Hacker News Reader

Comment by Caligatio | Hacker News Reader

I use uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android with "Actually Legitimate URL Shortener Tool" added but am weirdly conflicted on this news. If a user opts to kneecap advertising, that is soundly within their rights. If a company does the same against another company's advertising as a part of their normal business, I feel like the user becomes a pawn in some corporate warfare strategy.

Maybe it's because I think Apple is slowly building a parallel advertising ecosystem that is slightly less intrusive for users but massively more lucrative for themselves.

View on HN

> I use uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android with "Actually Legitimate URL Shortener Tool" added

That's the problem. This is too complicated/too much trouble for the end user who just uses his iPhone via Safari. Do they the privacy and all that? Yes, will they go out of their way with all that trouble? No.

While you're not wrong that it's a company A fighting company B with users as pawns, it still is a win for the normal end user.

> Maybe it's because I think Apple is slowly building a parallel advertising ecosystem that is slightly less intrusive for users but massively more lucrative for themselves.

No. It's probably just because Apple is slowly building a parallel advertising ecosystem that is slightly less intrusive for users but massively more lucrative for themselves.

If there are two warring corporations, and one of them has a warfare strategy based on selling its customers tools to prevent the other corporation from tracking their content consumption, then sign me up for battle. I know which corporation I want to support.

False dichotomy

Why?

Apple sells ads, so they’re financially motivated to track you just like the other ad companies. They might promise to not track us, but unless they’re audited by a 3rd party, we can’t assume they’re telling the truth.

AFAIK, Apple only sells ads within their own products. Meanwhile, I trust a company with $2.8T to lose more than almost any other actor to abide by the letter of their agreements.

>I trust a company with $2.8T to lose more than almost any other actor to abide by the letter of their agreements.

Woah, do not do this. Don't you remember the Butterfly keyboard denials, the 'holding the phone wrong', etc...?

The only reason you have trust is because they are the best company at marketing of all time. You were manipulated into trusting them. That is a huge red flag.

Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!

Good grief this was well done. Bravo to you!

Nah. This is like popup blocking: it should be standard and on by default in every browser, with an option to turn it off if you don't want it.

I agree.

And in the end they are manipulating links. While no advocate for ads, this has implications on the freedom of the internet.

No, they are allowing users to manipulate links. Also, this only happens in Private Browsing mode.

Browsers are/were User Agents. The focus should be on maximizing that experience across the board.

> If a user opts to kneecap advertising, that is soundly within their rights.

If it is a switch somewhere with the user actually getting a choice, then it is the user choosing it and Apple is just providing a mean to do it. Exactly like when the user chooses to install an extension, except that this is much easier, and therefore much more likely to be used because users hate tracking. This is well documented.

Is there a good reason why Firefox should not ship with uBlock Origin by default (with the option to disable it)?

I have no problems with corporations eating each other alive as long as the end result is less surveillance capitalism.

"I feel like the user becomes a pawn"

A company that makes a 30% cut on apps using customers as a pawn to make a worse browser experience pushing people into using app store apps?

Nothing is "less intrusive"... it's simply Apple making sure they get a larger cut of a larger market.

It's also why they enforce a shitty Safari unto their customers instead of allowing real browser choice. They are the new MS bundling shitty software to harm competitors and limit consumer choice.

Google also takes a 30% cut on apps. Microsoft takes 15% on Windows apps. Would that mean that Google and Microsoft are doing the same thing?

And while Apple does require Google and Microsoft to use WebKit for their iOS browser apps, it's a rendering engine. And you can set Chrome/Edge as defaults on both iOS and macOS.

Tell me how this limits real browser choice.

> Tell me how this limits real browser choice.

How does Mozilla implement extensions on iOS >_<? It is much more than the rendering engine they are forced to use.

Chrome doesn't even let you install extensions on Android. And for Firefox on Android it's a buggy workaround that doesn't even work half the time. This isn't just an Apple thing.

Wait, how is Firefox for Android a buggy workaround? I use it exclusively, with uBlock Origin, and it works great,every single time.

That's one extension, there are thousands that may or may not work. It was buggy the way Firefox used to handle extensions. The current Firefox extensions are ones that are made specifically for Firefox on Android, they're not direct extensions for the Chromium browser. It's another silo'd set of extensions separate from Chrome.

