Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Safari Government United Kingdom Apple

'Open Web Advocacy' Group Battles Apple's WebKit-Based Walled Garden (theregister.com) 78

Posted by EditorDavid from the web-warriors dept.
The Register reported this week on a group of software developers launching a group called Open Web Advocacy "to help online apps compete with native apps and to encourage or compel Apple to relax its iOS browser restrictions." The group (OWA), organized by UK-based developers Stuart Langridge, Bruce Lawson, and others, aims to promote a more open web by explaining subtle technical details to lawmakers and to help them understand anti-competitive aspects of web technology. Over the past few months, group members have been communicating with the UK Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) to convince the agency that Apple's iOS browser policy harms competition.

In conjunction with the debut of the group's website, the OWA plans to release a technical paper titled "Bringing Competition to Walled Gardens," that summarizes the group's position and aims to help regulators in the UK and elsewhere understand the consequences of web technology restrictions.

The group is looking for like-minded developers to take up its cause.... The primary concern raised by Langridge and Lawson is that Apple's iOS App Store Guidelines require every browser running on iPhones and iPads to be based on WebKit, the open source project overseen by Apple that serves as the rendering engine for the company's Safari browser.
"The OWA is now urging Apple users to contact regulators and legislators in other jurisdictions to galvanize support and force Apple to end its restrictions around WebKit," reports MacRumors, "although such a move could make sideloading apps from the web a real possibility, and that is something Apple appears equally reluctant to allow.

Reuters reported today that Apple has now written to U.S. lawmakers "to dispute assertions that its concerns about the dangers of sideloading apps into phones were overblown...." Reuters points out that the U.S. Congress "is currently considering a bill aimed at reining in app stores run by Apple and Alphabet's Google, which would require companies to allow sideloading. Apple has argued that such a practice would be a security risk as it keeps tight control of the apps in the store in order to keep users safe."

But OWA organizer Bruce Lawson tells the Register that as things stand now, "at the moment, every browser on iOS, whether it be badged Chrome, Firefox or Edge is actually just a branded skin of Safari, which lags behind [other browsers] because it has no competition on iOS."

And something funny happened when the Register contacted Apple for a comment about why they're against App Store rule changes: To our astonishment, after having queries ignored for months, an Apple spokesperson responded, asking whether the company could correspond off-the-record. We replied that we would be happy to communicate off-the-record and then never heard back.

Or if we did, we couldn't say.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Open Web Advocacy' Group Battles Apple's WebKit-Based Walled Garden More

'Open Web Advocacy' Group Battles Apple's WebKit-Based Walled Garden

Comments Filter:

  • The walled garden (Score:4, Informative)

    by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Saturday March 05, 2022 @03:40PM (#62329523)
    Does have its uses. Allowing non-reviewed apps on a device with such a personal and detailed connection to its user will have dire consequences on performance, reliability, privacy AND security. Allowing developers to bypass review would cause an App Store abandonment by most developers, as tracking software is lucrative and they wouldn't want to offer users the choice of going through the App Store, limiting their revenue potential for that user.
    • Just as an example, the Bank of America website has web trackers for Google Analytics, Doubleclick, and admobilize, plus a few I do not recognize. These trackers will compensate for placing the trackers on the website, and if a giant bank does it on their homepage, they would surely do it on their Apps. There would be no way to install an Ad-Block on the app either, and you would need to get behind the OS and know what the App wants to talk to legitimately... It is impossible.

      I am for Apple having the rig

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by leptons ( 891340 )
        Except what Apple is doing is FAR more abusive than what Microsoft got sued for in the antitrust case about bundling Internet Explorer. Apple not only bundles their own browser, they refuse to let anyone else run any kind of browser that isn't using their Safari webview. It's well known how abysmal Safari really is, it's been labeled "the new Internet Explorer", and that dubious distinction comes not only from the awful support of open standards, but it also implements proprietary things that make life a li
        • Microsoft was sued for marketshare, not lock-in. iOS does not have the 95% marketshare MS had. Also, MS was abusing their marketshare by making IIS the only really reliable web server to work on their built-in browser. Apple is not doing that.

