Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheDong | Hacker News Reader

Apple themselves do not allow using anything other than WebKit unless you move to the EU or Japan: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...

Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.

What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.

You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.

The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.

View on HN

> unless you move to the EU or Japan

Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.

It goes well beyond requiring an established company. It's so onerous that no company has yet successfully navigated all the gates required - even Google. Apple is maliciously complying with the EU's Digital Rights Act, and many years later, the EU has not concluded its investigations. I am incredibly disappointed.

Apple is the only thing holding back Chromium / Blink from becoming the only browser technology that matters. I hope they keep fighting that fight.

They don't fight it for that reason though. They don't care about an open web either.

I don’t care why they do it. It’s just nice that their interests and my interests are aligned on this.

I care about the open web and see setting Google up for a monopoly on web browsers to be just about the worst thing that could happen. A duopoly isn’t much better, but it is better.

It's not a great alternative though. After all, Apple doesn't even provide a version of Safari for non-Apple platforms. They used to, but they stopped with the windows version years ago.

That means Safari will be locked in at most at the Apple marketshare which is only about 8% on desktop: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... . Not really a monopoly-breaker.

And not everyone on Mac uses Safari of course, I didn't use it much when I still was on Apple because Firefox could sync my bookmarks with all my other computers.

On mobile it's a different story of course (they are at 31% there, and nobody is allowed to run a different engine) but a browser isn't so important there because most services have en app.

Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could, for the same reason they don't try to install safari on android.

You'd be wrong. One of six iOS users install Chrome. I do as I use 3 OSes and want all my stuff synced across them, something I can't do with Safari.

You're the minority.

Not sure your point. You claimed "Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could". That is provably false by easily checkable usage metrics. Heck, You can just go to the App Store and see it's one of the top downloaded apps.

I standardized on Google Password Manager, so use it for banking and stuff on many machines.

Should I use 1password, or setup passkeys and TOTP separately for iOS? I have no idea.

there is sites that simply don't work in safari, I have family that sometimes I have to help them do something by opening what they want on my android phone that does support chrome and firefox. In order to accomplish their tasks. It would be great if apple supported other browsers

If WebKit is superior, they have nothing to worry about. They are worried because WebKit is not superior. Partly because Apple has worked diligently to ensure WebKit wrappers cannot compete with native apps. It undermines their entire business model. So if Chromium were made available, people would flock to it. I am not in favour of forcing people to use inferior technology for no other reason than it prevents Chromium retaining dominance. Competition is good and Apple should be forced to improve WebKit.

Is this a new rule? I had my own browser published on the App Store about a year ago (as a solo dev).

A browser that does not use webkit.

Aren't all browsers on iOS required to use webkit?

You had a Safari wrapper published. Not a browser.

I thought all browsers published on iOS were Safari wrappers, or did that change?

We need laws that make Apple's business model illegal. No more walled gardens, including game consoles. If you sell a Universal Machine (or product containing a Universal Machine), then the owner/purchaser/leasee must have full control of the Universal Machine.

Just like the laws against bad cars are called "Lemon Laws," call these new laws against bad Universal Machines "Apple Laws." Forever memorialize AAPL in this negative light to warn its future successors what happens when you act in anti-customer ways even when technically not illegal to do so.

By the same logic, we could also use "Anthropic Laws" to curb the nanny-moralism of model guardrails too!

Personally I'm happy to carve out an exception for game consoles. Other than play games I don't do anything essential to my life on my game consoles. On my phone though I bank, shop, book hotels, flights, make doctors appointments, etc...

I'm sure there is some definition we could use that exempts game consoles and not smartphones. For example, I'm sure the game consoles would be happy to live under the restriction of never allowing banking apps, non-media shopping apps, hotel apps, flight apps, medical services apps.

> Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.

Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.

It’s not the part you see, its what they see to implement the features you see.

True, but I don't see how that answers the original question of "why does Firefox not support extensions on iOS?". Clearly extensions can run on WebKit. I assume it has much more to do with Apple restrictions rather than with the fact addons are built for Gecko.

Its not as simple as extensions running on webkit. Webkit is just a component. Extensions are basically apps. Apple goes through a lot of trouble to make it so you cant build an app platform inside your own app. Not saying impossible. But non trivial. Its not as simple as “webkit runs extensions”

Can you please expand on why what Orion does is hacky and may cause issues with other add ons?

*EU is not one country

The law that requires allowing alternative browsers, the DMA, applies to the entire EU.

But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.

