4 ms·

This article is incorrect. Apple doesn't bar loading webpages with anything other their own webkit. What they bar is interpreting code that isn't included with

This article is incorrect. Apple doesn't bar loading webpages with anything other their own webkit. What they bar is interpreting code that isn't included with the app except inside the include webkit with the system. This is how opera mobile works on the iPhone (all external javascript executed server side and the dom is rendered locally on the device) There is a clear difference between downloading and opening documents vs downloading and executing code in Apple's book. (If it's turing complete basically). They just don't want you downloading new functionality into the app without them getting to test it and approve it. It's just really hard to write a web browser that doesn't use javascript. You might be able to hide a little UIWebView off somewhere executing the downloaded javascript but something about violating the spirt of the rule makes me think Apple might still say no. Long long ago Apple didn't even allow other webkit based browsers. They loosened up to apps replicating built in features though over time. Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to want other browsers either way.

vibrunazo 14y ago
> They just don't want you downloading new functionality into the app without them getting to test it and approve it. This sounds a little foggy to me. Why exactly wouldn't they want that? What exact kind of harmful functionality would they not be able to predict a third party JavaScript engine be able to cause, that webkit cannot? I'm not convinced that this isn't just another excuse to stop competition. Similar to the whole, amazon cannot sell ebooks "for the good of our users" rule.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  I'm sure that stopping competition isn't a drawback from Apple's perspective, but the official reason is that they don't want developers doing an end run around their app store to get code on the device.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  I think it's because they want everything to get approved. Otherwise you'll have "Web app stores" that sneak in Porn apps or something after Apple's passed them.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>This is how opera mobile works on the iPhone Opera Mobile doesn't run on iPhone, only Opera Mini does. >Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to want other browsers either way. Err what? Do you have any reference as to how it's worse? Windows Phone with similar rules allows browsers to use IE's engine, just like iOS allows browsers to embed the Webkit based Safari engine.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
  I find the justification on both Apple's and MS's side to be quite telling. Apple - we don't want you executing code we haven't reviewed. MS - only we can understand and code securely enough for this.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    That's their stated position, but might not be their internal position. Microsoft sees that Apple has done it, and now they have a valid position to do it as well. Look at all the things Microsoft did in the 90s when they were dominant. They got sued for anti-trust and lost, and paid a dear price for it. Apple was not a monopoly in any market at that time, so they took a page out of Microsoft's book knowing they would not be sued over it. Apple could create vendor-lock-in, they could bundle whatever software they wanted, they could only allow their software on their hardware and anyone who tries to go outside that could be sued into bankruptcy. All perfectly legal since Apple wasn't a monopoly, and this helped them gain marketshare quickly. Warning: speculative prediction follows. Now that Apple is the monopoly in the mobile world, they are the ones who have to answer to anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is what Apple was in the 90s. Microsoft right now is where Apple was in 2001; making a clean break from the days of old, using the same tricks the dominant player is under legal investigation for. If history repeats itself, Apple will be pinned for the same things Microsoft was, and Microsoft will be able to leverage that for a fair bit of marketshare. End speculation. Whether or not the above comes to play, Microsoft wouldn't be pushing Windows 8 and WoA if Apple hadn't laid down the red carpet for this kind of behavior. Microsoft's internal position is likely more along the lines of "lockdowns are fair game again!"
bzbarsky 14y ago
> If it's turing complete basically Not really. CSS is Turing complete, technically. So is XSLT, which doesn't even need user interaction for the computations. What Apple is banning is something a lot vaguer than "Turing complete", and worst of all they don't even clearly define what it is. They've made it clear that a JS JIT is completely out, and a JS interpreter is probably out (though there have been other interpreters sometimes allowed and sometimes banned, seemingly at random). So actually writing something browser-like is likely to run afoul of Apple randomly deciding that it's not OK even if it's crippled in various ways like Opera Mini.

vibrunazo 14y ago

> They just don't want you downloading new functionality into the app without them getting to test it and approve it. This sounds a little foggy to me. Why exactly wouldn't they want that? What exact kind of harmful functionality would they not be able to predict a third party JavaScript engine be able to cause, that webkit cannot? I'm not convinced that this isn't just another excuse to stop competition. Similar to the whole, amazon cannot sell ebooks "for the good of our users" rule.

fpgeek 14y ago
I'm sure that stopping competition isn't a drawback from Apple's perspective, but the official reason is that they don't want developers doing an end run around their app store to get code on the device.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
I think it's because they want everything to get approved. Otherwise you'll have "Web app stores" that sneak in Porn apps or something after Apple's passed them.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>This is how opera mobile works on the iPhone Opera Mobile doesn't run on iPhone, only Opera Mini does. >Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to want other browsers either way. Err what? Do you have any reference as to how it's worse? Windows Phone with similar rules allows browsers to use IE's engine, just like iOS allows browsers to embed the Webkit based Safari engine.

FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
I find the justification on both Apple's and MS's side to be quite telling. Apple - we don't want you executing code we haven't reviewed. MS - only we can understand and code securely enough for this.
- freehunter 14y ago
  That's their stated position, but might not be their internal position. Microsoft sees that Apple has done it, and now they have a valid position to do it as well. Look at all the things Microsoft did in the 90s when they were dominant. They got sued for anti-trust and lost, and paid a dear price for it. Apple was not a monopoly in any market at that time, so they took a page out of Microsoft's book knowing they would not be sued over it. Apple could create vendor-lock-in, they could bundle whatever software they wanted, they could only allow their software on their hardware and anyone who tries to go outside that could be sued into bankruptcy. All perfectly legal since Apple wasn't a monopoly, and this helped them gain marketshare quickly. Warning: speculative prediction follows. Now that Apple is the monopoly in the mobile world, they are the ones who have to answer to anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is what Apple was in the 90s. Microsoft right now is where Apple was in 2001; making a clean break from the days of old, using the same tricks the dominant player is under legal investigation for. If history repeats itself, Apple will be pinned for the same things Microsoft was, and Microsoft will be able to leverage that for a fair bit of marketshare. End speculation. Whether or not the above comes to play, Microsoft wouldn't be pushing Windows 8 and WoA if Apple hadn't laid down the red carpet for this kind of behavior. Microsoft's internal position is likely more along the lines of "lockdowns are fair game again!"

bzbarsky 14y ago

> If it's turing complete basically Not really. CSS is Turing complete, technically. So is XSLT, which doesn't even need user interaction for the computations. What Apple is banning is something a lot vaguer than "Turing complete", and worst of all they don't even clearly define what it is. They've made it clear that a JS JIT is completely out, and a JS interpreter is probably out (though there have been other interpreters sometimes allowed and sometimes banned, seemingly at random). So actually writing something browser-like is likely to run afoul of Apple randomly deciding that it's not OK even if it's crippled in various ways like Opera Mini.