10 ms·

Why should we trust Apple for security in that context? Apple also provides all those functionalities via their proprietary API, which is not even audit-able. I

Why should we trust Apple for security in that context? Apple also provides all those functionalities via their proprietary API, which is not even audit-able. If Apple really believes in that argument, they should disable their own API as well.

M4v3R 3y ago
You have to trust someone if you're using a computing device connected to the Internet. The point of being in Apple ecosystem is that you trust Apple, and then (supposedly) you can not trust anyone else. To many that's a very strong proposition.
- summerlight 3y ago
  > The point of being in Apple ecosystem is that you trust Apple, This seems to be over-generalization? Users are using Apple devices because those are good products, not because they want to delegate every single trust problem to the Apple ecosystem. That might be a great proposition for people like you, but there is a significant number of people who consider it a compromise rather than a value.
  - chongli 3y ago
    Users trust Apple because Apple is ultimately accountable for security breaches on iOS devices. If a 3rd party app causes a data breach it does not matter if the breach was made possible by compliance with regulations like the DMA, Apple will still take the blame.
    - summerlight 3y ago
      > Users trust Apple because Apple is ultimately accountable for security breaches on iOS devices. As a long time user of Windows which historically had an incomparably large amount of security incidents, I can assure you that Apple won't get blamed that much for 3rd party data breach unless it involves Apple's own service and user data.
      - chongli 3y ago
        Since you’re a commenter on HN I’m going to assume you’re a tech person. I’m not talking about tech people, who through their discussions try to find the correct person/company to blame for issues. I’m talking about the general public. If a story about a data breach in a 3rd party app — affecting iOS users — hits the news cycle, Apple will take the blame and their brand reputation and sales will be impacted. It doesn’t matter whose fault it really is, Apple is the face of the iPhone and through their walled garden they have accepted final responsibility for everything that occurs on iOS.
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        I don't see how this matters to the GP's argument. Windows was a virus hotbed for decades and that does not appear to have affected its reputation in a meaningful way.
        chongli 3y ago
        That’s because Windows’ reputation was already mud. Microsoft made their business on corporate users anyway. Apple is a consumer brand. A data breach on iOS is like nudity in a Disney movie: utterly brand-destroying.
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        Windows was both. If you were buying a computer in the early 2000s, it was almost certainly a Windows PC.
        chongli 3y ago
        Right, but Apple built their brand on being the alternative to Windows for people who didn’t want to deal with security issues, viruses, crashes, bundled junkware, etc. You can draw a direct line between Apple’s original marketing pitch (easy to use, simple, secure, appliance-style computing) and the iOS walled garden. Just as you can with Disney and their family-oriented brand. It’s not a compelling argument to say that other film studios have nudity in their films when Disney is the brand at issue.
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    >there is a significant number of people who consider it as a compromise rather than a value. I suspect that from Apple's perspective, it is definitively not a significant number. For Apple, ownership of the "trust problem" is an intrinsic part of "making good products".
    - summerlight 3y ago
      > For Apple, ownership of the "trust problem" is an intrinsic part of "making good products". Yes, this might be true. And the majority of elected officials in EU fundamentally disagrees with that statement.
      - geodel 3y ago
        > And the majority of elected officials in EU fundamentally disagrees with that statement. Well, EU can and will force, fine, or ban US companies as they see fit but there is not some fundamental correctness to their viewpoint
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Any fundamental correctness of their viewpoint is by virtue of them representing more people (EU citizens) than Apple's CEO represents (himself and, I guess, the Apple corporation, if you count that). On moral issues, the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint (if there is one) is, by definition, the one that more people say is the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint.
        jdmdmdmdmd 3y ago
        [dead]
        mckn1ght 3y ago
        What you should be comparing is the percentage of the market the EU represents in the total market available to Apple. EU politicians are accountable to their population. Apple’s CEO is accountable to every Apple customer. The EU does not now, nor has it ever, constituted a majority of Apple revenue.
  - geodel 3y ago
    > Users are using Apple devices because those are good products,.. For general populace good also include secure by default. "every single trust problem to the Apple ecosystem." is rather technical point that very few people would even understand meaning of it. > significant number of people who consider it a compromise How significant compare to iPhone user base?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- addicted 3y ago
