6 ms·

I don't buy this. I'm sure most iphone users don't care when you ask them about privacy or manifest v3 as an abstract concept, but remember what happened when

I don't buy this. I'm sure most iphone users don't care when you ask them about privacy or manifest v3 as an abstract concept, but remember what happened when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. They may not write blog posts about privacy or donate to the EFF, but they have deeply personal relationships with "their" phone and they absolutely hate being reminded that it isn't really theirs. If this weren't true, Apple could just start inserting ads into every iphone's Safari window tomorrow, and Youtube could serve the ad in the same stream as the video to defeat adblockers, and they'd make a bunch of extra money with no downside. The fact that they don't do this suggests that Apple and Google understand this: people only tolerate restricted platforms that do a convincing job of pretending to be unrestricted. In practice, this means that step 1 of Google foisting off user-hostile stuff on us is getting Firefox to include it too, which is presumably why they spend so much money on it.

nl 3y ago
No one I knew really cared much about the U2 album except that it was a bad album and they didn't want it in their collection. From the people I know there no one upset about the power dynamics - everyone who complained would have been 100% happy if Apple had given them an album they liked.
- TylerE 3y ago
  And also, in a bug I'm not sure was entirely on Apple, when plugged into many car stereos iTunes would start playing the first song in your library, so users were annoyed because everythime they'd plug their phone into their car to charge it would start playing a 3rd tier U2 album.
  - gessha 3y ago
    Ba-ba-Barbara, Santa Barbara Ba-ba-Barbara, Santa Barbara…
  - pjerem 3y ago
    It still happens it’s still The Miracle / Song Of Innocence / U2 and it’s still annoying.
notatoad 3y ago
>when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit and that's exactly it. putting something in your music library is a hugely more visible and tangible thing than all the nebulous privacy concerns the internet wants me to be afraid of. nobody gives a shit if google or apple or facebook or whoever else introduces some techical measure that could be used for nefarious things. they only care if that api is actually used for nefarious things. as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y*, that's a failing argument. like it or not, people actually do trust the big tech companies. as long as they aren't actively abusing that trust in ways that people care about, things like "google wants to know if you're a real person or a bot" aren't going to cause a whole lot of outrage. most people can understand that letting fake people pretend to be real is bad, and that preventing that is probably a good thing.
- Springtime 3y ago
  > as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y", that's a failing argument. It's similar to privacy 'dead bodies'[1], where users want to know actual concrete examples. I keep a collection of them in a larger directory of web pages about privacy, about instances where 'nebulous' privacy aspects meet reality and users are impacted and upset by it. [1] Term used by a law professor in Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
  - Toreno96 3y ago
    > Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy That was an interesting read, thank you!
- DropInIn 3y ago
  So your argument is that as long as the harms are invisible enough to the consumer that no action should be taken? May I introduce you to Tobacco?
  - 3y ago
izacus 3y ago
iPhone users are using Manifest V3 _every single day_ in their Safari. There was never another option for them. Yet, noone cares, even on HN.
- rebeccaskinner 3y ago
  I care, and I've basically stopped using my iphone for anything because the web is an abysmal experience full of ads even with the maximum amount of ad blocking possible on iOS. I hate the iPhone and the only reason I haven't switched back to android is that it seems to manage to, somehow, still be even worse. We are well and truly on the other side of the enshitification event horizon on mobile, and it looks like Google is doing it's best to make sure the web keeps up on the desktop too.
  - crimsontech 3y ago
    You could use Brave or Orion and get adblocking on iOS
    - WhyCause 3y ago
      Or Firefox Focus, which is what I use. It does a pretty good job.
    - rebeccaskinner 3y ago
      Until Apple allows other browser engines, everything is still limited to the same set of blockers you can get in safari. None of them are remotely good enough compared to ublock origin. My current phone probably has around 6-12 months of life left in it, and if Apple doesn’t have a solution by then I’m dropping the iPhone and either going with a de-Googled android build or giving up on smart phones altogether.
    - izacus 3y ago
      Those are all using the same browser engine with the same limitations that ManifestV3 is bringing to Chrome. You're using it.
  - 3y ago
bitwize 3y ago
[flagged]
- bayindirh 3y ago
  This is a very shallow and dismissive take on a serious issue.
  - bitwize 3y ago
    This is exactly the take that Google, and companies interested in setting up WEI-enabled web sites, will adopt. When you're talking about business, technical details that will affect a tiny minority of nerds simply doesn't matter. What matters is what value can you capture from the lion's share of the market? And how much is it gonna cost you to support the tiny minority that remains? Back in the 90s, much of the web was designed for Internet Explorer exclusively. A bit later, Flash took off. Both of these posed problems for users of niche browsers and operating systems, but from a business standpoint, nobody was complaining.
jameshart 3y ago
> when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. Yeah, Apple was toast after they did that. Their share price in 2014 when they did that was $24, and immediately afterwards it rose to $33 over the next 12 months. And since then, it's just been one long slow decline to almost $200 a share, as their global mobile market share has gone from the 24% it enjoyed in 2014 to the measly 29% it enjoys today. Online outrage does not translate to action.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Look at all of the albums Apple has pushed on people since then.
- Someone 3y ago
  You’re forgetting a 4:1 stock split in August 2020, so it’s even worse ;-) I think this illustrates that people only worry about this kind of thing if it gets shoved into their face. The privacy thing is OK as long as it’s only used for the good. For example, I think nobody would object against a world where every killer would be caught within an hour to get a fair trial. However, such a world also would be one where every traffic offense could be fined, and where powers that be could find some dirt on anybody in their email history, presence on on-street cameras, etc. Worse, it would take relatively few people to pull that of. That’s something I think nobody wants, but it’s abstract until it affects you, so few people worry about it.
  - WeylandYutani 3y ago
    By this argument we should defund the police because they could be used for oppression. Forgetting the reality that they are also stopping thousands of crimes every single day. Privacy absolution is never what most people signed up for.
    - Someone 3y ago
      Where did I make the argument that “we” don’t want to give up any privacy? I’m only claiming “we” don’t want to give up all privacy. Also, “the police” are thousands of humans. That makes it harder to use the police for oppression than if “the police” were a bunch of computers and robots. If somebody proposed the latter, I think lots of people would object.
lozenge 3y ago
Nobody would care about the U2 album today. It would be just another pop up or advertising notice among many others. Microsoft recommends Edge! Review your choices! 90 days free Apple TV! Upgrade your iCloud to continue backups! The only one that slightly moved the meter is your documents moving to OneDrive, even that only had an impact because of a data loss bug.
- IIsi50MHz 3y ago
  I would care, in part, because it would be just another popup or advertising notice among [too] many. (-:

