Firefox for iOS 32 | Hacker News Reader

Firefox for iOS 32

support.mozilla.org

53 pointspzmarzly59 comments

Unfortunately all alternative browsers on iOS are forced to use Safari's webview. So they can't fix rendering issues or, e.g. support newer WebRTC features than stock Safari does.

It's quite amazing no one is suing apple on this front yet. It would seem to be an easy case to make given the microsoft IE history

Apple is not a monopoly and can do what it wants.

Trust != monopoly

Apple isn't a trust either.

Suing Apple for what, exactly?

And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS. Here are just some of the reasons: https://webapicontroversy.com

> And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS.

Then don't install it. Seems to be quite simple.

Then don't buy an iPhone. Seems to be quite simple ;)

The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software, such as browsers. Unlocked iOS versions do exists, and alternate app store like cydia exist as well, but it’s relying on people hacking security measures which shouldn’t be there in the first place.

“The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software”

That’s an opinion. Apple has another one, and, AFAIK, doesn’t advertise that as a feature of their product.

Some people argue Apple shouldn’t be allowed to sell such a product, but I don’t know of legal precedents for that (could be my lack of knowledge in this, of course)

Certainly, the same situation exists for game consoles and, to a lesser extent because nobody can install additional software on them, cars, toasters, etc. (Cars may be even more similar. Tesla doesn’t give you the means to run your own self driving software on the hardware you bought, do they?)

Why should you be able to do whatever you want on it? This doesn't apply to many other products.

It does actually, in the context of personal usage. The vast majority of products have no such "after-purchase" restrictions.

Why should a company have the right to restrict what I do with a device throughout its life at such a level, unless I am actively harming them? Should they be able to remove features? Brick devices? How far should that level of control go?

That mindset is going to be the death of general purpose computing within the general public.

This argument really holds no water to my eye because the average consumer is subject almost solely to paid adverts and maybe a little knowledge about tidbits like this rather than any deep knowledge about the platform or Apple - the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour so there is almost no inherent protection for the consumer in this regard when compared to (say) even an Android phone, or better a PC

You know what you get when buying an iPhone. Your argument stems from you believing you know more about the preferences of the average consumer than himself. Why should Apple be forced to offer a specific product? Don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives out there.

> the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour

Boohoo, I really feel sorry for companies like Google (5th richest company in the world, and whose Android runs on ~80% of smartphones) and Samsung (23% market share last quarter compared to Apple's 21%). It's too bad the information asymmetry doesn't protect them.

Neither would I, but I would want Firefox (if I had an iOS device).

Yup, Firefox would be an alternative. However, if you allow Firefox (an alternative browser), you'd have to allow Chrome and others (also alternative browsers).

I guess it's possible to allow an alternative browser with restrictions like "must include tracking protection" etc. But that's probably more hassle than it's worth.

Ah yes, you mean Chrome might dominate iOS browsing by sheer power of existence, which is indeed likely and unwanted.

It's actually not Safari but WebKit. Gnome browser uses it as well (and a few others). I guess that makes it harder to sue? Since it's not a project that "belongs" to them?

Last time I checked (maybe 2015 or something like that?), Apples contributors are about 50% of the total contributors to webkit. I used to have a script to aggregate the data, but doesn't work now and I have no time to fix it. Maybe someone else wanna give it a try? The list itself is here: https://webkit.org/team/ / https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy...

It's not that amazing if you take a step back, have a look at the background of US vs MS, and understand the different positions of the market and the companies in question.

I mean, you might be able to build a convincing case – but it's not at all as clear-cut as you seem to think.

Push notifications, if not available everywhere, but inside user-installed PWAs would fix so many headache. Then again PWA support is general is purposefully abysmal from Apple.

On the upside, that's the one thing keeping Google from completely 100% owning the web as a platform.

Once you can install Blink on iOS, there is nothing left forcing program managers to keep "test on other browsers than Chrome" on their feature list, and even if Firefox would work fine, you'll get every single site requiring Chrome.

Isn’t the reason that, for quick JS execution, the JS executing process needs to be given access to low level system resources (ie a security risk), so Apple limits JS execution to just the code (WebKit) that they control?

(I don’t know a lot about this subject...but that’s what I always understood).

This is rather perplexing, adding a link to Google on the homepage was worth a major version number? There’s not even the standard changelog courtesy line about various bugs being fixed.

Hey Mozilla, interrogative: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

You want to tell us you're in bed with Google now?