          You can call it fanboyism all you want, but my points are valid concerns about the result if we force Apple to open their platform. It isn't marketed as an open platform, and there are alternatives. Also, I write apps that have web front-ends to them. Safari is rea

          • Microsoft was sued for marketshare, not lock-in. iOS does not have the 95% marketshare MS had. Also, MS was abusing their marketshare by making IIS the only really reliable web server to work on their built-in browser. Apple is not doing that.

            That's totally wrong. Lock-in is indeed why they were sued. It's not illegal to have a monopoly, even if the market share is 100%. What's illegal is anti-competitive behavior in the presence of significant market leverage. One such way of being anti-competitive is through a tying arrangement, which is basically a form of lock-in. Microsoft was found guilty under this legal theory:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            The case of webkit is indeed much worse than the Microsoft arrangement, as GP stated. Microsoft

            • Microsoft merely bundled internet explorer with windows, and gave it away for free. They didn't go so far as to forbid any competing web browsers

              Wrong!

              Microsoft made certain things in Windows (IIRC, the Help System for one), absolutely dependent on the presence of Internet Explorer, and then added insult to injury by modifying the Rendering Library such that more and more websites had to have more and more IE-specific code, to work properly.

              Show me that kind of purposeful lock-in with Safari, and I'll listen.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by leptons ( 891340 )
                >Show me that kind of purposeful lock-in with Safari, and I'll listen.

                Wow, how much kool-aide did you drink??

                Apple FORBIDS any competing browser engine on IOS. As in it's not allowed by them. They won't allow it at all. Every browser on IOS that isn't Safari IS FORCED TO USE SAFARI, there is no way around that because Apple FORBIDS it.

                And you don't think that is "purposeful lock-in with Safari"??? Really????

                What Apple is doing is in every way more abusive and more evil than anything Microsoft eve

                • >Show me that kind of purposeful lock-in with Safari, and I'll listen.

                  Wow, how much kool-aide did you drink??

                  Apple FORBIDS any competing browser engine on IOS. As in it's not allowed by them. They won't allow it at all. Every browser on IOS that isn't Safari IS FORCED TO USE SAFARI, there is no way around that because Apple FORBIDS it.

                  And you don't think that is "purposeful lock-in with Safari"??? Really????

                  What Apple is doing is in every way more abusive and more evil than anything Microsoft ever did with Internet Explorer. By far.

                  The previous guy seems to be correct, Apple fans really are like stupid Russians, only believing their glorious leader.

                  There is no browser lock-in. There are several "competing browsers" listed in the App Store.

                  What they do restrict (and rightfully so!) are browsers that do not use the Open Source HTML Rendering Engine, WebKit. They do that not "because competition"; but rather because HTML rendering libraries are huge, massively-complicated oceans of nearly impossible to vet code, most with a long history of vulnerabilities, and it just isn't worth the amount of time and resources to try and chase that around for each and

                  • So what you're saying is that their review process is shit/pointless and their ios security model is shit. Firefox for Android (and all the other non webkit browsers has had very few and limited problems, and for even those bugs, were limited to what any app with bugs could do. I.e. a simple uninstall solved it.

                    • So what you're saying is that their review process is shit/pointless and their ios security model is shit.

                      Firefox for Android (and all the other non webkit browsers has had very few and limited problems, and for even those bugs, were limited to what any app with bugs could do. I.e. a simple uninstall solved it.

                      You are, of course, twisting my words.

                      I didn't state nor imply anything you allege. I plainly stated that it would take far too much time and resources to properly inspect and test a non-WebKit Web Library every single time there was a (re)Submission; due to the fact that browser-support Libraries like that are huge, require all sorts of Permissions, and historically are Security weak-points.

                      The vast majority of iOS/iPadOS Users are, by this point, obviously of the opinion that the added Security issues are

          • There isn't a problem with web on Safari today. Web apps work relatively well compared to alternatives. I am not missing much. Are you?

