Hacker News Reader

Comment by codeflo | Hacker News Reader

The year is 2023. Everyone who believes either Microsoft or Google are the good guys here is either not paying attention, or works for either of the companies (not so unlikely on Hacker News). Both companies use every imaginable dark pattern to trick users into agreeing to whatever tracking bullshit they added last week. With one company controlling the OS and the other the browser, the question is just which dark patterns preempt the other company's dark patterns in the battle for user attention and data in the advertisement wars.

I long for the days where I was able to pay for a piece of software. The nature of the transaction ensured that the software did what I as a user wanted it to do, and served no hidden agenda. But those days are gone, possibly forever.

View on HN

I have no illusions about Apple being “good guys”, but this is why I use MacOS and Safari - both of those exist to sell Apple hardware, which is at least a little better than existing to sell my eyeballs. Not great, but not Microsoft or Google bad (yet).

Basically, I am paying the Apple tax because I get to be a few cycles behind the state of the art in software commoditizing their users.

Yeah well I just use Firefox on Linux

What do you use for a mobile phone?

For last 3 years Firefox works great on Android and does have working ad-blokers.

Are you using one of those de-Googled custom Android ROMs or stock?

Honestly nope. I mostly need phone for banking apps that thanks to Google DRM (SafetyNet) dont play too well with custom ROMs. Yet Firefox work quite well across Windows, macOS, Linux and Android and it has huge advantage of having proper adblocking. So it's mostly no brainer which browser to use.

I am - GrapheneOS is excellent. I do unfortunately run sandboxed Google Play Services for access to Google Maps & Google Play through which I get my banking app. Pretty much everything else (launcher, podcasts, VLC, Firefox, FluffyChat&Element for Matrix messaging, ntfy.sh/UnifiedPush) is via f-droid, and works great.

On a Pixel or something else?

Used Pixel 4, yeah - I think the later pixels have better security features & support from Graphene, but this way I also help reduce ewaste.

Just interested because I like Graphene but don't want to use a Pixel. I'd love to run it on a FairPhone honestly. Looks like DivestOS is my best bet.

Unfortunately, Firefox‘s security on Android is .. not the best

(https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...)

It's not just Android.

Unfortunately.

Wow that article that completely misses the point, yes, Chrome has better sandboxing, which offers it marginally better security, but that has nothing to do with Firefox's far better privacy features.

For people who are not spies or hoarding millions worth of cryptocurrencies on their desktop PCs, they're not likely running across zero day exploits on the regular. They are however running across trackers galore and Firefox's tracking protection and anti-fingerprinting features are likely to make a larger difference in practice for all but the most targeted of individuals.

I’m running Firefox on both iOS & macOS.

Also installed it on my pc.

I use Fennec F-droid on android

Firefox. My phone runs Linux (postmarketOS).

Also a good option. Edge and Chrome are definitely on the biting edge of this particular ratchet, while Firefox and Safari are at least half a whole rotation behind. (We could split hairs about who is a click behind whom, and how much of that is because of development velocity rather than intention, but the difference is minor compared to where Chrome and Edge are at.)

I use Lynx on OpenBSD.

I wold have problem with Lynx on OpenBSD, but Iridium on FreeBSD is quite ok, as long as I add obligatory ublock origin, umatrix and cookie autodelete extensions.

Why ublock and umatrix?

ublock to block ads, umatrix to block (by default, with ability to unblock) any resources outside visited domain and its subdomains.

You mean your leasing a Mac from Apple to use it in a manner consistent with and approved by them.

https://asahilinux.org/about/

Weird. I dunno about you, but I own my Macs, and am able to do anything I want with them.

> I get to be a few cycles behind the state of the art in software commoditizing their users.

Have you been on the App Store lately? macOS and iOS are relatively clean, but the most apps in the stores are out to get you.

I think Apple has a better ethical compass, but I have no illusions about it, either. Their business model is selling hardware, and they've found that they do well at that by not compromising the user experience.

Apple isn't an angel, but they don't tend to do shit like this. Macs also don't come with a shitload of goofy ads in the Dock, like every consumer build of Windows. Opening a new Dell is like entering a shitty mall.

