4 ms·

It's making content blocking extensions work the way they do in Safari. The benefit is security, as it allows for a massive reduction in the amount of extension

by jsnell 3y ago

It's making content blocking extensions work the way they do in Safari. The benefit is security, as it allows for a massive reduction in the amount of extensions with unlimited powers to steal authentication cookies, MITM ostensibly secure connections, etc. The downside is a loss of flexibility in what ad blockers can do (though Safari ad blockers seem to get by well enough). It's unclear whether it's an improvement or reduction in power efficiency. In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet.

ceejayoz 3y ago
> In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet. Apple has neither Chrome's market share nor Google's advertising network. Context matters.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Thanks for the example, that's a great demonstration! The context is that an entity that does not give a crap about making ad blocking hard (Apple) believes that this is the best design for content blocking extensions. They have no ulterior motive, it's just obviously the right technical design.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > They have no ulterior motive "Alphabet pays Apple 36% of Safari search revenue, Sundar Pichai confirms" https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-of-safari-search-revenue-sundar-pichai.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-... > it's just obviously the right technical design. Setting aside the question of motives, Safari engineers designed their content blocking system (1) without any actual experience in developing ad blocking extensions and (2) without consulting the developers who do have such experience. Moreover, ad blocking extension developers are practically unanimous in saying that Safari content blockers are inferior and not obviously the right technical design.
- kgwxd 3y ago
  Part of the reason Safari doesn't have the market share is because it sucks at such things. No one is actually saying Apple doing it is doubleplusgood. Someone has an "internet mob" persecution fetish.
lapcat 3y ago
> In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet. It wasn't actually considered good that Apple killed the safariextz format. There were a ton of complaints among Safari users. But of course Safari for Mac has a small marketshare, given its nonexistence on Windows (since Safari for Windows was discontinued in 2012), so it can't kill the Internet. On the other hand, plenty of people think that Apple's browser engine restrictions on iOS are killing the Internet.
hightrix 3y ago
The difference is that Google is an ad company, as in the vast majority of their revenue comes from ads. Apple is not an ad company. As such, Apple gets the benefit of doubt in these situations because their bottom line doesn’t rely upon misleading users into sharing more data or viewing more ads. Apple and Google have drastically different profit incentives.
- the_gipsy 3y ago
  Apple benefits from making their web experience shittier, because that means more apps.
- NeuNeurosis 3y ago
  While ads are not the main driver of revenue at Apple they did develop a ad service at the same time they implemented the new "privacy" features on iOS. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-ad-network-gives-marketers-a-new-opportunity/475436/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-ad-network-gives-m... https://seekingalpha.com/article/4578462-apples-new-strategy-to-boost-advertising-revenue https://seekingalpha.com/article/4578462-apples-new-strategy... https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOliVSU4=/ https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOliVSU4=/
austhrow743 3y ago
I recall many complaints about it when Apple started doing it. Google is just making sure they inflict as much bad PR on themselves as possible by dragging the change out as slowly as they, can which makes it seem like there's a double standard. There isn't though. Safari is one of the most complained about pieces of software on here. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was the most complained about.
plorkyeran 3y ago
> though Safari ad blockers seem to get by well enough I have yet to find an ad blocker that manages to block anywhere close to as many ads as ublock origin. AdGuard is certainly better than nothing at all, but I still see an awful lot of ads while using it.
maxloh 3y ago
It's more about a conflict of interest. An advertising company investing in a new API that will make it earn less – that's the point.
dun44 3y ago
First, the security argument is BS. Google is no way more trustworthy than Adblock developers; quite the opposite, given incentives. Second, Google is hostile towards users. Apple isn’t. This means they would use the same mechanism for different purposes.

by jsnell 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago

> In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet. Apple has neither Chrome's market share nor Google's advertising network. Context matters.

jsnell 3y ago
Thanks for the example, that's a great demonstration! The context is that an entity that does not give a crap about making ad blocking hard (Apple) believes that this is the best design for content blocking extensions. They have no ulterior motive, it's just obviously the right technical design.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > They have no ulterior motive "Alphabet pays Apple 36% of Safari search revenue, Sundar Pichai confirms" https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-of-safari-search-revenue-sundar-pichai.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-... > it's just obviously the right technical design. Setting aside the question of motives, Safari engineers designed their content blocking system (1) without any actual experience in developing ad blocking extensions and (2) without consulting the developers who do have such experience. Moreover, ad blocking extension developers are practically unanimous in saying that Safari content blockers are inferior and not obviously the right technical design.
kgwxd 3y ago
Part of the reason Safari doesn't have the market share is because it sucks at such things. No one is actually saying Apple doing it is doubleplusgood. Someone has an "internet mob" persecution fetish.

lapcat 3y ago

> In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet. It wasn't actually considered good that Apple killed the safariextz format. There were a ton of complaints among Safari users. But of course Safari for Mac has a small marketshare, given its nonexistence on Windows (since Safari for Windows was discontinued in 2012), so it can't kill the Internet. On the other hand, plenty of people think that Apple's browser engine restrictions on iOS are killing the Internet.

hightrix 3y ago

The difference is that Google is an ad company, as in the vast majority of their revenue comes from ads. Apple is not an ad company. As such, Apple gets the benefit of doubt in these situations because their bottom line doesn’t rely upon misleading users into sharing more data or viewing more ads. Apple and Google have drastically different profit incentives.

the_gipsy 3y ago
Apple benefits from making their web experience shittier, because that means more apps.
NeuNeurosis 3y ago
While ads are not the main driver of revenue at Apple they did develop a ad service at the same time they implemented the new "privacy" features on iOS. https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-ad-network-gives-marketers-a-new-opportunity/475436/ https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-ad-network-gives-m... https://seekingalpha.com/article/4578462-apples-new-strategy-to-boost-advertising-revenue https://seekingalpha.com/article/4578462-apples-new-strategy... https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOliVSU4=/ https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVOliVSU4=/

austhrow743 3y ago

I recall many complaints about it when Apple started doing it. Google is just making sure they inflict as much bad PR on themselves as possible by dragging the change out as slowly as they, can which makes it seem like there's a double standard. There isn't though. Safari is one of the most complained about pieces of software on here. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was the most complained about.

plorkyeran 3y ago

> though Safari ad blockers seem to get by well enough I have yet to find an ad blocker that manages to block anywhere close to as many ads as ublock origin. AdGuard is certainly better than nothing at all, but I still see an awful lot of ads while using it.

maxloh 3y ago

It's more about a conflict of interest. An advertising company investing in a new API that will make it earn less – that's the point.

dun44 3y ago

First, the security argument is BS. Google is no way more trustworthy than Adblock developers; quite the opposite, given incentives. Second, Google is hostile towards users. Apple isn’t. This means they would use the same mechanism for different purposes.