So iOS allows extensions only for Safari from the App Store. Android Chrome doesn't allow extensions at all. Android Firefox allows some extensions that were made for Firefox on Android.

Aside from extensions, try to do what Brave does on Android on iOS: you can't. The limitations are not just the renderer. On Android they can ship their own chromium.

How is Mozilla limited by the platform from doing it better on Android? You simply can't do it with the mandatory WebKit stuff.

> And you can set Chrome/Edge as defaults on both iOS and macOS. Tell me how this limits real browser choice.

Chrome on iOS is a skinned Safari. It's not real Chrome. Same for Edge.

How is forcing a shitty and limited "rendering engine" not limiting choice?

At risk of regulators forcing the issue, rumor says it may be changing but you are being disengenous if you don't think this isn't the same level of BS as IE bundling with Windows. "But we can skin IE to look like chrome" isn't choice

https://9to5mac.com/2023/02/07/new-iphone-browsers/

> "For example, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found that:

> Apple bans alternatives to its own browser engine on its mobile devices; a restriction that is unique to Apple. The CMA is concerned this severely limits the potential for rival browsers to differentiate themselves from Safari (for example, on features such as speed and functionality) and limits Apple’s incentives to invest in its browser engine.

> This restriction also seriously inhibits the capability of web apps – apps that run on a browser rather than having to be individually downloaded – depriving consumers and businesses of the full benefits of this innovative technology."

edit: and I've ignored Mac OS because the conversation is clearly about iOS. If Mac OS had the same restrictions as the iOS (IE: you can install apps outside of the app store on your laptop) then we'd have the same conversation there.

A browser is much more than a rendering engine. Support for new features like openXR is something that iOS users are not allowed to choose.

Shitty is subjective. I'd personally pick Safari hands down over Chrome or Firefox or anything else.

Also many other companies follow a similar pattern, if not worse.

It came out in the Epic trial that 80% of App Store revenue comes from games. They would never be in the browser anyway.

Then most other apps that could just be websites don’t monetize through the App Store.

"They would never be in the browser"

If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so. To say hamstringing the browser on iOS isn't a calculated choice to say "but you can install webapps* (* with shitty safari)" and then completely cock block web browser choice isn't a 100% calculated choice to limit consumer choice is a disingenuous lie.

"80%"

You think that Apple isn't going to hold onto the 20% come hook or crook? in any means necessary - including locking you to the App Store and the 30% cut - despite the fact that alternative payment methods are completely reasonable? and how much of that 80% is through games on the app store that REQUIRES a cut through their ham fisted and unreasonable restrictions? That's even more reason to give consumers and companies options outside of the app store and the mafia requirement for a cut.

> If companies can install stuff outside of the app store to save a 30% a LARGE number of companies would absolutely do so.

Again your banking app and even apps like Facebook and Reddit and most of the other apps that are not games, don’t monetize through the App Store. Even the large subscription streaming services like Netflix and Spotify don’t allow in-app purchases of subscriptions and haven’t for years.

> payment methods are completely reasonable? and how much of that 80% is through games on the app store that REQUIRES a cut through their ham fisted and unreasonable restrictions?

Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better” would most of the revenue from the App Store - ie games - would move to the web.

That same 30% is what Google charges and around the same as what console maker charges.

Epic tried to move out of the Google Play store. It was an abject failure. Why do you think that Android app makers try to monetize outside of the Play Store?

> Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with whether if Safari was “better”

it absolutely has to do with Safari as the alternative - webapps. aka installing apps on the iOS outside of the app store - is absolutely hamstrung by requiring a bloated and dated "webkit".

100% on point to Apple holding back alternatives to lock people into their store.

"why"

30% cut of millions that isn't needed for large developers. You know? that 80% that you say because games are locked into the app store and the 30% cut.

Would games use a browser instead? Where are all of the great profitable web based games for Android? If the Android browser experience is so much better, then why are there hardly any apps that are iOS and web only so they can avoid the “Google tax”?

The entire idea that makes games so popular is that it’s easy to capture whales because of the easy payments. Are you really complaining that poor little Candy Crush and their ilk have to pay 30% to sell loot boxes and gems?

Yes and web apps and Electron apps are so great on other platforms. Especially seeing the piss poor hardware that most Android phones are running.