            I don't have a problem with PWAs and Safari, either.

            Everything isn't a scheme or conspiracy at Apple. In this case, for example, It just isn't worth the security risk to allow a foreign web library to have as much access as it would need to work efficiently.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Microsoft was sued for market share on PCs. The scope is arbitrary, you could simply define it as Apple has 100% market share on iPhones.

            iOS is a big market and Apple locks everyone else out of it. You could compare it to Ford preventing third parties from making compatible parts. No more third party air filters, you must buy Ford approved ones.

          • Safari is really easy to adapt for, especially if you use a good library. There isn't a problem with web on Safari today.

            There are a lot of web platform features that are missing or broken in Safari, for which it is not practical or even possible to write polyfills. See "Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied" by Alex Russell [infrequently.org].

        • Safari doesnâ(TM)t implement its own web and HTML standards and nor does it have a 95% marketshare so that other browsers are locked out by content incompatibility due to those proprietary standards. Therefore your comparison to Microsoft and Internet Exporer is a nonsense.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by narcc ( 412956 )

            What? This is as similar as it gets. It's actually a bit worse, as Microsoft just bundled IE. Apple forces other browsers to use their engine. This is for their benefit, not yours.

            Safari doesnâ(TM)t implement its own web and HTML standards

            Apple doesn't implement web standards they don't like, which usually turn out to be same as the ones that threaten their hegemony. They're using their market position to hold back the web.

            I can see that you're an Apple user. If this only affected other Apple users, no one would care. The problem is that they have enough o

      • There would be no way to install an Ad-Block on the app either, and you would need to get behind the OS and know what the App wants to talk to legitimately... It is impossible.

        https://www.xda-developers.com... [xda-developers.com]

        I am for Apple having the right to curate their platform. If you dont agree with it, there should be alternatives for you. Tesla doesn't have to allow Apps on its infotainment system, neither does Samsung have to allow Apps on its FamilyHub refrigerators. Not every device with a CPU is an open platform.

        And why is that? Not everything has to be an RMS-approved FLOSS from the schematics up, I agree, but it'd be nice if companies were required to open those platforms if they

        • I agree with your second point surely. But, that has no bearing on the future of the App Store conversation this story is about.
        • It's counterproductive for everybody else but the company might secure another sale if they haven't pissed off their customer too much. Planned obsolescence is the only way to move from AirPlay 1 to AirPlay 2. There's also a mass of Bluetooth chips with inherent hardware security flaws - those things should not be brought back to life but the rest of the machine could be absolutely fine. The biggest loser is the planet and its heaving landfills.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Talchas ( 954795 )
        Do they do that on android, which doesn't have as many restrictions on the store, and which lets you load apks bypassing the store? Yeah I didn't think so.

      • There would be no way to install an Ad-Block on the app either, and you would need to get behind the OS and know what the App wants to talk to legitimately

        That's what root is for.

        Oh wait...

      • Not every device with a CPU is an open platform.

        Precisely!

        Some people just don't understand that the "rules" are generally different for Embedded Systems.

        And that goes double for Embedded Systems that, for mist, truly touch highly-sensitive personal data on a daily basis!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          How practical is it for a person to buy and carry multiple devices, one to run iOS-exclusive applications and another to run applications that Apple forbids?

          • How practical is it for a person to buy and carry multiple devices, one to run iOS-exclusive applications and another to run applications that Apple forbids?

            Easy!

            Just carry the Other One.

            I promise you, Apple won't miss the insignificant, but extremely whiny, puddle of Users, most of which who would never use an Apple Product if their life depended on it, anyway.

            You know what I hate? I hate the way that the Internet all-too-oftennmagnifies and amplifies the opinions of small groups if naysayers; not in proportion to the validity of their arguments, but rather only in proportion to the shrillness of their whining.

    • Myself, I'm fine with the way Apple does things. That being said, I wish they'd just go on and concede this issue to shut people up and the only thing I'd say is set it up such that it is impossible to unintentionally side-load an app.

