In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet.
In typical internet mob fashion Apple doing this is considered doubleplusgood, Google doing it is them being evil and trying to kill the Internet.
It wasn't actually considered good that Apple killed the safariextz format. There were a ton of complaints among Safari users.
But of course Safari for Mac has a small marketshare, given its nonexistence on Windows (since Safari for Windows was discontinued in 2012), so it can't kill the Internet. On the other hand, plenty of people think that Apple's browser engine restrictions on iOS are killing the Internet.
Apple and Google have drastically different profit incentives.
https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/
https://www.searchenginejournal.com/apple-ad-network-gives-m...
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4578462-apples-new-strategy...
There isn't though. Safari is one of the most complained about pieces of software on here. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if it was the most complained about.
Second, Google is hostile towards users. Apple isn’t. This means they would use the same mechanism for different purposes.
Apple has neither Chrome's market share nor Google's advertising network. Context matters.
The context is that an entity that does not give a crap about making ad blocking hard (Apple) believes that this is the best design for content blocking extensions. They have no ulterior motive, it's just obviously the right technical design.
"Alphabet pays Apple 36% of Safari search revenue, Sundar Pichai confirms" https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/14/google-pays-apple-36percent-...
> it's just obviously the right technical design.
Setting aside the question of motives, Safari engineers designed their content blocking system (1) without any actual experience in developing ad blocking extensions and (2) without consulting the developers who do have such experience.
Moreover, ad blocking extension developers are practically unanimous in saying that Safari content blockers are inferior and not obviously the right technical design.
I have yet to find an ad blocker that manages to block anywhere close to as many ads as ublock origin. AdGuard is certainly better than nothing at all, but I still see an awful lot of ads while using it.
An advertising company investing in a new API that will make it earn less – that's the point.