They compromise the user experience all the time to sell more hardware. Oh you want to use a non-Apple smartwatch? Well here's a subset of features of what the device actually supports. Use an Android phone? Well we can't be bothered to implement MTP like everyone else so go track down 3rd party app. No, you can't use Bluetooth file transfer but Airdrop works well on our devices, RCS? Just buy your mom an iPhone etc. It's a bunch of subtle compromises to push you towards more Apple branded gear.

See, I don’t care about any of that, because the user experience on those other devices is so poor.

Really? My iPhone and iPad would nag me about subscribing to iCloud and Apple Music. I don't see that kind of thing on my Samsung phone or my Android tablets. They let me run whatever apps I want without Papa Cook's permission, I can plug them into any non-Mac and drag files on or off. Much faster than the iPad where getting files on involves some cloud service and then "sharing" them or mucking about in some submenus of iTunes. My Garmin watch is controlled by physical buttons so it works with gloves and it works when the screen is wet. My non-same brand products work together which is a pretty great user experience IMO.

Windows having ads does suck but I solve that by just not using Windows. My devices still work fine with Linux and I'm not trapped into buying one brand. I'd argue only playing nice with yourself is not a great user experience but actually user hostility.

Yeah, really.

I already use iCloud and Apple Music. I can run whatever I want on my Mac; I enjoy that the iOS experience is curated.

I never manually move files between devices because it's 2023, and I use a syncing provider that gives me access to my files on whatever device I'm on.

I have no use for a Garmin watch because I'm mostly a cyclist, and bike-specific head units are superior. For hiking, my Apple watch does a fine job without having the clunky, awful interface I hated when I used Garmin units on my bike.

Creating a whole-set experience is a value unto itself. Sure, it's easier to use the Apple stuff, but I'm not picking their music service, or their watch, or their phone, just because I'm in this ecosystem. I'm in this ecosystem because, by my lights, all those options are simply BETTER than those on offer from other people.

iCloud is objectively the best cloud service in your opinion? You're really not just picking that because you're using Apple products and thats the only one that allows backing up an iOS device (funny that) for example? Would you seriously consider using it if you weren't using a Mac or iPhone?

If you're okay with the compromises that's okay but they are there.

Ah, confusing names!

iCloud as a service has several aspects, of which Dropbox-style file sync is only one. I actually don't use that part AT ALL, in part because I was an early adopter of Dropbox and continue to find it meets my needs well, even when I have to use Windows.

However, iCloud is the best choice for me to use to sync what we used to call PIM data between desktop and mobile devices.

iCloud for iOS backup has also been really good to me. I trust it fine. But I also trust that all the key data being backed up to iCloud from iOS is also being backed up from my desktop or by other means, so I mostly just use iCloud for "pim data" sync and, obviously, to move into new phones when I buy them.

> iCloud is objectively the best cloud service in your opinion? You're really not just picking that because you're using Apple products and thats the only one that allows backing up an iOS device (funny that) for example?

Had my phone stolen. Bought a new one the next day. First boot took several minutes but when it did boot, everything was there - all my documents and pictures, all my apps, all my preferences and settings (not only for the phone itself but for each app too), even the background image and app icon layout was the same. IIRC I didn’t even have to re-login to many apps, just the security-conscious “trust this new device?” ones.

Such a seamless backup and restore experience is remarkable in and of itself, and I don’t think if Apple allowed third-party backup services they would get to that level of seamlessness. I don’t know for sure that Android (or Windows/Linux, same seamless backup on Apple laptops) don’t have a backup service with a comparable levels of seamlessness and thoroughness, but I don’t think they do.

iCloud backup is a genuinely impressive service and I have to respect it.

The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features.

I assume that Google's takeaway from the Internet Explorer anti-trust case was that they needed plausible deniability for their non-standard browser features.

Judging by Google's sloppy handling of evidence related to their antitrust suit, it seems your assumption is entirely on the money.

> The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration for years always seemed like a way to get developers to break their sites in non-Chrome browsers as much or more than a way to test features.