  Why can’t I choose to trust Apple for iOS and another developer for other functionality that runs on iOS? We do this all the time. I don’t uniquely depend on Microsoft for stuff that runs on Windows. Same for stuff that runs on macOS. And on Linux I’m not even sure who I’m trusting from the ground up other than a huge and disparate collection of people. So what makes iOS so unique that it can’t run PWAs, which is little more than adding some chrome and a handful of APIs to already pre-existing browser capabilities. What an F’ing joke. And the bigger joke are the Apple fans who are going out of their way to defend Apple sticking it up their nether parts.
  - zappb 3y ago
    It’s not unique to Apple. It’s an inherent problem to securing Turing machines.
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    If you are not an Apple user not an Apple fan why do you care so much about Apple and its users?
- trinsic2 3y ago
  I'd rather trust a public (not-for-profit) institution that actually had a real incentive to protect user security. Instead we get for-profit companies that have a vested interest (conflict of interest) to do security the way it thinks it should be done. In my experience, that usually is bad for the people that are using the platform because there is no real surety that security is being done for the sake of the users. Apple has no interest in working with public institutions that have a close relationship with the people they serve. That's a big red flag in my book. You cant trust a company that serves content and hardware and at the same time trust them with security. It's too many eggs in one basket, to easy of a target for rogue entities (NSA) even if they have good motives .
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    Which public institutions do you find have real concern for their users? In which country?
    - fsflover 3y ago
      https://eff.org https://eff.org, https://fsfe.org https://fsfe.org, https://edri.org https://edri.org.
- jc_dc 3y ago
  And to a degree, that’s why developers tend to hate Apple. They paint us as a pack of crims trying to steal from unsuspecting Apple users.
  - MrDresden 3y ago
    I think you are conflating the relationship between consumers/developers and the corporation (that you work for?). I don't hate Apple, but rather realise that it's bottom line and fiduciary duty to its shareholders is stronger than what is best for us (consumers/developers). I do not trust the corporate marketing one bit (and honestly, why should I?). This behaviour of Apple just further supports that view. As a company, it seems to believe that it is somehow above following the rules meant to benefit consumers/developers, which goes against what the company has been marketing its self with since the 80's. So lets stop the 'Leave Apple alone (and us that work there)' crying, and just acknowledge what the whole thing revolves around.
    - jc_dc 3y ago
      It’s possible to hate them and recognize why they’re doing at the same time though…although I do think there’s also a hefty dose of arrogance and self importance in there. I’m old enough to remember when we (devs) felt this way toward Microsoft…so if I was Tim Apple I’d include that risk in my calculus cause what came next was two decades in the penalty box. Seems like they hate us (developers) back though so it’s a mutual relationship I suppose.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > They paint us as a pack of crims trying to steal from unsuspecting Apple users. Have you seen the world around you for the past 20 years or so? I'd say this characterises developers (well, companies they work for at least) quite well, don't you think?
    - jc_dc 3y ago
      No, I’d say the vast majority of reputable developers are not trying to scam you. But there are some trying to scam you…and some of those are also in the App Store…as long as they use IAP to scam you all is well.
- blackoil 3y ago
  There are two kinds of trust, I may trust Apple to not intentionally steal data. But I may trust Signal to create a more inherently secure messenger, or I may trust Google to create technically a more secure browser. What Apple and some users here are saying that users don't have intelligence to judge it and so will have to trust only Apple.
- xwolfi 3y ago
  But that's what the EU is willing to reform. Apple isnt a EU company, hell it may even not contribute much to the tax base, there's less reason to trust them in exchange for gatekeeping against EU companies trying to generate tax revenue on their plarform. Trusting Apple is nice in the US where it's probably a net contributor to the country's development. Elsewhere, not so.
cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
[flagged]
- summerlight 3y ago
  Your argument might be only applicable to some sort of fundamentalists. Most people in the real world make informed decision based on lots of different factors. I'm pointing out that Apple speaks like a security fundamentalist but doesn't act like such. They should choose either one of being fundamentalist or realist, not cherrypicking whatever traits that work in favor of themselves.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  I share the GP's view and I use an iPhone because I must have access to iMessage and there is no alternate way to do that.
