11 ms·

Its not happening

lytedev 1y ago
It definitely is, buy I think the silent majority just don't care all that much. Is that what you're referring to?
Etheryte 1y ago
I don't know, I switched to Safari and it was painful for like two hours and then I stopped thinking about it. The only thing I somewhat miss is the built-in page translate, but I don't need it often enough to be bothered much.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
  I find switching from chrome to safari essentially doing nothing. If you switched to a non-big-company owned browser, it would make sense but Apple has plenty of lock in which is as bad as chrome lock in.
  - fny 1y ago
    I'm a huge fan of Orion by Kagi: you should have a look! It's a little rough around the edges but the extension support on iOS is amazing.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      Orion is the only viable option on iOS IMO. The fact that, to this day, Safari has no way to block ads on iOS means it's just awful. Before Orion, I avoided using my web browser like the plague, because the experience was just bad. Now I'm on Android, and Ironfox is pretty good and Firefox is also available. The browser story on Android is leaps and bounds ahead of iOS.
      - tech234a 1y ago
        Actually there are several adblockers available for Safari on iOS; the functionality was introduced in 2015. Adblock Plus and Adguard are some of the larger extensions available, and now uBlock Origin Lite is now being beta tested for Safari on iOS.
        const_cast 1y ago
        I've never used these, but if I had to guess: these probably don't have the same power as full Manifest V2 extensions. Also names like "Adblock Plus" scare me. I don't want someone I don't trust getting my web activity.
        Etheryte 1y ago
        You don't have to guess, they're as capable as MV2 and AdGuard has been around for a long time.
        const_cast 1y ago
        A quick Google search reveals AdGuard is only a DNS resolver, so it has the adblocking power of something like a Pi Hole. So... nowhere near as capable. It can't inject JS into webpages to prevent pop ups, which is going to lead to white boxes everywhere. In addition, ads can obfuscate the URL or share domains with non-ad content - so that content won't be blocked with a DNS resolver. However, the software seems safe. Their privacy policy says they only store websites locally, and never upload them to servers. The app is also open-source. Ad Block Plus is not privacy respecting. They collect usage data as well as unique device identifiers.
        ndiddy 1y ago
        I find the "switch to Safari" talk amusing because the adblockers available for Safari are functionally equivalent to the MV3 API that everyone's complaining about. The problem with the "static list of content to block" approach that Safari and MV3 use is that you can't trick the site into thinking that ads have been loaded when they haven't, like MV2 allows via Javascript injection. The effect of this is that you'll run into a lot of "disable your ad blocker to continue" pop-ups when using an adblocker with Safari, while you won't see them at all when using an adblocker with Firefox.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
      I don't use any Apple product, so no Orion for me
  - vehemenz 1y ago
    Apple isn’t selling my data, and they make the best consumer hardware, so at this point there aren’t many downsides to Apple lock in.
    - scarface_74 1y ago
      No company sells your data. They sell access to you based on the data they have about you. Apple is no different
      - 0xblinq 1y ago
        Facebook entered the chat
        scarface_74 1y ago
        Facebook doesn’t sell your data to other companies either. Your data is too valuable to sell. Companies tell FB what demographics they want to target.
    - sensanaty 1y ago
      > Apple isn’t selling my data Sorry to break it to you, but yes, they are. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/
      - jampekka 1y ago
        The greatest trick the Ad ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
      The lock in is a downside.
  - creato 1y ago
    It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API. Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equally important IMO is arbitrary JavaScript injection into web pages, which MV2 allows but MV3 does not. MV3 is so locked down that you can't even use String.replace() with a constructed JavaScript function. It's really a nightmare. Google's excuse is that all JavaScript needs to be statically declared in the extension so that the Chrome Web Store can review it. But then the Chrome Web Store allows a bunch of malware to be published anyway!
      - rasz 1y ago
        There must be ways of injecting custom non static js because mv3 version of tampermonkey works https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgff...
        lapcat 1y ago
        After dragging their feet for literally years, Google finally implemented a specific userscripts API. However, the implementation was initially just statically declared rules like DeclarativeNetRequest, which sucked, and it also required that the user enable developer mode. In Chrome 135, which is very recent—the public is currently on Chrome 138—Google added an execute() method to run an individual script. However, the API is not available from the extension content script, so if it needs to be triggered from the content script, you have to make an async call to the background script (or more accurately, the background service worker, which is a whole other nightmare of MV3). Moreover, the API accepts only a string for JS code or a filename; you still can't use a Function() constructor for example. In Chrome 138, the current version, Google switched from developer mode to a dedicated userscripts permission toggle in the extension details, which is disabled by default. I think Google is still working on but has not finished a permissions request API. Remember this is almost SEVEN YEARS after Google first announced Manifest V3. The entire time, Google has been stalling, foot dragging, practically getting dragged kicking and screaming into doing the least possible work here.
  - zer00eyz 1y ago
    I don't think in this case your argument is as clear cut and the use cases that people have today arent solved by the choices out there. George Carlin: "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it." The interests of APPLE (who makes money on hardware, and credit card processing) don't align with the interests of Google (who makes money on ad's). I am all for open source, I'm all for alternatives. But honestly if you own an iPhone and a Mac then safari makes a lot of sense. I happen to use safari and Firefox on Mac and am happy to bounce back and forth. I also keep an eye on ladybird, but it isnt ready for prime time. And I'm still going to have a chrome install for easy flashing of devices.
- mattkevan 1y ago
  Safari has had built-in page translate for years now. It’ll detect different languages and show a translate option in the site tools menu. Works well.
  - Etheryte 1y ago
    I'm aware of this, but in my experience it's pretty bad. It doesn't even cover all European languages, never mind the rest of the world. For the languages it does support, it's always a lottery whether it works with that specific site or not. I've tried using it a few times, but it's not even remotely close to what Chrome does.
- notatoad 1y ago
  switching to safari because chrome disabled the good adblockers is completely counter-productive. safari has never supported the good adblockers.
agile-gift0262 1y ago
I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.
- galangalalgol 1y ago
  The only time I've used anything but firefox for the last. Well probably since netscape honestly? I am so old. Is to get the in flight entertainment to work on american, but firefox has worked for that for a few years now. People say chrome is faster and in the early 2000s I might have agreed, but now I really don't understand why anyone not on a mac or iphone isn't using Firefox. It is great.
  - nfriedly 1y ago
    Firefox is great on Mac too. You have a point about iPhones, though. It's almost pointless, but not quite: it does get a few features, like cross-platform sync. "Real" Firefox is one of the things that keeps me on Android.
    - galangalalgol 1y ago
      Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.
      - tmnvix 1y ago
        > Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I have always been able to.
      - MangoToupe 1y ago
        You can use whatever you want on macos
      - pdpi 1y ago
        I assume that, by Chromium, you mean WebKit. At any rate, how or why would they have blocked Firefox on a machine where you can compile your own code?
al_borland 1y ago
It happened before, multiple times.