News flash: Google has almost completely funded Mozilla since forever.

It Was Agatha All Along

Yeah,just like Intel saved AMD from bankruptcy. And Microsoft saved Apple.

I think they are on a release train, AKA they will make a major release every X weeks if there is anything to ship.

I guess they are either starved of resources (see recent layoffs) of are working on something big

Compare v31 with v32:

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-ios/compare/v31.0....

Okay, so a few other minor items that are indeed barely worth mentioning.

Especially seeing as the address/search box above does the same thing, with less taps.

Howe about fixing the losing of pinned tabs bug that seems to plague this browser. I switched back to chrome after a couple of months of firefox. I was just done with starting over every morning.

Sadly Safari is the only useable iOS browser, as it's the only one where Content Blockers work for ad blocking.

DNS-level ad blocking is a pretty good alternative, and it works well for non-Safari apps in my experience. I use nextdns and recommend it. You can tailor the blocklists to your liking as well.

What I'd like to see in a soon-release:

- Time limits on websites. Despite being forced to use Webkit, Firefox doesn't support this somehow.

- Support for content blocking via third-party extensions

> - Time limits on websites

What would this look like?

Safari already supports this through the Screen time feature

I suppose GP is referring to something like Leechblock[0] but baked directly into Firefox (and, if I may add a wish, with full Firefox Sync support).

[0]: https://www.proginosko.com/leechblock/

https://www.guidingtech.com/block-safari-screen-time-ios-12/

I'd really like to see it support native iOS password manager new credential storing and credential updating. The feature in Safari to ask and store a new account makes using the password minder much easier, and being locked into "use our Firefox one or you can only read from others" is really lame.

Why?

Because Google is a major source of funding for Mozilla. I don't remember details, but they tried to be funded by other search providers. It didn't provide enough funding, though.

I guess promoting Google search is essential for them to keep building great products. And guard net neutrality. If we don't like it, we are probably not donating enough.

I love Firefox, it's still a great browser, but it's really sad to have "management made us add this trash feature so Mozilla can keep the lights on" updates every couple of months.

I buy their VPN but can’t use it due to lack of Mac support. Nice way to support them and show them they can build useful services we will pay for simultaneously.

Mozilla VPN is now available on Mac![1] As of December last year I believe [2]

[1] https://vpn.mozilla.org/ [2] https://www.engadget.com/mozilla-vpn-mac-linux-201939740.htm...

…in only a handful of markets. As a user in Sweden I wouldn’t complain too much, if it weren’t for the fact that the VPN platform they’ve built on is literally Swedish.

Shameless plug!

You can use MozWire[0] to generate wireguard configuration files for Mozilla VPN.

[0]: https://github.com/NilsIrl/MozWire

The reason I think about a Pocket Premium subscription. However I'd prefer paying 20$ a year with no perks (or let's say just the premium fonts) over paying 50$ for features I don't need.

money goes to mozilla, not firefox [1]

doesn't seems to be well spent [2]

[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozilla-signs-lucrative-3-year-go...

[2] http://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html

I wonder if iOS will live to see version 32.

I thought with the new iOS and its support for alternative default web browsers I'd switch over in a heartbeat.

I didn't. There's one thing I absolutely demand and which I hadn't thought they would leave out: support for ad blocking.

I'm using Firefox Focus as my ad blocker in Safari. Why can't I use it (another Mozilla product!) in Firefox?

You can in Android. If its not available in iOS its because Apple forces them to use Safari's Webkit and it does not have the API for it.

You can use the Firefox Focus browser in iOS, which has ad blocking built in, but can't use it as an adblocker for the main Firefox browser.

I suspect that's due to the app sandboxing - there's no way for Focus (as a standalone app) to intercept and modify requests for Firefox (another standalone app).

Mozilla could ship a copy of regular Firefox with the Focus features built in, but seem to want people to just use the Firefox Focus Browser instead (though that lacks the full feature set of Firefox).

I think Chrome can use Focus for ad-blocking. Am I wrong?

I thought the content blocking API was open to other browsers.

I'm using Firefox Focus as my default browser. It's really nice, because when I use global search or just click on a link, in 99% I want to quickly check sth and then forget about it. Firefox Focus suits that use case almost perfectly. Sadly it's a bit buggy.

Firefox for iOS has a suite of tracking protection features built in, including a strict ad blocking service.

I've not gone to compare them both -- are you sure that what's in Firefox Focus for iOS isn't also in Firefox?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com