- Nullabillity 3y ago
  Not everyone makes their own device choices. Or they didn't know the problems involved yet when they bought the device. Or there could be a thousand other reasons.
zaphirplane 3y ago
Apple’s business model excludes Clickjacking, stealing personal Information, stealing passwords, commissions from redirects, commissions from gambling sites redirects. Those in that business use browser plugins to get inside your security boundary so your argument maybe over my head or baby bath water thing
thimp 3y ago
We don't entirely trust Apple. We just trust them more than other vendors.
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  Who is "we"?
  - thimp 3y ago
    Probably the folk upvoting my comment.
- fsflover 3y ago
  This is a false dichotomy. Completely trusting any single entity who doesn't really care about you (and only cares about extracting money from you) is riskier than trusting FLOSS, which is being constantly verified by independent actors.
  - thimp 3y ago
    That is not really how it works though. Look at the amount of limping, poorly implemented FLOSS software there is out there where the maintainers show no interest at all or there is no funding to support it. Look at the whole OpenSSL mess a while back. I honestly prefer to pay a vendor who will (a) complete a product until it's usable (b) be motivated to maintain it because they are paid and (c) be motivated to maintain it because they are scared of the bad PR of not maintaining it.
    - fsflover 3y ago
      Apple OSes are insecure by design to aid surveillance (sneak.berlin) 43 points by vitplister 4 months ago | 32 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37875370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37875370 Apple fined $8.5M for illegally collecting iPhone owners' data for ads (gizmodo.com) 334 points by nixcraft on Jan 8, 2023 | 134 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com) 468 points by ig0r0 on March 31, 2021 | 291 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 Apple reportedly dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained (2020) (theverge.com) 425 points by samename on Jan 14, 2021 | 137 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207
Retric 3y ago
Using an Apple device requires trust in Apple even if you run a 3rd party operating system let alone a 3rd party application on their OS.
arghwhat 3y ago
Well, while the argument is entirely bogus as "PWAs are unsafe" implies that loading web pages in that browser itself is unsafe and thus stopping PWAs but not loading pages is pointless, you do have to have full trust in Apple for security of your device as they are the sole provider for the core platform providing most of the security primitives used. That just doesn't exclude trusting others as well.
- Terretta 3y ago
  > Well, while the argument is entirely bogus as "PWAs are unsafe" implies that loading web pages in that browser itself is unsafe Except that's exactly what Apple is saying. Their engine -- and their brand depends on it -- offers users assurances arbitrary engines do not offer. Apple says PWAs are safe because Safari is safe, while not-Safari PWAs are not-safe. And, if not safe, Apple is at least accountable. Google's brand, for instance, does not depend on it: https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-google-will-settle-5-billion-lawsuit-over-tracking-incognito-chrome-users-121651324.html https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-google-will-settl...
  - anon373839 3y ago
    It doesn’t matter - they are going to support third party browsers anyway. They are just afraid the browsers will host PWAs better than Safari does, making them a more viable alternative to the App Store.
  - addicted 3y ago
    Apple’s inability to protect its “brand” while doing what nearly every other platform owner in the world does routinely does not justify monopolistic and anti competitive behavior.
  - troupo 3y ago
    Well, that link definitely plays in Apple's favour :)
  - arghwhat 3y ago
    > Except that's exactly what Apple is saying. You misunderstand. If a foreign browser engine was to be made available for PWAs, it would be because the user installed the browser and browsed the web with it. In other words, if loading a web page in this browser was unsafe - which is what a PWA is - the user would already be compromised. PWA or bookmark does not matter. PWAs do not change the risk profile. PWAs only get a few extra APIs, but nothing major. Location, microphone, webcam, bluetooth, usb, etc. are all standard web APIs available to web pages, not PWA specific. The argument that PWA specifically has a special risk profile is null and void. The only sensible reasoning is that Apple is strongly against opening their platform at all (their way of implementing compliance is borderline malicious), and maybe want to weasel their way out of any effort they can avoid (allowing users to install new types of apps is zero work, changing which app opens a link by default is near-zero, while allowing users to replace the engine for PWAs require a bit more integration).
EasyMark 3y ago
I don't trust anyone, but historically they seem on par with the big guys like Microsoft and Google. At some point you accept someone's security model or you roll your own system I guess and hope you're better than the security teams at these companies?