Apple, Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera all were doing that before Google even had a browser; there never even was a Chrome-specific prefix, all of the features included in Chrome this way were -webkit- prefix and, IIRC, implemented in the WebKit shared codebase.

> The way Google released "experimental" features behind prefixes instead of configuration

This was not a "Google" thing - vendor prefixes were a common practice in the industry. Webkit was using -webkit- prefix before Google was using it.

Many years ago the harm of this was recognised and browsers did move these to configuration/feature flags instead.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Vendor_Pre...

Historic tidbit: Mozilla had a slew of "internal" prefixes to be used in their UI and extensions, but Apple really broke new ground and made them mainstream when the iPhone came out and really needed CSS to be useful. That's when stuff like -webkit-transition` and the fabulous `-webkit-box-reflect` were pushed out without waiting for anyone.

-ms- wasn't really a thing until IE10 if I remember correctly, when they started prefixing their own IE5-era properties like the DirectX-based `filter` [citation needed]

Absolutely. The moment it became clear to me was back when Google completely broke gmail and search for WebOS devices. It served the most rudimentary, broken WAP like version of Gmail and a stripped down version of search. Gmail was basically unusable.

The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome.

They did the same multiple times for Windows Mobile. They support iOS because iOS only ships for Apple devices, it isn't really a competitor in the OS space. But they are absolutely brutal towards any company which might offer a way out for OEMs from the Google prison.

> The fix? as simple as changing the browser's user agent to look like Android/Chrome.

I'm not defending Google here, but once I worked for a company whose web support strategy consisted of explicitly supporting a specific subset of browsers, and have a user-agent allowlist to pick if a request loaded the current version of the page or a legacy, feature incomplete but broadly supported version. The guiding principle was that we would have to draw the line in the sand regarding which browsers we'd cover in our test matrix, and instead of risking subjecting users who used unsupported browser to broken experiences then it was preferable that we assured they would experience an old but bulletproof version of it.

We started off by showing a "this browser is not supported, please upgrade" page, until some other department in our company complained up and down the org tree because they used thin clients with outdated browsers. Thus instead of showing a "please upgrade" page we fed the old version, and everyone was happy.

I see how this looks like intentionally feeding a degraded experience to subsets of users, but having been in a decision-making process that led to the same outcome, let me assure you there are real-world scenarios where this outcome does not originate in malice or any ulterior motive.

Why not give the user the option? If it then looks fine, they can keep the newer website, and if it doesn’t they can switch to classic.

> Why not give the user the option?

The users affected by this case were at the tip of a very long tail of unsupported user agents. Those who want to circumvent the issue can either upgrade or resort to tricks like faking user agents. The key take here is that we could not possibly support all browsers or the old version, so for the very rare cases we kept the lights on in a very old and unmaintained version of the app. In my company there was no sneaky ulterior motive, it was just that we couldn't afford maintaining obscure platforms that, even if we really wanted to, we couldn't possibly test.

> I long for the days where I was able to pay for a piece of software.

You can pay for software, but you'll still be the product. Just like how it's the case here with Windows.

It's ironic how the best software are often made by unpaid volunteers. Compare that with commercial software. Most of them are bloated and user-hostile.

I don't think people are rooting for Google here, it's more of the "I don't want X (Google) to win I just want Y (Microsoft) to lose" mentality. Neither are the "good" guy here, but in this specific interaction there's definitely one party at fault who should be punished/prevented.

The definite party is almost certainly Google, who probably implemented an unsupported API to hack this feature, and then are expecting people to blame Microsoft when it inevitably changes. (News about Microsoft adjusting how default apps are set went out like two months ago.)

Microsoft has, whether you like it or not, a documented and official way to set your app as a default app. And apps which growth hack around that will probably have problems.

Yep. I use GMail and Safari on iOS. When I open links from GMail, every so often it shows a popup saying "would you like to install Chrome and open this link with Chrome instead of Safari"? It only appears intermittently, not on every link (fortunately), but there's no way to disable it.

Have you tried: settings > default apps > disable ask me each time?

Yes, it's disabled. Evidently the two options are "ask me each time" and "ask me intermittently"; there doesn't seem to be an option for "don't ask again".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com