13 ms·

iOS allows alternative browser engines in Japan

439 points by eklavya 9mo ago

koolba 9mo ago
Does this mean we'll finally have "real" firefox with support for ublock origin on iOS?
- __turbobrew__ 9mo ago
  uBO lite works pretty well on ios/safari for me.
- modeless 9mo ago
  Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs. Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed. I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
  - arcanemachiner 9mo ago
    > just for the Japan market Also the EU, no?
    - modeless 9mo ago
      Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
      - concinds 9mo ago
        > Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the system web view in apps systemwide? Yes.
        modeless 9mo ago
        Hmm, actually now that I look closer at the Japan requirements, it doesn't seem to allow replacing the web view systemwide, as I thought, and as Android allows. And neither do the EU requirements. They only allow individual apps to embed an alternative engine on a per-app basis by including the whole engine within the app. And the Japan page includes the caveat "apps from browser engine stewards" which if interpreted zealously (and I expect Apple to) would forbid apps not from Google or Mozilla from embedding Chromium or Gecko. This is a pretty big limitation considering how much iOS web browsing happens in web views. Having both the EU and Japan as markets may be enough for Google to port Chromium just for Chrome itself, but we will have to wait and see. Actually Chromium development is open so it should be pretty easy to see if Google has a serious porting effort or not.
        concinds 9mo ago
        > neither do the EU requirements Wrong, they do specify "standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar" are both covered, that's in the law. What you're referring to is how Apple chose to implement it. The EU hasn't opened a compliance case on Safari yet but I expect they'll do so at some point.
        modeless 9mo ago
        It's not clear to me that the EU rules make Apple's implementation illegal. I hope they do.
- Longhanks 9mo ago
  Could’ve happened some time ago already in the EU, so there must be reasons for Firefox an Google not to ship their own engines (yet?).
- Zak 9mo ago
  Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions. https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
  - wolvoleo 9mo ago
    Yeah malicious compliance :(
- ckcheng 9mo ago
  FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
  - aryonoco 9mo ago
    As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
    - mi_lk 9mo ago
      are there major sites that don't work for you?
    - LetsGetTechnicl 9mo ago
      How does it compare to 1Blocker? I use that in Safari and also a VPN when I'm away back to my home connection so it uses my NextDNS which also blocks a lot of in-app ads.
    - ckcheng 9mo ago
      Oh definitely! I know you’re just using the phrase and don’t imply otherwise, but to clarify the word “imitation”, uBO lite is not a fake imitation but actually an official thing from uBO and Raymond Hill: see https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
- viktorcode 9mo ago
  Probably not, as the same rules were applied to Apple devices in EU earlier, and no third party browser engines appeared. But right now you can use uBlock origin lite in Safari. Or any other of multitude of other adblockers.
- nntwozz 9mo ago
  There is ublock origin lite for Safari in the meantime: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home?tab=readme-ov-file (it's great)
- swiftcoder 9mo ago
  Nope. Apple has successfully made the rules so complicated that we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines in the EU, more than a year later.
- mrtesthah 9mo ago
  You can actually use full uBlock origin in Kagi's Orion iOS browser.
IlikeKitties 9mo ago
[flagged]
- vbezhenar 9mo ago
  iOS users love that Apple curates software for them.
  - IlikeKitties 9mo ago
    >iOS users love that Apple curates software for them. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuck_chair https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuck_chair
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
shmerl 9mo ago
Did Japan decide to push proper competition laws? Time to force Apple to do it everywhere. Very long overdue.
- signal11 9mo ago
  I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem. I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
  - dekoidal 9mo ago
    It hasn’t on Macs. Safari is still popular among non-tech folk
    - crossroadsguy 9mo ago
      That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
      - argsnd 9mo ago
        In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
      - Klonoar 9mo ago
        This needs a big ol’ “citation needed” slapped across it.
    - Spivak 9mo ago
      I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up. Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.
Wowfunhappy 9mo ago
I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye: > Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.
- rafram 9mo ago
  https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines
  - hu3 9mo ago
    Documentation to guide devs on safe usage of C++ is enough? So any language should be allowed as long as they instruct developers to be careful.
    - creato 9mo ago
      I don't know if they do this, but those conventions could be enforced by a tool.
      - concinds 9mo ago
        Yes, they do this, and it's really not an unreasonable requirement.
        arcanemachiner 9mo ago
        Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves. I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
zb3 9mo ago
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
- ninkendo 9mo ago
  Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit? I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
- catlikesshrimp 9mo ago
  They weren't going to title "Apple forced to allow alternative..." They are the ones allowing the alternatives because they are the gate keepers. They have "the keys"
threethirtytwo 9mo ago
Why only Japan? Seems like something forced them to in Japan.
- cubefox 9mo ago
  Yes, there is a new Japanese law that forces them.
- Hamuko 9mo ago
  It's in the EU and Japan, so basically all regions that have pushed back against Apple's anti-competitive ways. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.developer.web-browser-engine.host https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