      But I will add that at the same time Epic was suing Apple they were also suing Google over its App Store and in spite of Android supporting side-loading and 3rd party app stores, what Epic said in their filings is that 3rd party app stores are not "economically feasible", mea

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shmlco ( 594907 )

        Developers "think" they want side-loading on iOS, when in fact all it will do is screw with their business.

        The predominant use of side-loading on Android is loading pirated, cracked applications, and the proliferation of those apps is the primary reason why the Apple App Store is more lucrative for developers than the Play Store.

        I don't think Epic is going to be quite so happy when people start pirating all of their games...

        • Developers "think" they want side-loading on iOS, when in fact all it will do is screw with their business.

          Yeah and I've heard dictators make similar arguments about democracy.

          The predominant use of side-loading on Android is loading pirated, cracked applications

          Even if it was, which I kind of doubt but there's no way to prove one way or another, a pirated app isn't a lost sale. Some people, especially the MPAA/RIAA, like to blame weak sales on piracy all the time, but a lot of research has been done which shows that this just isn't the case. When somebody pirates anything, they weren't ever going to pay regardless, even if it simply meant that they went without it entirely. The only notable excep

    • Android warns the user and allows side loading. If you don't want the exposure, don't do it.

      If Apple doesn't add value for customers, then it shouldn't be allowed to force their cut of the revenue. Prove how much safer things are with their help. Start publishing these security issues that they protect users from. Create a user tool to find these issues on side loaded apps.

      If you truly trust only Apple to keep you safe, tell app developers you'll only use their app from the Apple store. Guilt any large

      • Any problem can be an opportunity for someone else to solve.

        This is why there is iOS. Why create a problem in the first place. That someone else solving it was Apple, with mammoth resources.

        Also, the value is not for developers. The value is for users. Trust in the App's consumption of your data. Trust that the App cant get your location etc, without the native APIs asking your permission. Trust that the App isn't going to nuke your battery with inefficient or surreptitious processing or mining. Trust that the App doesn't have back doors. Trust that the payments c

        • Also, the value is not for developers. The value is for users. Trust in the App's consumption of your data. Trust that the App cant get your location etc, without the native APIs asking your permission. Trust that the App isn't going to nuke your battery with inefficient or surreptitious processing or mining. Trust that the App doesn't have back doors. Trust that the payments can be disputed with Apple. This, on top of the value of the notifications, hosting, updating, distribution, and review platforms Apple maintains, is why they can and deserve their cut on sales of Apps. If it isn't for you, there are alternatives.

          I hope that you're not implying that Apple actually does all of this.

          https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com]

          Over the years, one thing I've noticed about Apple is they're the most aggressive about blocking apps that either the media has called attention to, it in some way competes with Apple, or it in some way it just doesn't quite align with their business model.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          The App Store instills trust:

          • Trust that your device will not be used, even with your consent, to simulate a historical armed conflict.[1]
          • Trust that your device will not be used, even with your consent, to comment on a celebrity.[2]
          • Trust that your device will not be used, even with your consent, to play video games published by companies now out of business.[3]
          • Trust that your device will not be used, even with your consent, to contribute to a database of Wi-Fi hotspot locations.[4]
          • Trust that your device wil

    • Does have its uses. Allowing non-reviewed apps on a device with such a personal and detailed connection to its user will have dire consequences on performance, reliability, privacy AND security. Allowing developers to bypass review would cause an App Store abandonment by most developers, as tracking software is lucrative and they wouldn't want to offer users the choice of going through the App Store, limiting their revenue potential for that user.

      Exactly.

      And modern browsers are nearly tantamount to a mini-OS unto themselves. Easily some of the most far-reaching and potentially invasive code, and it is casually and ubiquitously used almost continuously.

      And historically has a horrible security track record.

      The reason why Apple doesn't allow non-WebKit-based Browsers and other Apps is simple: Apple has enough to do trying to keep WebKit safe, bug-free, performant and secure; they are smart enough to know that there is simply no possible way for them to

      • A well-designed web application uses object detection to determine which web platform APIs are supported or not. What should such a web application do when it detects that the browser does not support a particular web platform API that is critical to the web application's primary use? One example is web push notifications, which are needed in a messaging application and which have never worked in Safari for iOS.