nl 3y ago

No one I knew really cared much about the U2 album except that it was a bad album and they didn't want it in their collection. From the people I know there no one upset about the power dynamics - everyone who complained would have been 100% happy if Apple had given them an album they liked.

TylerE 3y ago
And also, in a bug I'm not sure was entirely on Apple, when plugged into many car stereos iTunes would start playing the first song in your library, so users were annoyed because everythime they'd plug their phone into their car to charge it would start playing a 3rd tier U2 album.
- gessha 3y ago
  Ba-ba-Barbara, Santa Barbara Ba-ba-Barbara, Santa Barbara…
- pjerem 3y ago
  It still happens it’s still The Miracle / Song Of Innocence / U2 and it’s still annoying.

notatoad 3y ago

>when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit and that's exactly it. putting something in your music library is a hugely more visible and tangible thing than all the nebulous privacy concerns the internet wants me to be afraid of. nobody gives a shit if google or apple or facebook or whoever else introduces some techical measure that could be used for nefarious things. they only care if that api is actually used for nefarious things. as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y*, that's a failing argument. like it or not, people actually do trust the big tech companies. as long as they aren't actively abusing that trust in ways that people care about, things like "google wants to know if you're a real person or a bot" aren't going to cause a whole lot of outrage. most people can understand that letting fake people pretend to be real is bad, and that preventing that is probably a good thing.

