5 ms·

Apple blocking iPhone browsers without Webkit (excluding Chrome and Firefox). Android not exactly making it easy to change the default browser for average user

by mrpopo 3y ago

Apple blocking iPhone browsers without Webkit (excluding Chrome and Firefox). Android not exactly making it easy to change the default browser for average users either tbh Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1118/ https://xkcd.com/1118/

dathinab 3y ago
yes on phones this has tradition to a point it started to got legislation involved but on desktop legislation shut this down, or at least tried, and it wasn't a problem for years honestly we need a proper "fair platform" legislation, world wide and focus more on power abuse and free market damaging power dynamics instead of obsessing over the "mono" in monopoly (because with today markets you can have more power then a classical single market monopoly while not being a monopol or even duopoly in any of the many markets you cover, power you can even more efficiently abuse then a monopoly when adding new market to your portfolio...)
refulgentis 3y ago
XKCD isn’t relevant to the sentence before, as comic notes, it’s about Apple. the “Android makes you tap something to change your default browser!” was some FUD that either Brave/DDG stopped spreading because it was generating backlash. Much like the “you have to confirm you enable sideloading!” alert in Android, it’s not clear what people want otherwise, a confirmation isn’t the same thing as making it difficult. I wish these things would pass simply because it makes it harder to have the real conversations needed to get things back on track
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  > a confirmation isn’t the same thing as making it difficult The problem with sideloading on Android is that it won't accept upgrades for your applications. You will have to get them from the installer app. And then it will confirm before downloading each app. And then it will confirm before installing each app. And then it will confirm again because, well, I have no idea. One confirmation isn't the same as making it difficult. Piles and piles of them is.
  - SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
    Not entirely true on the latest version of Android. I'm not sure what the pattern is, but for most of the apps I've installed via Droidify, I don't have to confirm anything when installing updates.
dehrmann 3y ago
My theory on this is it has something to do with battery life. I can't think of another reason they'd limit browser engines.
- grishka 3y ago
  Apple's reasoning is that browser engines need JIT to run JS with acceptable performance, but if they were to give apps JIT capabilities, that would significantly open up the attack surface.
- zrobotics 3y ago
  Apple has an ads unit, there have been multiple other times when they have shown that user privacy is a thing that really only applies to other companies.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Don't know if serious or not, but I'll bite. Apple was in deep troubles when IE was all the rage, you needed IE to access your bank's site, your company's intranet, so many site that were strictly IE only. Microsoft gifting them an implementation of IE was a mild grace, but still wasn't enough. Not having a browser compatible with 99% of the web was an issue pushing people away from Macs. They learned their lesson, and used their advantage in the mobile market to make sure no other browser ever puts them in a similar position. Google has a slightly different issue, in that for instance a strongly privacy focus/ad blocking browser taking the android world by storm is nothing good for them.
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    Firefox and Chrome accounted for a third of browser marker share when the iPhone came out. It came out with no App Store, and there was no guarantee MS would develop IE for iOS.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > I can't think of another reason they'd limit browser engines. Apple doesn't trust third party developers when it comes to running code that Apple has not vetted in advance.

by mrpopo 3y ago

dathinab 3y ago

yes on phones this has tradition to a point it started to got legislation involved but on desktop legislation shut this down, or at least tried, and it wasn't a problem for years honestly we need a proper "fair platform" legislation, world wide and focus more on power abuse and free market damaging power dynamics instead of obsessing over the "mono" in monopoly (because with today markets you can have more power then a classical single market monopoly while not being a monopol or even duopoly in any of the many markets you cover, power you can even more efficiently abuse then a monopoly when adding new market to your portfolio...)

refulgentis 3y ago

XKCD isn’t relevant to the sentence before, as comic notes, it’s about Apple. the “Android makes you tap something to change your default browser!” was some FUD that either Brave/DDG stopped spreading because it was generating backlash. Much like the “you have to confirm you enable sideloading!” alert in Android, it’s not clear what people want otherwise, a confirmation isn’t the same thing as making it difficult. I wish these things would pass simply because it makes it harder to have the real conversations needed to get things back on track

marcosdumay 3y ago
> a confirmation isn’t the same thing as making it difficult The problem with sideloading on Android is that it won't accept upgrades for your applications. You will have to get them from the installer app. And then it will confirm before downloading each app. And then it will confirm before installing each app. And then it will confirm again because, well, I have no idea. One confirmation isn't the same as making it difficult. Piles and piles of them is.
- SpaghettiCthulu 3y ago
  Not entirely true on the latest version of Android. I'm not sure what the pattern is, but for most of the apps I've installed via Droidify, I don't have to confirm anything when installing updates.

dehrmann 3y ago

My theory on this is it has something to do with battery life. I can't think of another reason they'd limit browser engines.

grishka 3y ago
Apple's reasoning is that browser engines need JIT to run JS with acceptable performance, but if they were to give apps JIT capabilities, that would significantly open up the attack surface.
zrobotics 3y ago
Apple has an ads unit, there have been multiple other times when they have shown that user privacy is a thing that really only applies to other companies.
makeitdouble 3y ago
Don't know if serious or not, but I'll bite. Apple was in deep troubles when IE was all the rage, you needed IE to access your bank's site, your company's intranet, so many site that were strictly IE only. Microsoft gifting them an implementation of IE was a mild grace, but still wasn't enough. Not having a browser compatible with 99% of the web was an issue pushing people away from Macs. They learned their lesson, and used their advantage in the mobile market to make sure no other browser ever puts them in a similar position. Google has a slightly different issue, in that for instance a strongly privacy focus/ad blocking browser taking the android world by storm is nothing good for them.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Firefox and Chrome accounted for a third of browser marker share when the iPhone came out. It came out with no App Store, and there was no guarantee MS would develop IE for iOS.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> I can't think of another reason they'd limit browser engines. Apple doesn't trust third party developers when it comes to running code that Apple has not vetted in advance.