- leptons 9mo ago
  The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline Who knows if this will actually move forward now that "Tim Apple" gave the current leader a meaningless golden trophy.
- guessmyname 9mo ago
  For many Hacker News readers who check the website every day, this is not news: • (4 years ago) Japan forces Apple to slightly loosen restrictions on ‘reader’ apps — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094 • (3 years ago) Japan pushes for Apple and Google to allow sideloading — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 • (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735 • (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple- and Google-dominated phone apps to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398 • (3 years ago) Apple Japan hit with $98M in back taxes for missing duty-free abuses — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235 • (2 years ago) Japan to crack down on Apple and Google app store monopolies — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429 • (2 years ago) Japan forces Apple and Google to open their mobile platforms — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651 • (2 years ago) Japan enacts law to curb Apple, Google's app dominance — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162 • (5 months ago) Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061 • (5 months ago) Japan Law Will Require Apple to Allow Non-WebKit Browsers on iPhone — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077 • (15 days ago) Apple Announces Changes to iOS in Japan — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858 • (14 days ago) Apple and Google respond to new Japan smartphone law, including reduced app fees — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074 … and more here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple
drnick1 9mo ago
2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone. At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.
- airstrike 9mo ago
  Unfortunately, I appreciate the deep integration between my phone and my laptop too much to drop either
  - drnick1 9mo ago
    I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
    - cosmic_cheese 9mo ago
      Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
    - cpuguy83 9mo ago
      KDE Connect with iOS, while useful, is terrible.
    - arzig 9mo ago
      Unfortunately the integration is really quite weak with Apple. KDE Connect cannot remain active while the application is not in the foreground. It’s possibly a packaging issue but pairing from fedora is also quite flakey. As absurd as this sounds windows -> iPhone via their phone link is actually almost as good as apples built in ecosystem to the point where I can make phone calls and send texts on my computer. It’s not quite as seamless especially the setup but that is a well done wizard and it mostly works.
rorylawless 9mo ago
My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.
- crazygringo 9mo ago
  There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
  - greiskul 9mo ago
    It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store. Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
    - otterley 9mo ago
      > Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other. If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
      - greiskul 9mo ago
        https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie Just read the summary that Gemini provides for a good quick understanding, and follow up the multiple articles about it. Then please don't come back and say that there is nothing concrete about this evidence, that is just people speculating about a behavior that Apple has been engaging repeatedly and continuously for over a decade.
ninkendo 9mo ago
The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible. It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.
- __aru 9mo ago
  > The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. To be honest, I suspect that Apple is purposefully doing this to make alternatives a logistical and legal nightmare vs their own App store. By having different rules for different countries, different fee structures, etc, Apple is basically making alternatives as inconvenient and painful as legally possible The US not getting these features is on purpose, it makes the entire idea of "alternatives on iOS" extremely inconvenient vs just using the App store.
- swiftcoder 9mo ago
  > They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... If by "this", you mean "a set of rules so complicated that no 3rd party will ever ship a browser"... In practice, they've shipped a whole lot of nothing, and we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines available in the EU
- jccalhoun 9mo ago
  Apple didn't donate to Trump's inauguration, give him a gold and glass paperweight, and donate to his demolishing of the East Wing so that they would have to open up the app store in the USA
concinds 9mo ago
The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious: > Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer. Apple does not comply with this.
iqandjoke 9mo ago
So can people in Okinotorishima, Takeshima, Senkaku Islands use that alternative browser?
- casey2 9mo ago
  No, but Manchurians can
gumby271 9mo ago
It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?
- aryonoco 9mo ago
  Because capitalism.
GaryBluto 9mo ago
I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.
- apples_oranges 9mo ago
  FeatureToggles.swift
  - madeofpalk 9mo ago
    eligibilityd https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility
- travisgriggs 9mo ago
  This. It’s computation. Computation doesn’t really “get” geopolitical borders. I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
  - gjsman-1000 9mo ago
    This is a poorly thought through argument, as there is nothing that “gets” geopolitical borders.
- overfeed 9mo ago
  > It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another They will continue to do so for as long as it remains profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price of admission into the multinational club. Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
d--b 9mo ago
I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have. Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set. At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999. This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC. It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines. I don't feel cornered by Apple on that one.
mettamage 9mo ago
I would love to have a browser that I can use my stylus to scribble with.
MBCook 9mo ago
I’m not going to say I think Apple should be able to lock out competing browsers, I know this is going to happen. But God I don’t want this. The iPhone is basically the only thing stopping a total Chrome/Chromium hegemony from ruling the web the way IE did. I don’t think Google will practically abandon things the way Microsoft did. But they will absolutely have the kind of power Microsoft did to force any feature. I don’t want to be forced to use Chrome because it’s the only browser that works on most sites. It’s already bad enough with some sites. But Apple‘s stubbornness and completely different reasons are the only things accidentally holding back the tide.
- herpdyderp 9mo ago
  I don’t see any reason why Google wouldn’t abandon web features left and right, given how they do that with everything else.
  - anticensor 9mo ago
    Because they themselves use them?
    - brokencode 9mo ago
      Also because they know what happened to Microsoft when they did that with IE.
      - MBCook 9mo ago
        Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform… It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome. Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then. See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.
lcnmrn 9mo ago
Hopefully with AI we will have other browser engines than Chrome and Firefox.
giobox 9mo ago
Apple appear to be using the same rules that they made up when "allowing" third party browser engines in the EU. It's worth pointing out that these restrictions are such, that to best of my knowledge, no one has shipped a browser with an alternate engine in the EU app stores yet despite being permitted to for over a year now. The demand that the application with its alternate browser engine must be a completely new and separate binary from any app already using the built in browser makes it hard for existing big players like Chrome - they would have to manage two apps on the store during any transition to their own engine, which supposedly has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for them already in the EU.
- benoau 9mo ago
  Another hurdle in the EU is the browser app developers must be in the EU too.
keepamovin 9mo ago
It will become a weird menagerie
arn3n 9mo ago
Especially with Apple, I often see people scared that if they open up their ecosystem, then users will lose one of the most consumer friendly tech companies out there. It’s not just “if apple allows alternative browsers then Chrome will win”, which is (probably) true. It’s: * If Apple allows alternative app stores then the whole ios ecosystem will rot and be foooded with malware, brough up during the Apple vs. Epic cases * If Apple can’t control the data on their user’s phones, then privacy rights will disappear, a common talking point during the Apple vs. Facebook case for opt-in data collection. And like, these points are correct — Apple kind of acts like a “benevolent dictator” when it comes to their ecosystem. But shouldn’t there be alternatives between “Apple can control all software on the hardware they sell” and “the moment Apple doesn’t have control of their user’s experience then it’ll be far worse”? Like, we should have more tech companies, more options to pick from between these two extremes. The market needs to be more competitive, and if that isn’t possible shouldn’t there be regulation to protect users and devs better? This constantly feels like a “pick your poison“ kind of deal, where we can only pick between a company locking down their hardware or abuse of users via. software. If Microsoft banned alternative browser engines there’d be riots in these comments. Apple is just better to its users. Giving companies the power to lock down hardware they sell isn’t a solution that will work when Apple inevitably turns against its users, and is a horrible precedent to set legally. Lord knows John Deere and a million other predatory hardware companies are salivating at the idea of users of their hardware not having control over what they bought, and Meta and Microsoft love the idea of users not having control of the software they run and the data it collects. We can’t just picking between the least worst of two companies.
- concinds 9mo ago
  It's weird that people never distill those arguments to their most basic logic. Apple directly dictate the shape, speed, and existence of any innovation on iOS, and by extension, any innovation involving mobile phones or meant to run on mobile phones. They don't simply have "power" over it, in the sense that they get to say "Yes" or "No". iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it. Browsers didn't exist when Windows 1.0 came out. But they happened. If it had been iOS, there would have been no networking, no JIT (I know that came later, bear with me), Firefox/Gecko could never have existed and been able to fix the web. Apple alone would have controlled the evolution of the most important tech of the past few decades. It couldn't have existed in the first place unless Apple, and no one else, invented it and put it in iOS themselves. Basic OS features: files and the filesystem, sharing, casting your screen, communicating with other devices. It doesn't exist until Apple makes it. It doesn't change until Apple changes it. Even something as simple as file syncing. They forced Dropbox, GDrive, OneDrive to adopt their shitty, buggy backend. Those services all had to drop basic features to adapt. Those features can't ever come back unless Apple allows them. Any hypothetical new features won't exist unless Apple, and no one else, thinks of them and adds them. How is this sane?
Schnitz 9mo ago
I wonder what technical detail makes this so hard to enable for other locales.
- madeofpalk 9mo ago
  None. Apple doesn't pretend there are any.
hotsalad 9mo ago
If I'm reading the requirements around being a "browser engine steward" correctly, does this mean essentially only Google and Mozilla can ever qualify for the "Embedded Browser Engine Entitlement"? Even Microsoft seems to be ruled out, give that Edge's engine is based on Blink. Any other smaller browser engines would be ruled out by the baseline web functionality requirements. This hardly seems to allow anything.
DeusExMachina 9mo ago
It is amazing the lenghts Apple is willing to go to make exceptions only in individual places that force them to.
MalcolmWillis 9mo ago
[dead]