Springtime 3y ago
> as long as the argument is "well if google implements X, then it would potentially allow them to do Y", that's a failing argument. It's similar to privacy 'dead bodies'[1], where users want to know actual concrete examples. I keep a collection of them in a larger directory of web pages about privacy, about instances where 'nebulous' privacy aspects meet reality and users are impacted and upset by it. [1] Term used by a law professor in Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy
- Toreno96 3y ago
  > Daniel J. Solove's "I've got nothing to hide" and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy That was an interesting read, thank you!
DropInIn 3y ago
So your argument is that as long as the harms are invisible enough to the consumer that no action should be taken? May I introduce you to Tobacco?
- 3y ago

izacus 3y ago

iPhone users are using Manifest V3 _every single day_ in their Safari. There was never another option for them. Yet, noone cares, even on HN.

rebeccaskinner 3y ago
I care, and I've basically stopped using my iphone for anything because the web is an abysmal experience full of ads even with the maximum amount of ad blocking possible on iOS. I hate the iPhone and the only reason I haven't switched back to android is that it seems to manage to, somehow, still be even worse. We are well and truly on the other side of the enshitification event horizon on mobile, and it looks like Google is doing it's best to make sure the web keeps up on the desktop too.
- crimsontech 3y ago
  You could use Brave or Orion and get adblocking on iOS
  - WhyCause 3y ago
    Or Firefox Focus, which is what I use. It does a pretty good job.
  - rebeccaskinner 3y ago
    Until Apple allows other browser engines, everything is still limited to the same set of blockers you can get in safari. None of them are remotely good enough compared to ublock origin. My current phone probably has around 6-12 months of life left in it, and if Apple doesn’t have a solution by then I’m dropping the iPhone and either going with a de-Googled android build or giving up on smart phones altogether.
  - izacus 3y ago
    Those are all using the same browser engine with the same limitations that ManifestV3 is bringing to Chrome. You're using it.
- 3y ago

bitwize 3y ago

[flagged]

bayindirh 3y ago
This is a very shallow and dismissive take on a serious issue.
- bitwize 3y ago
  This is exactly the take that Google, and companies interested in setting up WEI-enabled web sites, will adopt. When you're talking about business, technical details that will affect a tiny minority of nerds simply doesn't matter. What matters is what value can you capture from the lion's share of the market? And how much is it gonna cost you to support the tiny minority that remains? Back in the 90s, much of the web was designed for Internet Explorer exclusively. A bit later, Flash took off. Both of these posed problems for users of niche browsers and operating systems, but from a business standpoint, nobody was complaining.

jameshart 3y ago

> when Apple tried to push a U2 album to them? They lost their collective shit. Yeah, Apple was toast after they did that. Their share price in 2014 when they did that was $24, and immediately afterwards it rose to $33 over the next 12 months. And since then, it's just been one long slow decline to almost $200 a share, as their global mobile market share has gone from the 24% it enjoyed in 2014 to the measly 29% it enjoys today. Online outrage does not translate to action.

hinkley 3y ago
Look at all of the albums Apple has pushed on people since then.
Someone 3y ago
You’re forgetting a 4:1 stock split in August 2020, so it’s even worse ;-) I think this illustrates that people only worry about this kind of thing if it gets shoved into their face. The privacy thing is OK as long as it’s only used for the good. For example, I think nobody would object against a world where every killer would be caught within an hour to get a fair trial. However, such a world also would be one where every traffic offense could be fined, and where powers that be could find some dirt on anybody in their email history, presence on on-street cameras, etc. Worse, it would take relatively few people to pull that of. That’s something I think nobody wants, but it’s abstract until it affects you, so few people worry about it.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  By this argument we should defund the police because they could be used for oppression. Forgetting the reality that they are also stopping thousands of crimes every single day. Privacy absolution is never what most people signed up for.
  - Someone 3y ago
    Where did I make the argument that “we” don’t want to give up any privacy? I’m only claiming “we” don’t want to give up all privacy. Also, “the police” are thousands of humans. That makes it harder to use the police for oppression than if “the police” were a bunch of computers and robots. If somebody proposed the latter, I think lots of people would object.

lozenge 3y ago

Nobody would care about the U2 album today. It would be just another pop up or advertising notice among many others. Microsoft recommends Edge! Review your choices! 90 days free Apple TV! Upgrade your iCloud to continue backups! The only one that slightly moved the meter is your documents moving to OneDrive, even that only had an impact because of a data loss bug.

IIsi50MHz 3y ago
I would care, in part, because it would be just another popup or advertising notice among [too] many. (-: