Hacker News Reader

Comment by isodev | Hacker News Reader

> Inability to have non WKWebView type browsers. Safari can do the one it wants, which is Apples choice.

This is primarily for privacy and security reasons. One wouldn't want a funny casino app, or the likes of Google or Facebook to hijack people's web access.

Another aspect is the user experience - a piece of web content will render exactly the same way anywhere on the system. There is no need for people to be concerned with webapps asking absurd things like "Download browser X to view this page".

A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop.

View on HN

> A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop.

This would still be true in the case where external web browsers were allowed - you can still rely on Webkit being available on all phones, but if you need access to APIs not provided by apple you can revert to bundling a different browser engine

Not if the user chooses a different default browser.

I doubt all the Chromium clones would evenly support "normal" iOS integrations, and the ability to (privately) deal with, for example, universal links, App Clips, or even that banner offering a website visitor to use the native app.

I understand the sentiment for wanting to use custom features on desktop, but a phone needs to be much more reliable than this - you can't have something working "sometimes" or for users to have to retry or change settings on the go. Imagine a stressful situation at the airport, and the app you are using needs you to switch browsers or download another app to work...

> or even that banner offering a website visitor to use the native app.

This is something that works just fine for me over on Android, in Firefox mobile. Actually, i assume that the mobile browsers would offer all of these capabilities, assuming apple allows access to, and documents their apis appropriately.

Why is it that we somehow defend apple having proprietary/exclusive Apis that nobody else has as good? It's essentially the same game as it was with internet explorer.

I think if apple just opened up their eco system the other browsers would support these features before long, or app developers would include them in their apps instead of relying on browsers.

It's not like apple is the only one with capable engineers, they just stop everyone else from using their stuff to the fullest

> you can still rely on Webkit being available on all phones

But then... folks will complain that some apps open content in Safari and not their preferred browser.

I work for a product agency, and the ability to rely on Safari has unlocked many possibilities for us. It's significantly easier to create a unique and beautiful experience (web or native) for iOS than it is for Android. This is further facilitated by the consistency and performance of the iPhone platform itself.

> This is primarily for privacy and security reasons

So we don't buy this as an excuse when government use it to justify searching your house without probable cause or silencing dissent.

But when a private company uses same excuse, somehow are we cool with it?

I don’t see how your analogy applies here. If anything you are making my point - by imposing some restrictions on third parties, users are not exposed to random companies sniffing their web browsing habits.

At this time there is but one of the FAANG(M) companies that has no commercial use for user data. This is Apple. You can see this reflected well in their products where we see hardware and software services that prioritise on-device processing + strict regulation for app developers not to abuse user trust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com