4 ms·

Read through the technical announcement for browser engines https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support

Read through the technical announcement for browser engines https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engines/ https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi... These requirements are things like "Use memory-safe programming languages", "Adopt the latest security mitigations", if you ship your own certificate trust you should "provide information on how a root certificate authority (CA) can apply to become part of the program". All seems like pretty basic conditions designed to ensure that only Mozilla and Google can comply. To be honest, the browser engine stuff seems significantly more robust and permissive that I was expecting.

jeroenhd 3y ago
Pretty funny to see "use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages" as a requirement when WebKit itself is built on top of C++ code. I wonder if Apple would be allowed to ship WebKit if they enforce this requirement under the spirit of the EU laws that made them change their minds.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  Note that the full requirement is: > Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content Emphasis added.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
> Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80% from Test262 Why is it any of Apple's business how many test suites a third party browser can pass? Why can't iPhone users run Links if they want to? Why can't they run a browser without Javascript support? Why can't they try out Ladybird to see how development is progressing? Like, even from a pure Apple-is-greedy perspective I don't understand the point of this.
arlcode 3y ago
On first glance, the browser stuff is mostly fine and seems to be motivated by security and UX concerns. In the end it's not a big impact on apples revenue if some people run chrome or Firefox. The store part on the other hand is really sketchy.

jeroenhd 3y ago

Pretty funny to see "use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages" as a requirement when WebKit itself is built on top of C++ code. I wonder if Apple would be allowed to ship WebKit if they enforce this requirement under the spirit of the EU laws that made them change their minds.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago
Note that the full requirement is: > Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the Alternative Web Browser Engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content Emphasis added.

Wowfunhappy 3y ago

> Pass a minimum percentage of tests available from industry standard test suites: 90% from Web Platform Tests and 80% from Test262 Why is it any of Apple's business how many test suites a third party browser can pass? Why can't iPhone users run Links if they want to? Why can't they run a browser without Javascript support? Why can't they try out Ladybird to see how development is progressing? Like, even from a pure Apple-is-greedy perspective I don't understand the point of this.

arlcode 3y ago

On first glance, the browser stuff is mostly fine and seems to be motivated by security and UX concerns. In the end it's not a big impact on apples revenue if some people run chrome or Firefox. The store part on the other hand is really sketchy.