6 ms·
TLDR: We did not want to give other browsers too powerful apis to compete with Safari & App Store.
by sccxy 3y ago
TLDR: We did not want to give other browsers too powerful apis to compete with Safari & App Store.
- LeoPanthera 3y agoI think this is an extremely cynical interpretation.
- akaij 3y agoI think any other interpretation is extremely naive.
- rimunroe 3y agoCould you explain why?
- fsflover 3y agoBecause accidentally this move will make more money for Apple. (Follow the money.)
- dylan604 3y agonaive people accept at face value PR speak. unwilling to look past that and look for other ulterior motives even less charitable ones would pretty much be textbook naivety to me.
- rimunroe 3y agoI didn’t ask because I think someone should take a company’s word at face value. I asked because the thing this company said in this particular instance aligned with what I’d heard from other (independent) parties and I wanted to know why this person seemed so sure about that being wrong.
- dylan604 3y agoNaive people also forget the best lies have some truth woven in.
- akaij 3y agoI don't think believing why the most valuable company in the world with the highest and thickest walls around its garden, and a track record of not playing nice with others, is doing this, requires much explanation except that they want to kill the possibility of anyone bypassing the toll gate to the said garden.
- shuckles 3y agoApple could support PWAs and enforce the same Core Technology Fee they do on them as they do for 3p distributed apps, so this argument makes no sense.
- commoner 3y agoApple has no way of enforcing any kind of platform fee for PWAs since the developer does not need to interact with Apple at all. This financial conflict of interest is why the availablity of the full PWA feature set is desirable to developers and undesirable to Apple.
- rimunroe 3y agoFrom the (admittedly little) I know about how iOS handles security and the speed at which they responded this sounds like a pretty credible explanation to me. What makes you think it isn't?
- foobarchu 3y agoHave to agree (disclaimer, haven't been an iPhone user since the 4). Suddenly allowing all browsers to have those kinds of native permissions, even with massive testing, sounds like a security nightmare. You're introducing an entire extra dimension for security holes, given how much trust people place in their phones. This doesn't sound at all the same as allowing other engines for use inside browsers, based on both apples defense and the take-downs on them.
- trothamel 3y agoBrowsers support PWAs on the desktop platforms without there being a security nightmare, and while I'm sure there are some permissions that could be a problem, things like the camera and microphone are managed on the desktop without issue. Is there some flaw in iOS that makes it harder to secure than the desktop?
- sccxy 3y agoThey know that giving too powerful apis to other browsers will kill their marketshare and competitors will build a better product in free environment.
- popalchemist 3y agoiOS was never conceived of as something which would run arbitrary code that could access system-level data (the siloed data). So basically the situation exists by design, and in order to achieve security when enabling PWAs from other browser engines, they'd have to add another layer of security that currently doesn't exist (since they never had to trust anyone's code but their own). So... yes, there is apparently a lack of security there, but that's because the layer in question was never intended to be anything but proprietary until this ruling.