439 points by eklavya 9mo ago

koolba 9mo ago

Does this mean we'll finally have "real" firefox with support for ublock origin on iOS?

__turbobrew__ 9mo ago
uBO lite works pretty well on ios/safari for me.
modeless 9mo ago
Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs. Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed. I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
- arcanemachiner 9mo ago
  > just for the Japan market Also the EU, no?
  - modeless 9mo ago
    Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
    - concinds 9mo ago
      > Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the system web view in apps systemwide? Yes.
      - modeless 9mo ago
        Hmm, actually now that I look closer at the Japan requirements, it doesn't seem to allow replacing the web view systemwide, as I thought, and as Android allows. And neither do the EU requirements. They only allow individual apps to embed an alternative engine on a per-app basis by including the whole engine within the app. And the Japan page includes the caveat "apps from browser engine stewards" which if interpreted zealously (and I expect Apple to) would forbid apps not from Google or Mozilla from embedding Chromium or Gecko. This is a pretty big limitation considering how much iOS web browsing happens in web views. Having both the EU and Japan as markets may be enough for Google to port Chromium just for Chrome itself, but we will have to wait and see. Actually Chromium development is open so it should be pretty easy to see if Google has a serious porting effort or not.
        concinds 9mo ago
        > neither do the EU requirements Wrong, they do specify "standalone web browsers as well as web browsers integrated or embedded in software or similar" are both covered, that's in the law. What you're referring to is how Apple chose to implement it. The EU hasn't opened a compliance case on Safari yet but I expect they'll do so at some point.
        modeless 9mo ago
        It's not clear to me that the EU rules make Apple's implementation illegal. I hope they do.
Longhanks 9mo ago
Could’ve happened some time ago already in the EU, so there must be reasons for Firefox an Google not to ship their own engines (yet?).
Zak 9mo ago
Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions. https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
- wolvoleo 9mo ago
  Yeah malicious compliance :(
ckcheng 9mo ago
FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
- aryonoco 9mo ago
  As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
  - mi_lk 9mo ago
    are there major sites that don't work for you?
  - LetsGetTechnicl 9mo ago
    How does it compare to 1Blocker? I use that in Safari and also a VPN when I'm away back to my home connection so it uses my NextDNS which also blocks a lot of in-app ads.
  - ckcheng 9mo ago
    Oh definitely! I know you’re just using the phrase and don’t imply otherwise, but to clarify the word “imitation”, uBO lite is not a fake imitation but actually an official thing from uBO and Raymond Hill: see https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home
viktorcode 9mo ago
Probably not, as the same rules were applied to Apple devices in EU earlier, and no third party browser engines appeared. But right now you can use uBlock origin lite in Safari. Or any other of multitude of other adblockers.
nntwozz 9mo ago
There is ublock origin lite for Safari in the meantime: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home?tab=readme-ov-file https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home?tab=readme-ov-file (it's great)
swiftcoder 9mo ago
Nope. Apple has successfully made the rules so complicated that we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines in the EU, more than a year later.
mrtesthah 9mo ago
You can actually use full uBlock origin in Kagi's Orion iOS browser.