M4v3R 3y ago

You have to trust someone if you're using a computing device connected to the Internet. The point of being in Apple ecosystem is that you trust Apple, and then (supposedly) you can not trust anyone else. To many that's a very strong proposition.

summerlight 3y ago
> The point of being in Apple ecosystem is that you trust Apple, This seems to be over-generalization? Users are using Apple devices because those are good products, not because they want to delegate every single trust problem to the Apple ecosystem. That might be a great proposition for people like you, but there is a significant number of people who consider it a compromise rather than a value.
- chongli 3y ago
  Users trust Apple because Apple is ultimately accountable for security breaches on iOS devices. If a 3rd party app causes a data breach it does not matter if the breach was made possible by compliance with regulations like the DMA, Apple will still take the blame.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    > Users trust Apple because Apple is ultimately accountable for security breaches on iOS devices. As a long time user of Windows which historically had an incomparably large amount of security incidents, I can assure you that Apple won't get blamed that much for 3rd party data breach unless it involves Apple's own service and user data.
    - chongli 3y ago
      Since you’re a commenter on HN I’m going to assume you’re a tech person. I’m not talking about tech people, who through their discussions try to find the correct person/company to blame for issues. I’m talking about the general public. If a story about a data breach in a 3rd party app — affecting iOS users — hits the news cycle, Apple will take the blame and their brand reputation and sales will be impacted. It doesn’t matter whose fault it really is, Apple is the face of the iPhone and through their walled garden they have accepted final responsibility for everything that occurs on iOS.
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        I don't see how this matters to the GP's argument. Windows was a virus hotbed for decades and that does not appear to have affected its reputation in a meaningful way.
        chongli 3y ago
        That’s because Windows’ reputation was already mud. Microsoft made their business on corporate users anyway. Apple is a consumer brand. A data breach on iOS is like nudity in a Disney movie: utterly brand-destroying.
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        Windows was both. If you were buying a computer in the early 2000s, it was almost certainly a Windows PC.
        chongli 3y ago
        Right, but Apple built their brand on being the alternative to Windows for people who didn’t want to deal with security issues, viruses, crashes, bundled junkware, etc. You can draw a direct line between Apple’s original marketing pitch (easy to use, simple, secure, appliance-style computing) and the iOS walled garden. Just as you can with Disney and their family-oriented brand. It’s not a compelling argument to say that other film studios have nudity in their films when Disney is the brand at issue.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  >there is a significant number of people who consider it as a compromise rather than a value. I suspect that from Apple's perspective, it is definitively not a significant number. For Apple, ownership of the "trust problem" is an intrinsic part of "making good products".
  - summerlight 3y ago
    > For Apple, ownership of the "trust problem" is an intrinsic part of "making good products". Yes, this might be true. And the majority of elected officials in EU fundamentally disagrees with that statement.
    - geodel 3y ago
      > And the majority of elected officials in EU fundamentally disagrees with that statement. Well, EU can and will force, fine, or ban US companies as they see fit but there is not some fundamental correctness to their viewpoint
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        Any fundamental correctness of their viewpoint is by virtue of them representing more people (EU citizens) than Apple's CEO represents (himself and, I guess, the Apple corporation, if you count that). On moral issues, the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint (if there is one) is, by definition, the one that more people say is the fundamentally "correct" viewpoint.
        jdmdmdmdmd 3y ago
        [dead]
        mckn1ght 3y ago
        What you should be comparing is the percentage of the market the EU represents in the total market available to Apple. EU politicians are accountable to their population. Apple’s CEO is accountable to every Apple customer. The EU does not now, nor has it ever, constituted a majority of Apple revenue.
- geodel 3y ago
