commoner

8 ms·

61.
by commoner 3y ago
Apple is not compelled to remove PWAs from Safari in the EU, because Apple has the option of allowing non-Safari browsers to implement PWAs. Apple chose to remove a PWA feature from Safari and prevent non-Safari browsers from adding PWA ico
62.
by commoner 3y ago
According to the article, the latest iOS beta prevents non-Safari browsers from adding PWA icons to the home screen. These changes retain iOS's favoritism of Safari.
63.
by commoner 3y ago
With these changes, Safari is the only browser allowed by Apple to implement PWAs on iOS, which gives Safari an advantage over the other browsers that are not allowed to implement PWAs on iOS. Anyone who uses PWAs on iOS must do so via Safa
64.
by commoner 3y ago
> it doesn’t mean the EU is actually competent to regulate the market The EU has done more to improve consumer choice in the mobile app industry than any other region in the world. They can go even further, but their progress so far cert
65.
by commoner 3y ago
Preventing other browsers from implementing PWAs does not improve security in iOS. This is a self-serving restriction intended to discourage users from switching away from Safari.
66.
by commoner 3y ago
Why should anyone give Apple sympathy for restricting PWAs to Safari in iOS? There is no valid reason for Apple to prevent PWAs from opening in the default browser selected by the user.
67.
by commoner 3y ago
When Mozilla launched Focus for iOS in 2016, Apple had two WebKit implementations on iOS. Focus was implemented with UIWebView (slower, with more extensive content blocking capabilities), while Firefox was implemented with WKWebView (faster
68.
by commoner 3y ago
> iOS products like 1Blocker work as well in practice iOS content blockers don't work in any browser except Safari due to Apple's restrictions, which limits Firefox's usefulness and hurts Firefox adoption on iOS in an anti
69.
by commoner 3y ago
> actually improving the browser to be a competitive product Firefox would be more competitive on iOS with Gecko-based WebExtensions on iOS such as uBlock Origin, which is exactly what Mozilla is advocating for with this page. It's
70.
by commoner 3y ago
Many users do care whether their web browser has an effective ad blocker and other extensions. Apple's iOS restrictions prevent Firefox from implementing extensions like uBlock Origin. Remove those restrictions and Firefox becomes much
71.
by commoner 3y ago
Mozilla should have pushed for the removal of these anticompetitive platform restrictions sooner and more vigorously. But with Apple, Google, and Microsoft all under the antitrust spotlight right now, it's as good of a time as ever for
72.
by commoner 3y ago
Of course it's in Mozilla's interest to challenge Safari's Apple-imposed monopoly on iOS. Firefox does not benefit from being suppressed on iOS just because Chrome is also suppressed on iOS. Removing Apple's restrictions
73.
by commoner 3y ago
Google Voice does not handle on-device SMS/MMS messages on iOS. Most phone users expect to use the phone number that comes with their cell phone plan, not a separate VoIP service like Google Voice that uses a different phone number. Sp
74.
by commoner 3y ago
As a user, I do want an alternative to Apple's Messages app (such as Beeper Cloud or a standalone SMS/MMS client with additional features) that can handle SMS/MMS messaging on iOS. Your choice to use Apple's Messages app
75.
by commoner 3y ago
It is obviously absurd to compare messaging protocols to airline lounges. Messaging protocols are digital and required for text message communications, an essential technology used by almost every smartphone user. Airline lounges are luxury
76.
by commoner 3y ago
Beeper (Beeper Cloud) already supports SMS/MMS from Android devices, but is unable to do so for SMS/MMS from iOS devices due to Apple's restriction. As a Signal user, you might have remembered when Signal/TextSecure supp
77.
by commoner 3y ago
> This would of course be different if Apple prevented you from sending SMS messages via iMessage, or from installing third party messengers. But they don’t do either of these things. Apple does, in fact, prevent you from installing a
78.
by commoner 3y ago
Counterpoint Research shows Apple at 53% of smartphone shipments in the U.S. during Q2 2022 - Q3 2023: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/insights/us-smartphone-... That market share is certainly enough to warrant FT
79.
by commoner 3y ago
iMessage is a proprietary messaging protocol developed by Apple that is only supported on Apple's Messages app as a business decision. The Messages app is exclusive to iOS, macOS, and other Apple OSes. iMessage has a broader feature se
80.
by commoner 3y ago
> no OS-level restrictions on the capability of those messaging services (that is, a third-party app can effectively take the place of iMessage with no loss of device or app functionality) iMessage is not an app, but Apple Messages is. O
81.
by commoner 3y ago
The main takeaway from the article is: > The FTC will closely scrutinize any claims that competition must be impeded to advance privacy or security. While Apple has frequently made the claims that the FTC is now scrutinizing, I think a m
82.
U.S. and Europe Eye Russian Assets to Aid Ukraine as Funding Dries Up(nytimes.com)
11 points by commoner 3y ago|1 comments
83.
by commoner 3y ago
Apple doesn't allow any apps on iOS other than Apple's own Messages app to use the phone's native SMS/MMS functionality. Due to Apple's restriction, Beeper (Beeper Cloud) does not support SMS/MMS from iOS devic
84.
by commoner 3y ago
I find F-Droid more trustworthy than the Google Play Store because the F-Droid maintainers are much more transparent and communicative than Google is. The Play Store review process doesn't do a thorough job of checking apps for privacy
85.
by commoner 3y ago
I'm having a great experience using microG, which lets me selectively enable and disable cloud messaging for every app that attempts to use Google Play Services. microG does not implement the ads and tracking (Google Analytics) APIs of
86.
by commoner 3y ago
I'm not sure why the site is unavailable for you, but here's a copy from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20231220025346/https://www.ftc.g...
87.
by commoner 3y ago
I believe those restrictions are in addition to the ban: > I. Use of Facial Recognition or Analysis Systems Prohibited > IT IS ORDERED that Respondents, in connection with the activities of any Covered Business, are prohibited for fiv
88.
by commoner 3y ago
It's not "entitlement" to share my purchasing preferences with Proton. I am glad to pay for Proton Mail subscriptions, but I am unwilling to pay for Proton Drive subscriptions (including Proton subscription bundles) until Pro
89.
Rite Aid banned from using AI facial recognition for five years(ftc.gov)
232 points by commoner 3y ago|80 comments
90.
by commoner 3y ago
While I will appreciate the Proton Mail Linux app when it is eventually released, I refuse to pay for a Proton Unlimited, Proton Family, or Proton Business subscription until Proton Drive has a free and open source client for Linux. There a

More ›