Hacker News Reader

Comment by annabellish | Hacker News Reader

The linked app is a Safari-only adblocker which doesn't cover apps, so I feel the title is pretty accurate. There have been full system ad-blocking solutions developed for iOS and apple refuses to host them, it's a statement of fact.

`a` is permitted for other apps; `b` is, as far as I know, not a criteria anything else gets judged on; and `c` is the point of having a curated store, because any app "may allow [...] abuse".

View on HN

It's not strictly "Safari only*. It works with any embedded web view that uses the SFSafariViewController.

For instance, ad blocking also works with Feedly - my RSS reader.

That's a rather uncommon exception. Very few apps load ads in a web view. Mainly because, imo, the ad platforms want a lot more user data than they'd get that way. And fraud would be a bit harder to detect.

And hey fuck users, the ad platforms are the real good guys in all this right?

So instead we should install an untrustworthy intermediary that can record all of your internet data (the VPN), and do God knows what with it?

Isn't that all of them? It was my understanding that Apple forbids any non-Apple web view.

There are two modern web views in iOS. The SFSafariViewController is an out of process view. The hosting app doesn't have access to the DOM or what the user enters. The user has access to all of the same cookies, saved passwords, and ad blockers that they would have in Safari. The other (WKviewController?) is your standard embedded web view. It doesn't share cookies, passwords, etc and the embedded app has more access to the web view.

The latter is WKWebView https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/wkwebview

As of iOS 11, cookies are no longer shared between SFSafariViewController and Safari or instances of SFSafariViewController in other apps.

Why stretch the facts to make it seem like Apple is allowing system-wide ad blockers? You seem to concede repeatedly it doesn't, yet argue that as long as Safari is covered, even when hosted in 3rd party apps, it's the same thing?

How am I "stretching the facts" by stating the technical limitations and benefits of Apple's approach (i.e. not introducing a third party that can potentially track all of your internet activity)?

This isn't theoretical. iOS apps were in fact storing and selling data that went across the ad blocking VPN solutions.

Ad blocking Chrome plugins have a sordid history. Why would I trust them on my phone when I can set up my own solution relatively easily?

The IOS solution for in browser plug ins is more secure and it protects your privacy.

Sure, you also get it in embedded safari views. You still can't block apps in ads, you can just block ads in content your apps show, usually incidentally - those ads in the feedly view are not _Feedly_'s ads.

I can honestly say that I have no apps with embedded ads. If it's an app I'm going to use, I pay for the no-ads in app purchase. If it's an app that doesn't allow me to pay for a no ads version or that's not worth paying for, I uninstall it.

There is one exception. Overcast, my podcast player. There is a no ads in app purchase, but the ads are usually for other podcasts in the same category that I'm listening to. The ads are actually useful.

https://marco.org/2016/09/09/overcast-ads

Only VPN apps doing regular VPNs are allowed, obviously they have a performance impact, but that’s necessary for what they do. Anything using a VPN to implement other behaviour is not. Apps get judged on usability when it comes to system level concepts like VPNs all the time - keyboards are an example where there’s a lot more review for usability and “playing nicely”.

Not quite true. Charles Proxy uses a VPN in order to inspect network traffic, and that was approved. But I think in the general case what you said is correct and that Charles Proxy's approval is an exception.

True. I wonder if that’s because it’s explicitly a developer tool, and developers will understand what’s going on, and the risks/benefits of using a VPN.

I think the main reason they block apps using VPNs for other things is that it’s very easy for them to break internet on the whole phone with buggy software, and Apple don’t want lots of support time at the Genius Bar of turning off crappy ad blocking VPN apps.

It's probably partially that, and partially the fact that the VPN usage here is obviously beneficial. The information doesn't leave the device and it doesn't interfere with the normal workings of the apps (like ad blocking does). There's no reasonable complaint to levy against what Charles Proxy is doing. Versus ad blocking, which many people think is beneficial but which is clearly detrimental to app developers (especially when they end up blocking more than just ads, as sometimes happens).

Indeed, Apple is significantly worse in this regard. Both Amazon and Google devices allow you to install system-wide ad blockers from other sources.

Amazon does not allow you to install anything from other sources without hacking the device.

Sure they do. My Fire HD tablet has a simple option in Settings-->Security & Privacy-->Apps from Unknown Sources. I have a number of F-droid apps installed. I also have the Play Store hacked in, but F-droid only required downloading the app from the web. Standalone APKs can also be installed.

What makes you say that? It is clearly false.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com