BTW, iOS/Safari wins every single web browsing benchmark out there.

"would games use a browser" they shouldn't need to consider it but they are forced by the mafia into giving the don their cut.

"are you complaining" are you defending mafia tactics to take a house cut that's way beyond reasonable? doesn't matter if it's "poor little candy crush" or not... I'm arguing against unreasonable market force - just like I'll argue against MS's IE/Edge bundling and Google forcing their platform.

Your deflections just show that you know I'm making a point - androids "piss poor hardware" has nothing to do with Apple using mafia tactics to gouge their customers.

Web Apps and Electron shouldn't be needed - companies should be able to use alternative payment methods. They also shouldn't be tied to shitty webkit with it's outdated, insecure and lackluster implementation.

and "safari wins benchmarks" is a lie - unless you're talking about the furthest behind and most insecure.

https://www.wired.com/story/safari-flaws-webcam-online-accou...

https://www.computerworld.com/article/2531350/apple-s-safari...

But don't let facts get in the way of the stock in Apple you own...

What does two articles about security flaws have to do with which browser is the fastest - ie “wins benchmarks”? And what does your ranting about the App Store have to do with an article about a web browser? Apple patched the flaw over a year ago are you claiming that Android has no security flaws?

Do you really want to die on the hill of how far back Apple supports devices with security updates compared to Google? (Hint: Apple released a patch for the iPhone 5s that was released in 2013 earlier this year)

The “mafia tactics” is the same percentage that Google takes and the same percentage the same game makers pay on Google.

Again, the article is about “web browsers”. Even if the Firefox engine or a third party engine were allowed on iOS - it would have no effect on the vast majority of App Store revenue since it comes from games.

"what's it have to do with" fastest is not best when it's the most insecure and furthest behind - to the point that it's holding back the internet like IE was back in the day. the fastest piece of shit car is still a piece of shit car.

"support" more support of an insecure, antiquated and unsafe browser is still support of a bad browser.

"same % as google" google does it because Apple did it and didn't get blocked. AKA: price fixing and market collusion. both should be blocked from it.

"it would have no effect" you are saying that alternatives wouldn't affect the price? You're full of...

competition would absolutely affect prices and alternatives would absolutely give real competition.

just because Apple supports the 5s with a shitty and limited browser that's faster but still hamstrung (your attempted points about Saint Apple and the Holy Safari) ... that doesn't change the fact that competition would lower prices as that 80% would absolutely be cut into by a massive number of companies that don't want to give the mafia a 30% cut.

Watch how those numbers change as Apple is FORCED to allow alternatives to their shitty options and their mafia tactics are countered.

https://mashable.com/article/apple-allow-third-party-app-sto...

"Apple will allow third-party app stores, because the EU is playing hardball Is this the end of the 30-percent App Store commission?"

> what's it have to do with" fastest is not best when it's the most insecure

So it’s the “most insecure” because you found two security issues that were patched? Other browsers never had security issues?

But you’re going back on your original statement that it isn’t the fastest.

> support" more support of an insecure, antiquated and unsafe browser is still support of a bad browser.

And it’s “bad” even though the competing browser on Android - Chrome - is slower, doesn’t support plug ins, and is by definition less secure since Google drops support for old phones?

> same % as google" google does it because Apple did it and didn't get blocked. AKA: price fixing and market collusion. both should be blocked from it.

Now it’s Apple’s fault that Google also charges 30% as well as the console makers?

> it would have no effect" you are saying that alternatives wouldn't affect the price? You're full of...

How would alternative browsers affect the price of apps that would never be in the browser? Another point is that there are alternatives on Android and Google still charges 30%. How did going outside of the Google Play Store workout for Epic?

> just because Apple supports the 5s with a shitty and limited browser that's faster but still hamstrung (your attempted points about Saint Apple and the Holy Safari) ... that doesn't change the fact that competition would lower prices as that 80% would absolutely be cut into by a massive number of companies that don't want to give the mafia a 30% cut.

Yet it doesn’t cause lower prices on Android…

> Apple will allow third-party app stores, because the EU is playing hardball Is this the end of the 30-percent App Store commission?"

And yet Apple didn’t announce anything at WWDC….

Reply on news.ycombinator.com