Its not happening

It definitely is, buy I think the silent majority just don't care all that much. Is that what you're referring to?

I don't know, I switched to Safari and it was painful for like two hours and then I stopped thinking about it. The only thing I somewhat miss is the built-in page translate, but I don't need it often enough to be bothered much.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
I find switching from chrome to safari essentially doing nothing. If you switched to a non-big-company owned browser, it would make sense but Apple has plenty of lock in which is as bad as chrome lock in.
- fny 1y ago
  I'm a huge fan of Orion by Kagi: you should have a look! It's a little rough around the edges but the extension support on iOS is amazing.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Orion is the only viable option on iOS IMO. The fact that, to this day, Safari has no way to block ads on iOS means it's just awful. Before Orion, I avoided using my web browser like the plague, because the experience was just bad. Now I'm on Android, and Ironfox is pretty good and Firefox is also available. The browser story on Android is leaps and bounds ahead of iOS.
    - tech234a 1y ago
      Actually there are several adblockers available for Safari on iOS; the functionality was introduced in 2015. Adblock Plus and Adguard are some of the larger extensions available, and now uBlock Origin Lite is now being beta tested for Safari on iOS.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        I've never used these, but if I had to guess: these probably don't have the same power as full Manifest V2 extensions. Also names like "Adblock Plus" scare me. I don't want someone I don't trust getting my web activity.
        Etheryte 1y ago
        You don't have to guess, they're as capable as MV2 and AdGuard has been around for a long time.
        const_cast 1y ago
        A quick Google search reveals AdGuard is only a DNS resolver, so it has the adblocking power of something like a Pi Hole. So... nowhere near as capable. It can't inject JS into webpages to prevent pop ups, which is going to lead to white boxes everywhere. In addition, ads can obfuscate the URL or share domains with non-ad content - so that content won't be blocked with a DNS resolver. However, the software seems safe. Their privacy policy says they only store websites locally, and never upload them to servers. The app is also open-source. Ad Block Plus is not privacy respecting. They collect usage data as well as unique device identifiers.
      - ndiddy 1y ago
        I find the "switch to Safari" talk amusing because the adblockers available for Safari are functionally equivalent to the MV3 API that everyone's complaining about. The problem with the "static list of content to block" approach that Safari and MV3 use is that you can't trick the site into thinking that ads have been loaded when they haven't, like MV2 allows via Javascript injection. The effect of this is that you'll run into a lot of "disable your ad blocker to continue" pop-ups when using an adblocker with Safari, while you won't see them at all when using an adblocker with Firefox.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    I don't use any Apple product, so no Orion for me
- vehemenz 1y ago
  Apple isn’t selling my data, and they make the best consumer hardware, so at this point there aren’t many downsides to Apple lock in.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    No company sells your data. They sell access to you based on the data they have about you. Apple is no different
    - 0xblinq 1y ago
      Facebook entered the chat
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        Facebook doesn’t sell your data to other companies either. Your data is too valuable to sell. Companies tell FB what demographics they want to target.
  - sensanaty 1y ago
    > Apple isn’t selling my data Sorry to break it to you, but yes, they are. https://ads.apple.com/ https://ads.apple.com/
    - jampekka 1y ago
      The greatest trick the Ad ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 1y ago
    The lock in is a downside.
- creato 1y ago
  It's especially silly in this case because Safari extensions have always been equivalent to MV3 functionality.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    This is not accurate. Safari had webRequestBlocking functionality from 2010 to 2019 and indeed a version of uBlock Origin for Safari. What is true is that Safari was the first browser to ditch webRequestBlocking, replaced by its Apple-specific static rule content blocker API. Otherwise, though, Safari still supports MV2. Everyone seems to think webRequestBlocking is the only relevant change in MV3, but it's not. Equally important IMO is arbitrary JavaScript injection into web pages, which MV2 allows but MV3 does not. MV3 is so locked down that you can't even use String.replace() with a constructed JavaScript function. It's really a nightmare. Google's excuse is that all JavaScript needs to be statically declared in the extension so that the Chrome Web Store can review it. But then the Chrome Web Store allows a bunch of malware to be published anyway!