I'm pretty sure the OP knows about the law being EU-wide, but they were referring to "the EU and Japan ... those two countries".

Not all markets or manufacturers will have the same degree of vertical integration and that's ok.

It’s okay if you’re in a healthy market with many competitive choices.

It’s not okay if you’re a duopoly where over 95% of people buy your product as a prerequisite to functioning in modern society.

Their approach yielded arguably the least exploitable general purpose computing devices that people ever actually wanted, without making people feel they were crippled, in a market where there are thousands of alternatives.

It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.

:( where’s the hacker ethos here? I suppose you have a nice Linux machine or something you customize as you see fit, and you can make calls and listen to podcasts on your phone and that’s good enough for on the go…?

I want grandma to have a locked-down iPhone but I want to be able to go through a process to be able to own my own iPhone. Doesn’t feel fine to have something crippled unless maybe it’s rented or something. Or my phone’s in an HOA.

It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.

It also makes me “:(“ when I think of an alternate reality of where phones were as customizable and open as a plain old desktop. Open boot loader, manu supported open drivers (no blobs).

Makes me seriously consider Ubuntu touch / graphene or something else and a $200 low end / 2nd hand locked-down phone for everything else.

>It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.

Can any amount of pain cure stupid? I am still so baffled that AAPL is as market successful as they are, that I am forced to hate-long their stock while never buying their products (and telling others to not buy them either, which is going about as you would expect).

The warden is making the prison just nice enough to not cause riots, to put it vividly.

Most people won’t care or understand about this openness. Their needs are satisfied with the limitations. Similar to other freedoms we have (at least in the US), like speech, assembly.

I think it will take very brazen acts on Apple’s part (or other gatekeepers) to get the everyday Joe/Jane to care about things enough to learn more or look for alternatives.

Things like blocking certain websites, removing super popular apps for not following monopolistic rules

Both Ubuntu and GrapheneOS don't allow you to fully control you phone like Linux desktop does. However Librem 5/Pinephone can run PureOS/postmarketOS that do.

Sure, but even when (or if) it these issues get fixed, it will all be academic unless the devices can run the apps that normies want (or "need"). Up to and including the OS-level wallet app that unbricks the NFC chip, and all the banking and similar "high-security" apps that increasingly require some kind of device attestation to run at all. The trend is all in one direction.

It's easy to say, "Just don't use that stuff". But if everyone wants ("needs") it and we don't have it, then we're left with a <1% user base of activists and eccentrics. And at that point we've lost all influence on the ongoing slide towards surveillance dystopia. It's dispiriting. I'm just hoping that somehow I've got something wrong in this pessimistic analysis.

You're not wrong, but everything starts with activists, and hopefully if enough activists start using such devices and demand services for them, something might change. I do my part.

Indeed, so do I. 1984 was a great novel but its worst predictions have still not come true. Turns out quite a lot of humans appreciate freedom.

If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

I have some of them.

What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats. That would be of minor benefit to me and a detriment to many millions of people in general.

The market spoke, and a huge number of people want those. That’s fine and should remain their choice to make.

The real tragedy of outlawing Apples approach is that the only reason people want this ability is because Apple created this whole package that everyone wants.

tldr; It’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to insist on at everyone else’s expense. I’m ok doing without the one thing.

>If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.

>What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats.

False dichotomy. Nothing about the latter means the former can't also be possible. Apple products disrespect customers in the name of the latter, telling them the former is dangerous and must be limited. I am concluding that only iron fisted pro-customer sovereignty "Apple Laws" can stop Apple and similar, as their customers themselves can't muster a wallet revolt against this business model.

Those two things are mutually exclusive here. You can't have that ecosystem and all the things people buy it for and have unrestricted control of it all. Those can't exist together.

And iPhone buyers aren't an oppressed people. They bought what they wanted in a market with alternatives.

The only anti-consumer position here is that those people should not be allowed to have that, anymore.

It's not the tinkering that's sociologically important, but the ability to install things like ICEBlock even though the government and OS vendor don't want you to.

>rented

Be careful here! Everything will turn to subscriptions and leases, which is why my proposed "Apple Laws" must also apply to leased hardware.

>without making people feel they were crippled

I view Apple platform as crippling, and Google jealously trying to [slowly] pursue the same cripple model. Just because most customers are not educated enough to see the crippling aspects, doesn't mean it's not there. Sleek shiny-ness tends to hide that for normies.

Disclosure: proud GrapheneOS and Qubes OS user and never-subscriber.

Read: not all markets and manufacturers will have the same respect for their customers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com