        • A well-designed web application uses object detection to determine which web platform APIs are supported or not. What should such a web application do when it detects that the browser does not support a particular web platform API that is critical to the web application's primary use? One example is web push notifications, which are needed in a messaging application and which have never worked in Safari for iOS.

          They are reportedly coming with iOS 15.4, which is currently in Beta.

          https://www.macobserver.com/ne... [macobserver.com]

          Do try to keep up!

          • "Push API" on Can I use [caniuse.com] claims that Push API didn't make it into the final release of iOS 15.4. It's currently listed as behind an "Experimental Features" switch in Safari Technology Preview on macOS.

            Push API debuted in Chrome and Firefox in first quarter 2016. This means it was denied to iOS users for six years [infrequently.org], and it will remain denied to people whose devices cannot be upgraded to iOS that actually introduces it.

            • "Push API" on Can I use [caniuse.com] claims that Push API didn't make it into the final release of iOS 15.4. It's currently listed as behind an "Experimental Features" switch in Safari Technology Preview on macOS.

              Push API debuted in Chrome and Firefox in first quarter 2016. This means it was denied to iOS users for six years [infrequently.org], and it will remain denied to people whose devices cannot be upgraded to iOS that actually introduces it.

              Move them goalposts.

              Your reply should have simply said: "Good to hear; about time!"

      • So what you're saying is that Apple should enforce a monoculture, just like IE back in the day. This allows hackers to target one device and suddenly capture 30%+ marketshare *guaranteed*.

        • So what you're saying is that Apple should enforce a monoculture, just like IE back in the day. This allows hackers to target one device and suddenly capture 30%+ marketshare *guaranteed*.

          For Mobile, yes.

          Get over it.

    • I really don't get this argument. You could write the exact same thing about our desktop computers, containing bank logins and all kinds of private documents and pictures.
      Are you seriously arguing that our computing devices should be locked down by their manufacturers because bad things can happen if you have freedom to use them any way you want?
      I'm quite disturbed that such a position goes unchallenged on Slashdot nowadays.

  • I hope Apple holds the line on this (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TuballoyThunder ( 534063 ) on Saturday March 05, 2022 @03:40PM (#62329525)
    I don't want my web browser to be an application platform.
    • It is hard enough for these OEMs to defend their platforms. How many zero-day exploits have been found and are being exploited by NSO groups and such. We don't need unvetted applications being run on iOS, especially because developers will remove their vetted versions. Vetting is hard on developers. They have to code to higher standards. They have to support IPv6. They have to be efficient. They can't monetize device details to advertisers.. Allowing unvetted apps will result in hundreds of thousands of App

      • It is hard enough for these OEMs to defend their platforms. How many zero-day exploits have been found and are being exploited by NSO groups and such. We don't need unvetted applications being run on iOS

        Right, and the NSO groups know that. So they just run them unvetted on iOS instead. Actually it turns out that iOS tends to be the easiest to do this with:

        https://www.wired.com/story/ns... [wired.com]

        In fact, the Amnesty International researchers say they actually had an easier time finding and investigating indicators of compromise on Apple devices targeted with Pegasus malware than on those running stock Android.

        So that walled garden really isn't doing you any favors. If we put this in real world terms, the biggest threat to you isn't democracy, it's actually what's inside of the iron curtain, despite what those you trust the most tell you.

    • Why does choice scare you so much? It isn't like they're going to force you to install a different browser. Or use that browser across the OS in other apps (unless it's your default).

      I'm very glad Google has allowed this, in part because Android Chrome cannot run many add-ons that are supported on desktop. Such as JavaScript/Ad blockers, and other privacy add-ons. Firefox on Android is my browser there. And I switched my desktop use to match so sync can be seamless (history, bookmarks, etc).