IlikeKitties 9mo ago

[flagged]

vbezhenar 9mo ago
iOS users love that Apple curates software for them.
- IlikeKitties 9mo ago
  >iOS users love that Apple curates software for them. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuck_chair https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuck_chair
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

shmerl 9mo ago

Did Japan decide to push proper competition laws? Time to force Apple to do it everywhere. Very long overdue.

signal11 9mo ago
I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem. I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
- dekoidal 9mo ago
  It hasn’t on Macs. Safari is still popular among non-tech folk
  - crossroadsguy 9mo ago
    That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
    - argsnd 9mo ago
      In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
    - Klonoar 9mo ago
      This needs a big ol’ “citation needed” slapped across it.
  - Spivak 9mo ago
    I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up. Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.

Wowfunhappy 9mo ago

I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye: > Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.

rafram 9mo ago
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines
- hu3 9mo ago
  Documentation to guide devs on safe usage of C++ is enough? So any language should be allowed as long as they instruct developers to be careful.
  - creato 9mo ago
    I don't know if they do this, but those conventions could be enforced by a tool.
    - concinds 9mo ago
      Yes, they do this, and it's really not an unreasonable requirement.
      - arcanemachiner 9mo ago
        Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves. I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.

zb3 9mo ago

The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.

ninkendo 9mo ago
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit? I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
catlikesshrimp 9mo ago
They weren't going to title "Apple forced to allow alternative..." They are the ones allowing the alternatives because they are the gate keepers. They have "the keys"

threethirtytwo 9mo ago

Why only Japan? Seems like something forced them to in Japan.

cubefox 9mo ago
Yes, there is a new Japanese law that forces them.
Hamuko 9mo ago
It's in the EU and Japan, so basically all regions that have pushed back against Apple's anti-competitive ways. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/entitlements/com.apple.developer.web-browser-engine.host https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
leptons 9mo ago
The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline Who knows if this will actually move forward now that "Tim Apple" gave the current leader a meaningless golden trophy.
guessmyname 9mo ago
For many Hacker News readers who check the website every day, this is not news: • (4 years ago) Japan forces Apple to slightly loosen restrictions on ‘reader’ apps — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094 • (3 years ago) Japan pushes for Apple and Google to allow sideloading — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809 • (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735 • (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple- and Google-dominated phone apps to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398 • (3 years ago) Apple Japan hit with $98M in back taxes for missing duty-free abuses — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235 • (2 years ago) Japan to crack down on Apple and Google app store monopolies — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429 • (2 years ago) Japan forces Apple and Google to open their mobile platforms — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651 • (2 years ago) Japan enacts law to curb Apple, Google's app dominance — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162 • (5 months ago) Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061 • (5 months ago) Japan Law Will Require Apple to Allow Non-WebKit Browsers on iPhone — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077 • (15 days ago) Apple Announces Changes to iOS in Japan — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858 • (14 days ago) Apple and Google respond to new Japan smartphone law, including reduced app fees — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074 … and more here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple

drnick1 9mo ago

2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone. At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.