  > Users are using Apple devices because those are good products,.. For general populace good also include secure by default. "every single trust problem to the Apple ecosystem." is rather technical point that very few people would even understand meaning of it. > significant number of people who consider it a compromise How significant compare to iPhone user base?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
addicted 3y ago
Why can’t I choose to trust Apple for iOS and another developer for other functionality that runs on iOS? We do this all the time. I don’t uniquely depend on Microsoft for stuff that runs on Windows. Same for stuff that runs on macOS. And on Linux I’m not even sure who I’m trusting from the ground up other than a huge and disparate collection of people. So what makes iOS so unique that it can’t run PWAs, which is little more than adding some chrome and a handful of APIs to already pre-existing browser capabilities. What an F’ing joke. And the bigger joke are the Apple fans who are going out of their way to defend Apple sticking it up their nether parts.
- zappb 3y ago
  It’s not unique to Apple. It’s an inherent problem to securing Turing machines.
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  If you are not an Apple user not an Apple fan why do you care so much about Apple and its users?
trinsic2 3y ago
I'd rather trust a public (not-for-profit) institution that actually had a real incentive to protect user security. Instead we get for-profit companies that have a vested interest (conflict of interest) to do security the way it thinks it should be done. In my experience, that usually is bad for the people that are using the platform because there is no real surety that security is being done for the sake of the users. Apple has no interest in working with public institutions that have a close relationship with the people they serve. That's a big red flag in my book. You cant trust a company that serves content and hardware and at the same time trust them with security. It's too many eggs in one basket, to easy of a target for rogue entities (NSA) even if they have good motives .
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  Which public institutions do you find have real concern for their users? In which country?
  - fsflover 3y ago
    https://eff.org https://eff.org, https://fsfe.org https://fsfe.org, https://edri.org https://edri.org.
jc_dc 3y ago
And to a degree, that’s why developers tend to hate Apple. They paint us as a pack of crims trying to steal from unsuspecting Apple users.
- MrDresden 3y ago
  I think you are conflating the relationship between consumers/developers and the corporation (that you work for?). I don't hate Apple, but rather realise that it's bottom line and fiduciary duty to its shareholders is stronger than what is best for us (consumers/developers). I do not trust the corporate marketing one bit (and honestly, why should I?). This behaviour of Apple just further supports that view. As a company, it seems to believe that it is somehow above following the rules meant to benefit consumers/developers, which goes against what the company has been marketing its self with since the 80's. So lets stop the 'Leave Apple alone (and us that work there)' crying, and just acknowledge what the whole thing revolves around.
  - jc_dc 3y ago
    It’s possible to hate them and recognize why they’re doing at the same time though…although I do think there’s also a hefty dose of arrogance and self importance in there. I’m old enough to remember when we (devs) felt this way toward Microsoft…so if I was Tim Apple I’d include that risk in my calculus cause what came next was two decades in the penalty box. Seems like they hate us (developers) back though so it’s a mutual relationship I suppose.
- troupo 3y ago
  > They paint us as a pack of crims trying to steal from unsuspecting Apple users. Have you seen the world around you for the past 20 years or so? I'd say this characterises developers (well, companies they work for at least) quite well, don't you think?
  - jc_dc 3y ago
    No, I’d say the vast majority of reputable developers are not trying to scam you. But there are some trying to scam you…and some of those are also in the App Store…as long as they use IAP to scam you all is well.
blackoil 3y ago
There are two kinds of trust, I may trust Apple to not intentionally steal data. But I may trust Signal to create a more inherently secure messenger, or I may trust Google to create technically a more secure browser. What Apple and some users here are saying that users don't have intelligence to judge it and so will have to trust only Apple.
xwolfi 3y ago
But that's what the EU is willing to reform. Apple isnt a EU company, hell it may even not contribute much to the tax base, there's less reason to trust them in exchange for gatekeeping against EU companies trying to generate tax revenue on their plarform. Trusting Apple is nice in the US where it's probably a net contributor to the country's development. Elsewhere, not so.

cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago

[flagged]

summerlight 3y ago
Your argument might be only applicable to some sort of fundamentalists. Most people in the real world make informed decision based on lots of different factors. I'm pointing out that Apple speaks like a security fundamentalist but doesn't act like such. They should choose either one of being fundamentalist or realist, not cherrypicking whatever traits that work in favor of themselves.
Wowfunhappy 3y ago
I share the GP's view and I use an iPhone because I must have access to iMessage and there is no alternate way to do that.
Nullabillity 3y ago
Not everyone makes their own device choices. Or they didn't know the problems involved yet when they bought the device. Or there could be a thousand other reasons.

zaphirplane 3y ago

Apple’s business model excludes Clickjacking, stealing personal Information, stealing passwords, commissions from redirects, commissions from gambling sites redirects. Those in that business use browser plugins to get inside your security boundary so your argument maybe over my head or baby bath water thing

thimp 3y ago

We don't entirely trust Apple. We just trust them more than other vendors.

rickdeckard 3y ago
Who is "we"?
- thimp 3y ago
  Probably the folk upvoting my comment.
fsflover 3y ago
This is a false dichotomy. Completely trusting any single entity who doesn't really care about you (and only cares about extracting money from you) is riskier than trusting FLOSS, which is being constantly verified by independent actors.
- thimp 3y ago
  That is not really how it works though. Look at the amount of limping, poorly implemented FLOSS software there is out there where the maintainers show no interest at all or there is no funding to support it. Look at the whole OpenSSL mess a while back. I honestly prefer to pay a vendor who will (a) complete a product until it's usable (b) be motivated to maintain it because they are paid and (c) be motivated to maintain it because they are scared of the bad PR of not maintaining it.
  - fsflover 3y ago
    Apple OSes are insecure by design to aid surveillance (sneak.berlin) 43 points by vitplister 4 months ago | 32 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37875370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37875370 Apple fined $8.5M for illegally collecting iPhone owners' data for ads (gizmodo.com) 334 points by nixcraft on Jan 8, 2023 | 134 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34299433 Apple's Cooperation with Authoritarian Governments (jessesquires.com) 468 points by ig0r0 on March 31, 2021 | 291 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26644216 Apple reportedly dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained (2020) (theverge.com) 425 points by samename on Jan 14, 2021 | 137 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25777207

Retric 3y ago

Using an Apple device requires trust in Apple even if you run a 3rd party operating system let alone a 3rd party application on their OS.

arghwhat 3y ago

Well, while the argument is entirely bogus as "PWAs are unsafe" implies that loading web pages in that browser itself is unsafe and thus stopping PWAs but not loading pages is pointless, you do have to have full trust in Apple for security of your device as they are the sole provider for the core platform providing most of the security primitives used. That just doesn't exclude trusting others as well.

Terretta 3y ago
> Well, while the argument is entirely bogus as "PWAs are unsafe" implies that loading web pages in that browser itself is unsafe Except that's exactly what Apple is saying. Their engine -- and their brand depends on it -- offers users assurances arbitrary engines do not offer. Apple says PWAs are safe because Safari is safe, while not-Safari PWAs are not-safe. And, if not safe, Apple is at least accountable. Google's brand, for instance, does not depend on it: https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-google-will-settle-5-billion-lawsuit-over-tracking-incognito-chrome-users-121651324.html https://www.engadget.com/the-morning-after-google-will-settl...
- anon373839 3y ago
  It doesn’t matter - they are going to support third party browsers anyway. They are just afraid the browsers will host PWAs better than Safari does, making them a more viable alternative to the App Store.
- addicted 3y ago
  Apple’s inability to protect its “brand” while doing what nearly every other platform owner in the world does routinely does not justify monopolistic and anti competitive behavior.
- troupo 3y ago
  Well, that link definitely plays in Apple's favour :)
- arghwhat 3y ago
  > Except that's exactly what Apple is saying. You misunderstand. If a foreign browser engine was to be made available for PWAs, it would be because the user installed the browser and browsed the web with it. In other words, if loading a web page in this browser was unsafe - which is what a PWA is - the user would already be compromised. PWA or bookmark does not matter. PWAs do not change the risk profile. PWAs only get a few extra APIs, but nothing major. Location, microphone, webcam, bluetooth, usb, etc. are all standard web APIs available to web pages, not PWA specific. The argument that PWA specifically has a special risk profile is null and void. The only sensible reasoning is that Apple is strongly against opening their platform at all (their way of implementing compliance is borderline malicious), and maybe want to weasel their way out of any effort they can avoid (allowing users to install new types of apps is zero work, changing which app opens a link by default is near-zero, while allowing users to replace the engine for PWAs require a bit more integration).

EasyMark 3y ago

I don't trust anyone, but historically they seem on par with the big guys like Microsoft and Google. At some point you accept someone's security model or you roll your own system I guess and hope you're better than the security teams at these companies?