      • With browsers maybe not. Especially since Apple makes one. But banking apps, utilities to run drones, cars, etc, etc, etc may have side-loaded apps that do things that they do not disclose or advertise, that you do not have alternatives for. It isn't like there are competing BofA apps, and I don't know id trust 3rd party developers to it anyway. BofA making the App, and Apple verifying it, has proven to be a pretty compelling and secure solution. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
        • You're kidding, right? BoA (and many other banks) were transmitting passwords plaintext and storing them without encryption. Flashlight apps with an entire tethering system (dhcp, dns, accessing wifi driver oddly), and lord knows how many white hat hackers have admitted (then get booted off wholesale) that they've gotten tons of installs... all through the supposed secure app store.
    • You must be running Lynx web browser? https://lynx.invisible-island.... [invisible-island.net]

    • I'm guessing this means you prefer native applications over web applications. When you visit an application's website to learn more about the application and possibly acquire a copy, would you rather see something like this?

      We're sorry...

      {name of app} is not available for your device yet. To be the first to know when the campaign to bring {name of app} to your device begins, join our mailing list.

      Download for other devices

  • It is not open by definition.

    Make your open standards, and force(people want) apple to comply if those standards are better.

    Whining is sad.

  • Fine, but allow me (the user) to pick the web engine backend, and all apps will be forced to use that. Including any plugins I added to the engine.
    Not what you had in mind? Didn't think so...

    What this might result in is apps that bundle some kind web browser, which will never get updated. That is enough information for me to say this is bad idea.
    The referenced IndexDB issue at least did get fixed. And once fixed, it was fixed for ALL apps.

    This is once again a debate about shared libs/dependencies vs bundli

    • Fine, but allow me (the user) to pick the web engine backend, and all apps will be forced to use that. Including any plugins I added to the engine.
      Not what you had in mind? Didn't think so...

      That really wouldn't work. If it could, you'd be stuck with an odd choice between security and performance.

  • Apple's track record vis-a-vis software quality and security has not exactly been stellar for the past several years - and I say that as a Mac and iOS user. I'd love to be able to put Firefox proper on my iPhone, rather than the limited Safari reskinning that Apple's restrictions currently allow.

    • Compared to what? Apple software has far less security issues than competing platforms. I get weekly security advisories from CISA regarding Windows, Android, Google Chrome, etc. I get a handful a year for Apple platforms.

      • I get weekly security advisories from CISA regarding Windows, Android, Google Chrome, etc. I get a handful a year for Apple platforms.

        Ah...well then, let's broaden your awareness a bit:

        iOS: https://www.cvedetails.com/vul... [cvedetails.com]
        Code execution vulnerabilities for all time: 1185

        Android: https://www.cvedetails.com/vul... [cvedetails.com]
        Code execution vulnerabilities for all time: 692

        Now a little disclaimer: This isn't exactly an "apples to apples" (no pun intended) comparison. You see, these remote code execution vulnerabilities for Android actually aren't necessarily for stock Android. Basically any OEM, no matter how cheap or obscure, who introduces their own

  • ... from 1997 onwards with things like ultima online and steam in 2003, you can't have an open internet because the internet ISN'T.

    When you network two or more computers together they become and behave as a single computer. That basic fact is lost on these people. American copyright of software being licensed and not owned allows apple and all the big tech companies to remove local apps by client-servering the shit out of every executable. It's been the industries wet dream to kill piracy and monopolize

  • Let iPhones and iPads keep forcing Safari/WebKit (Score:3)

    by BcNexus ( 826974 ) on Saturday March 05, 2022 @04:00PM (#62329573)
    I think it helps keep Google and Chromium at bay, for what thatâ(TM)s worth.

    • You could argue that it increases competition and open standards! Apple isn't a monopoly, but they do have enough users with enough money to spend that businesses want to reach out to them. They have to support and work with WebKit, in addition to Chrome and Firefox. Every other major browser maker has capitulated and reduced the choice. Don't like it, exercise your choice and don't use Apple. Me? I'll always try to use a private window in Safari rather than install an app.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Chrome is just as bad, it's only the fact that you can side-load apps on Android that keeps it from being a monopoly problem. You can't install add-ons in Chrome on Android. Other Chromium based apps support it, and Firefox for Android supports it. Google simply refuses to allow it.