airstrike 9mo ago
Unfortunately, I appreciate the deep integration between my phone and my laptop too much to drop either
- drnick1 9mo ago
  I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
  - cosmic_cheese 9mo ago
    Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
  - cpuguy83 9mo ago
    KDE Connect with iOS, while useful, is terrible.
  - arzig 9mo ago
    Unfortunately the integration is really quite weak with Apple. KDE Connect cannot remain active while the application is not in the foreground. It’s possibly a packaging issue but pairing from fedora is also quite flakey. As absurd as this sounds windows -> iPhone via their phone link is actually almost as good as apples built in ecosystem to the point where I can make phone calls and send texts on my computer. It’s not quite as seamless especially the setup but that is a well done wizard and it mostly works.

rorylawless 9mo ago

My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.

crazygringo 9mo ago
There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
- greiskul 9mo ago
  It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store. Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
  - otterley 9mo ago
    > Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other. If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
    - greiskul 9mo ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie Just read the summary that Gemini provides for a good quick understanding, and follow up the multiple articles about it. Then please don't come back and say that there is nothing concrete about this evidence, that is just people speculating about a behavior that Apple has been engaging repeatedly and continuously for over a decade.

ninkendo 9mo ago

The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible. It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.

__aru 9mo ago
> The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. To be honest, I suspect that Apple is purposefully doing this to make alternatives a logistical and legal nightmare vs their own App store. By having different rules for different countries, different fee structures, etc, Apple is basically making alternatives as inconvenient and painful as legally possible The US not getting these features is on purpose, it makes the entire idea of "alternatives on iOS" extremely inconvenient vs just using the App store.
swiftcoder 9mo ago
> They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... If by "this", you mean "a set of rules so complicated that no 3rd party will ever ship a browser"... In practice, they've shipped a whole lot of nothing, and we still don't have any 3rd party browser engines available in the EU
jccalhoun 9mo ago
Apple didn't donate to Trump's inauguration, give him a gold and glass paperweight, and donate to his demolishing of the East Wing so that they would have to open up the app store in the USA

concinds 9mo ago

The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious: > Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer. Apple does not comply with this.

iqandjoke 9mo ago

So can people in Okinotorishima, Takeshima, Senkaku Islands use that alternative browser?

casey2 9mo ago
No, but Manchurians can

gumby271 9mo ago

It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?

aryonoco 9mo ago
Because capitalism.

GaryBluto 9mo ago

I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.

apples_oranges 9mo ago
FeatureToggles.swift
- madeofpalk 9mo ago
  eligibilityd https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility
travisgriggs 9mo ago
This. It’s computation. Computation doesn’t really “get” geopolitical borders. I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
- gjsman-1000 9mo ago
  This is a poorly thought through argument, as there is nothing that “gets” geopolitical borders.
overfeed 9mo ago
> It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another They will continue to do so for as long as it remains profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price of admission into the multinational club. Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.

d--b 9mo ago

I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have. Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set. At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999. This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC. It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines. I don't feel cornered by Apple on that one.

mettamage 9mo ago

I would love to have a browser that I can use my stylus to scribble with.

MBCook 9mo ago

I’m not going to say I think Apple should be able to lock out competing browsers, I know this is going to happen. But God I don’t want this. The iPhone is basically the only thing stopping a total Chrome/Chromium hegemony from ruling the web the way IE did. I don’t think Google will practically abandon things the way Microsoft did. But they will absolutely have the kind of power Microsoft did to force any feature. I don’t want to be forced to use Chrome because it’s the only browser that works on most sites. It’s already bad enough with some sites. But Apple‘s stubbornness and completely different reasons are the only things accidentally holding back the tide.

herpdyderp 9mo ago
I don’t see any reason why Google wouldn’t abandon web features left and right, given how they do that with everything else.
- anticensor 9mo ago
  Because they themselves use them?
  - brokencode 9mo ago
    Also because they know what happened to Microsoft when they did that with IE.
    - MBCook 9mo ago
      Microsoft didn’t control the number one search engine, the number one email client, the number one video site, probably the number one online office suite, the number one smartphone platform… It was possible to rip people away from Microsoft. That may not be something we can do this time with Chrome. Try telling someone that moving off of Chrome may mean moving off of every single Google property because Chrome is the only browser they work on by then. See how easy an argument that is. It’s right up with there with “stop helping capitalism and move to the woods“.

lcnmrn 9mo ago

Hopefully with AI we will have other browser engines than Chrome and Firefox.

