has been happening on the macOS side. The security model in macOS has changed dramatically since 2019 with Catalina—so much so that the OS is basically unrecognizable to me from an admin level. It is likely that iOS is going to get the same Full Security, Reduced Security, and Permissive Security options as macOS. It seems like the only thing that Apple hasn't decided on yet is whether or not they will continue to allow signed, non-App Store apps under the default Full Security policy. I suspect they will not or that this is where iOS and macOS will diverge in terms of security policy, or that possibly one other category is created under Full Security that allows this. I would not be that surprised if the next version of macOS requires you to boot into the startup utility to set "App store and identified developers" as an option and further restricts what signed applications are allowed to do. Apple is going to go the extra mile and allow companies like Epic and Spotify to do whatever they want. But they don't have to sign their apps and let them do it under the default security policy. They can simply say, "You can ask your customers to switch their security policy to Reduced Security if they want to install unsigned apps." And then customers can decide if they'd rather play Fornite or use ApplePay.

JustSomeNobody 4y ago

This is just signaling. They're trying to hold off the EU legislating the hell out of them.

rnk 4y ago

I naively thought because I could install my own web browser on android that I got more privacy than having any web browser on ios having to use webkit underneath (where they could centrally "spy" or get info for ad targeting). For example if look for tor on ios, you find info reminding you of using the system webkit. Has anyone looked into whether (1) android does provide you more privacy by bringing your own browser or not, (2) whether apple in fact has no privacy when using a browser?

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago

I really don't want this

Kiro 4y ago

This is massive news for mobile web game developers. It's currently suicide to try to support iOS Safari. It's actually really sad that you make something that should be cross-platform by default but breaks because iOS Safari lacks support for the most basic things. You make something that works identical on Android Chrome and Firefox at 60fps but as soon as you try it on iPhone you're bombarded with glitches and problems that you don't even know where to start. If you want to make a cross-platform mobile game you're currently forced to go native.

tinus_hn 4y ago

An important argument against third party browsers is the requirement of a third party JIT compiler for Javascript, which means Apple needs to allow a third party app to cause unsigned code to be run from other sources than a signed package.

xsmasher 4y ago

I understood there was a technical limitation here too - * apps can't write to a page and mark it executable * therefore you can't JIT compile JS * therefore any alt-browsers will be slow as sin. Did I understand wrong? Or are they also going to loosen the sandbox to allow JIT compilation? That seems unwise.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

"I like walled gardens" - hacker What?

yencabulator 4y ago

"Apple considering [...]" You mean is being forced to, and is trying to find ways to avoid having to do that. Try "EU is considering making Apple [...]"