  • they actually implemented/supported the tech for making WPAs work properly - I think it would also allow them to deflect the heat they're getting from their AppStore monopoly.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xalqor ( 6762950 )
      That's part of the problem with restrictions like that. You can only use the approved stuff, but then you run into things it can't or won't do and you're stuck. You can submit feature requests, complain in forums, and wait for them to do something, or you can waste a lot of time trying to work around their limitations, or you can switch platforms.

  • Has built a walled garden. Apple, Google, Amazon, facebook (Microsoft doesn't build so much as buy up existing gardens).

    They did this to better control, influence, and monetize user behavior, which the open web doesn't let them do as well or as shadily as they would like.

    And they did it right before our eyes, without any of the still naive standards bodies realizing the potential of what these companies proposed.

  • Open standards, or is this just a cover? (Score:3)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Saturday March 05, 2022 @05:42PM (#62329785)

    Write software that works on the platforms out there. Don't force me to install Chrome because of your shitty web skills or because you actually want to use a platform that doesn't respect my privacy or allow me to block you.

  • Chrome, Edge and Opera are all using the same engine on the Desktop.

    The whole Internet has become a "walled garden" that uses just the Blink engine, and I don't see anyone complaining about it.

    Try to use Firefox with Google's products and those web apps will demand Google Chrome for *full* functionality in some cases and for *better* experience in most cases. Isn't that a fucking walled garden?

    So, it's ok to have an engine monopoly on the whole Internet but it's bad when a platform decides for its

  • People who use Apple products (Score:3)

    by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Saturday March 05, 2022 @09:08PM (#62330097)

    Don't give a crap about this. They want their devices to work, and can they upload their TicTok vids; simple. They like their world and there have been many cries against their walled garden approach for years. If Apple wants to enforce a technical standard by application type, I can't see that as being a show stopper. It's when they block apps or remove apps that politically they don't agree with, that's where I have a problem. Sure I don't want scamware, bloatware, or crap I can't get rid of off of my phone but my new Galaxy S22 Ultra has tons of shit that I don't want and can't remove unless I root it, losing a lot of support. I don't want Facebook et al on my phone and even if I disable it, it's still sucking up storage. As a matter of fact, I'm taking mine back to get the crap removed and forcing the issue, otherwise, they can give me my old S20 back.

    • Any mobile device has shit you don't want and can't remove without gymnastics. Try removing the app store... also you're literally bitching about having features that no other device has that take up less than 1% of your storage. Most device's base storage is 128gb these days. Be like normal people and disable the stuff you don't want. It's a weird priority you have, not complaining about holding back the internet but you will about a 20mb app

  • It's all about security... (Score:3)

    by amp001 ( 948513 ) on Sunday March 06, 2022 @10:41AM (#62330847)
    A modern web engine requires a high performance javascript engine, and that means being able to generate native code from the javascript. That means being able to set the execute bit on memory pages written to by the javascript code generator. The last time I checked, iOS doesn't allow apps to do that (for good reason). Their own web engine (and its javascript code generator) are "trusted" to do this. In order to support other web engines (and their javascript engines), Apple would need a way to trust those engines before allowing them to generate native code. I don't see what would be in it for Apple to expend the effort that would require.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      It's not about security. It's not about privacy. That's just the lie they tell you to get you to accept the chains.

      ArmoredDragon posed a few links above showing that iOS has had significantly more code execution vulnerabilities than Android. It seems that you're not getting the security you were promised in exchange for living in a cage.

  • Progressive Web Apps run directly in a web browser and do not even need to be installed. The problem is that Safari is so far behind or so limited in many aspects, these apps cannot run as expected or cannot have the functionality users would expect. Apple will not allow other web browser engines to be used on iOS, so all customers are forced to use an inferior one. Even during Microsoft's monopoly, customers could freely install different web browsers.

    As someone that has years of experience developing

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno

Close