4 ms·

From 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. W

From 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 ago
Have 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 ago
  Browsers 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 ago
    They 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 ago
    iOS 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.
veeti 3y ago
Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely and that 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater.
- rimunroe 3y ago
  > Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? I know it's used as an intensifier, but this feels like a particularly bad place to use "literally" that way. > They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? But my more serious point: > 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". Why are you glossing over "practical" there and putting it in sarcastic quotes? This sounds like a huge change in the security model given how tightly Safari is integrated with the rest of iOS. Heavily restricting permissions and sometimes functionality to prevent security threats is very consistent with what I've seen from Apple in the past (and is one of the reasons I prefer them). Even if they intended to open this stuff up, I can't imagine this is a change which wouldn't require massive changes to iOS and a long review and testing process. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built their PWA support for the architecture they've had since the iPhone's release. Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers?
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    > An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? Flying a plane badly risks the lives of your passengers, the lives of people on other planes, and people in the nearby area. Doing whatever you want with your phone doesn't risk other people's phones.

From 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 ago

Have 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 ago
Browsers 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 ago
  They 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 ago
  iOS 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.

veeti 3y ago

Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely and that 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater.

rimunroe 3y ago
> Because that's literally what it says when you really read into it? I know it's used as an intensifier, but this feels like a particularly bad place to use "literally" that way. > They acknowledge that 1) Safari already has all the integrations required to support PWA securely Not really sure how to respond to this. An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? But my more serious point: > 2) they can't be bothered to provide the same API's for third party browsers because it's not "practical". Why are you glossing over "practical" there and putting it in sarcastic quotes? This sounds like a huge change in the security model given how tightly Safari is integrated with the rest of iOS. Heavily restricting permissions and sometimes functionality to prevent security threats is very consistent with what I've seen from Apple in the past (and is one of the reasons I prefer them). Even if they intended to open this stuff up, I can't imagine this is a change which wouldn't require massive changes to iOS and a long review and testing process. > They built their PWA support in an anticompetitive manner assuming App Store & WebKit would be a monopoly forever, and now as a result the baby is going out with the bathwater. They built their PWA support for the architecture they've had since the iPhone's release. Why should they have wasted time building affordances for a world in which they were forced to support other browsers?
- gkbrk 3y ago
  > An airliner already has all the controls required for being piloted. Why am I not allowed to pilot my next commercial flight? Flying a plane badly risks the lives of your passengers, the lives of people on other planes, and people in the nearby area. Doing whatever you want with your phone doesn't risk other people's phones.