    - rasz 1y ago
      There must be ways of injecting custom non static js because mv3 version of tampermonkey works https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgff...
      - lapcat 1y ago
        After dragging their feet for literally years, Google finally implemented a specific userscripts API. However, the implementation was initially just statically declared rules like DeclarativeNetRequest, which sucked, and it also required that the user enable developer mode. In Chrome 135, which is very recent—the public is currently on Chrome 138—Google added an execute() method to run an individual script. However, the API is not available from the extension content script, so if it needs to be triggered from the content script, you have to make an async call to the background script (or more accurately, the background service worker, which is a whole other nightmare of MV3). Moreover, the API accepts only a string for JS code or a filename; you still can't use a Function() constructor for example. In Chrome 138, the current version, Google switched from developer mode to a dedicated userscripts permission toggle in the extension details, which is disabled by default. I think Google is still working on but has not finished a permissions request API. Remember this is almost SEVEN YEARS after Google first announced Manifest V3. The entire time, Google has been stalling, foot dragging, practically getting dragged kicking and screaming into doing the least possible work here.
- zer00eyz 1y ago
  I don't think in this case your argument is as clear cut and the use cases that people have today arent solved by the choices out there. George Carlin: "You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. These people went to the same universities, they're on the same boards of directors, they're in the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a meeting, they know what's good for them and they're getting it." The interests of APPLE (who makes money on hardware, and credit card processing) don't align with the interests of Google (who makes money on ad's). I am all for open source, I'm all for alternatives. But honestly if you own an iPhone and a Mac then safari makes a lot of sense. I happen to use safari and Firefox on Mac and am happy to bounce back and forth. I also keep an eye on ladybird, but it isnt ready for prime time. And I'm still going to have a chrome install for easy flashing of devices.
mattkevan 1y ago
Safari has had built-in page translate for years now. It’ll detect different languages and show a translate option in the site tools menu. Works well.
- Etheryte 1y ago
  I'm aware of this, but in my experience it's pretty bad. It doesn't even cover all European languages, never mind the rest of the world. For the languages it does support, it's always a lottery whether it works with that specific site or not. I've tried using it a few times, but it's not even remotely close to what Chrome does.
notatoad 1y ago
switching to safari because chrome disabled the good adblockers is completely counter-productive. safari has never supported the good adblockers.

agile-gift0262 1y ago

I switched to Firefox and it's been wonderful. I wonder why I didn't switch earlier. It's only been a couple of months, but I can't imagine going back to a browser without multi-account containers.

galangalalgol 1y ago
The only time I've used anything but firefox for the last. Well probably since netscape honestly? I am so old. Is to get the in flight entertainment to work on american, but firefox has worked for that for a few years now. People say chrome is faster and in the early 2000s I might have agreed, but now I really don't understand why anyone not on a mac or iphone isn't using Firefox. It is great.
- nfriedly 1y ago
  Firefox is great on Mac too. You have a point about iPhones, though. It's almost pointless, but not quite: it does get a few features, like cross-platform sync. "Real" Firefox is one of the things that keeps me on Android.
  - galangalalgol 1y ago
    Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I thought they forced chromium on there now too? The only time I got MacBook I put linux on it within a few months.
    - tmnvix 1y ago
      > Can you still get real Firefox on mac? I have always been able to.
    - MangoToupe 1y ago
      You can use whatever you want on macos
    - pdpi 1y ago
      I assume that, by Chromium, you mean WebKit. At any rate, how or why would they have blocked Firefox on a machine where you can compile your own code?

al_borland 1y ago

It happened before, multiple times.