giobox 9mo ago

Apple appear to be using the same rules that they made up when "allowing" third party browser engines in the EU. It's worth pointing out that these restrictions are such, that to best of my knowledge, no one has shipped a browser with an alternate engine in the EU app stores yet despite being permitted to for over a year now. The demand that the application with its alternate browser engine must be a completely new and separate binary from any app already using the built in browser makes it hard for existing big players like Chrome - they would have to manage two apps on the store during any transition to their own engine, which supposedly has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for them already in the EU.

benoau 9mo ago
Another hurdle in the EU is the browser app developers must be in the EU too.

keepamovin 9mo ago

It will become a weird menagerie

arn3n 9mo ago

Especially with Apple, I often see people scared that if they open up their ecosystem, then users will lose one of the most consumer friendly tech companies out there. It’s not just “if apple allows alternative browsers then Chrome will win”, which is (probably) true. It’s: * If Apple allows alternative app stores then the whole ios ecosystem will rot and be foooded with malware, brough up during the Apple vs. Epic cases * If Apple can’t control the data on their user’s phones, then privacy rights will disappear, a common talking point during the Apple vs. Facebook case for opt-in data collection. And like, these points are correct — Apple kind of acts like a “benevolent dictator” when it comes to their ecosystem. But shouldn’t there be alternatives between “Apple can control all software on the hardware they sell” and “the moment Apple doesn’t have control of their user’s experience then it’ll be far worse”? Like, we should have more tech companies, more options to pick from between these two extremes. The market needs to be more competitive, and if that isn’t possible shouldn’t there be regulation to protect users and devs better? This constantly feels like a “pick your poison“ kind of deal, where we can only pick between a company locking down their hardware or abuse of users via. software. If Microsoft banned alternative browser engines there’d be riots in these comments. Apple is just better to its users. Giving companies the power to lock down hardware they sell isn’t a solution that will work when Apple inevitably turns against its users, and is a horrible precedent to set legally. Lord knows John Deere and a million other predatory hardware companies are salivating at the idea of users of their hardware not having control over what they bought, and Meta and Microsoft love the idea of users not having control of the software they run and the data it collects. We can’t just picking between the least worst of two companies.

concinds 9mo ago
It's weird that people never distill those arguments to their most basic logic. Apple directly dictate the shape, speed, and existence of any innovation on iOS, and by extension, any innovation involving mobile phones or meant to run on mobile phones. They don't simply have "power" over it, in the sense that they get to say "Yes" or "No". iOS is locked down in such a fundamental way that any innovation will not come about unless Apple specifically envisions it and designs the OS to support it. Browsers didn't exist when Windows 1.0 came out. But they happened. If it had been iOS, there would have been no networking, no JIT (I know that came later, bear with me), Firefox/Gecko could never have existed and been able to fix the web. Apple alone would have controlled the evolution of the most important tech of the past few decades. It couldn't have existed in the first place unless Apple, and no one else, invented it and put it in iOS themselves. Basic OS features: files and the filesystem, sharing, casting your screen, communicating with other devices. It doesn't exist until Apple makes it. It doesn't change until Apple changes it. Even something as simple as file syncing. They forced Dropbox, GDrive, OneDrive to adopt their shitty, buggy backend. Those services all had to drop basic features to adapt. Those features can't ever come back unless Apple allows them. Any hypothetical new features won't exist unless Apple, and no one else, thinks of them and adds them. How is this sane?

Schnitz 9mo ago

I wonder what technical detail makes this so hard to enable for other locales.

madeofpalk 9mo ago
None. Apple doesn't pretend there are any.

hotsalad 9mo ago

If I'm reading the requirements around being a "browser engine steward" correctly, does this mean essentially only Google and Mozilla can ever qualify for the "Embedded Browser Engine Entitlement"? Even Microsoft seems to be ruled out, give that Edge's engine is based on Blink. Any other smaller browser engines would be ruled out by the baseline web functionality requirements. This hardly seems to allow anything.

DeusExMachina 9mo ago

It is amazing the lenghts Apple is willing to go to make exceptions only in individual places that force them to.

MalcolmWillis 9mo ago

[dead]