Hacker News Reader

Comment by gress | Hacker News Reader

False. You can build any UI you want, as well as any feature you like.

The restriction is that you must use WebKit as the rendering engine for content that contains JavaScript.

It's not only WebKit, but also the Javascript engine and to make matters worse, on iOS last time I checked the web view that you could use in apps wasn't using the same Javascript engine that Safari was using, which means that an alternative browser is slower than Safari by default. From what I've been hearing, lately developers can use the same engine as Safari inside those web views, but the functionality is still buggy.

And this matters, because the main features that browsers compete on is speed and new features (in HTML5 and Javascript). This is what made people switch to Chrome, making it gain a whooping 40% (or is it 50%) in market share. This is also what made Firefox gain market share from IExplorer.

And if your browser is slower than the default one, then you cannot compete with that default. If your browser cannot be a platform (for add-ons or apps, like what Firefox is doing on Android), then you cannot compete with the default. Chrome on iOS is only a shadow of what it is on the desktop.

And Firefox on Android is the only one that allows me to use useful add-ons, such as AdBlock Plus, HTTPS Everywhere and LastPass. Do you know how awesome that is? And this doesn't work on iOS (i.e. having add-ons) because of Apple's restrictions.

And yes, I'm even rooting for Gekko (instead of WebKit), because it is Firefox that brought us Asm.js [1], I even bought the Humble Mozilla Bundle [2] and they made everybody optimize for it, including Microsoft. And now they are working on SIMD.js as well [3].

I received an iPhone 6 as a gift 3 weeks ago and I sold it - yes it's nice, but it doesn't run Firefox and apparently Apple kicked VLC out of the app store as well. And personally I couldn't picture myself living with such restrictions so I sold it - now I'm waiting for my Nexus 6 to arrive :-)

[1] http://asmjs.org/

[2] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/10/14/play-awesome-indie-...

[3] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/10/introducing-simd-js/

Apparently on iOS 8, Apple finally ended the anti-competitive restriction that made all Safari skin apps (aka "browsers" on iOS) slower than Safari itself.

Or, more sanely put, Apple's multi-year investment in engineering allowed WebKit to be secured sufficiently for all apps to benefit from the Jit.

All this talk of anti-competitive restrictions doesn't reflect the reality of engineering for security.

Put another way: iOS' app sandbox is so poorly made it can't handle any app that includes a scripting engine. (I'm kidding, of course)

Realistically, Apple is about as anti-competitive as they come behavior-wise. And the 'engineering for security' bit has more to do with their marketing than their actual technology.

Given all the malware on Android, including giant botnets, it would seem that poor sandboxes are the current state of the art.

The difference is that Apple is willing to recognize this and protect their customers from the shortcomings.

Android's million node botnets and thousands of pieces of malware are not Apple's marketing. They are the reality of what Apple's policy has succeeded in protecting it's customers from.

It's funny that you keep referring to 'all the malware' on Android but not referring to the malware on iOS. It exists on both. Even botnets exist on iOS thanks to the automatic tools used to exploit the same iOS vulnerabilities used to jailbreak enabling drive-by installs of malware on iOS devices.

There was only one very large botnet ('up to' a million nodes) on Android and it wasn't on proper Android. It was on Android in China. So, no Google Play store and proper Android setup like you get on every phone in the US, Europe, etc. The botnet spread through... you guessed it... stolen games on unofficial 'app stores' of pirated software.

Comparing Apples to Apples, Google Play Android devices and un-jailbroken iOS devices, malware is virtually non-existent.

97% of mobile malware is on Android: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/03/24/report-97...

If you are pretending that the level or risk of malware on iOS is comparable to that on Android, you are either misinformed or dishonest.

Android is open by design. Alternative app-stores are part of that. If you discount the malware that results from people taking advantage of Android's openness, you must also discount any advantages you claim a lack of restriction would bring to iOS, or you are guilty of misrepresentation.

Because a ton of phones in China shipped with a random 3rd party app store that specifically contains pirated apps with malware, you're going to paint all of Android with that brush? Because Android allows an advanced end user to disable certain security precautions and purposely install stolen software that contains malware? That's either disingenuous or outright misleading.

The simple fact it, both Android and iOS, when used as shipped an intended, don't get malware for the average consumer. They both pass the 'mom test'.

There are 3rd party app stores available for Android that include malware infected pirated apps. These app stores are not sanctioned or approved by Google.

There are 3rd party app stores available for iOS that include malware infected pirated apps. These app stores are not sanctioned or approved by Apple.

If your rather lame attempt at painting all of Android as insecure is due the fact that you can run a 3rd party app store with malware, then it should also be true for Apple.

The simple fact is that it's incredibly easy to avoid malware on either platform. Don't hack it. Don't install apps outside of the app store (Google Play or Apple App Store).

Your claim rests on the idea that Android malware only propagates via 3rd party app stores, and not the Google play store, or any other vulnerability.

This is false.

You also claim that only Android 'sanctioned by Google' counts as Android. Also false, according to Google's own statistics and documentation.

I never claimed Android malware only propagates via 3rd party app stores. Nor did I claim that iOS malware only propogates via 3rd party app stores. I'm unsure why you continue to make up things I have said to use as strawmen to knock down.

Both Android and iOS have had issues with badware getting into their app stores and with drive by downloads due to insecurities... the same insecurities used to jailbreak/root the devices in many instances. These issues are publicly documented.

As no one here in the US or in Europe or anywhere else (except China) is buying an Android phone with one of the malware-ridden app stores shipped in China on it, there are simply zero concerns about it when you walk into AT&T or T-Mobile and buy an Android phone. Why on earth would someone here care that some non-Google Android phones shipped with a pirated software app store get malware? By that logic, used iOS devices that contain malware in the US would make you leery of buying a new iOS device in a legitimate store. Except that that isn't the case, nor should it be.

Based on the way you continue to argue against points I never made and seeing similar things in your HN comment history, I'm going to bow out of this conversation at this point.

So because your attempt to dismiss half of android as being irrelevant because it's 'not sanctioned by Google' failed, you now decide that Android devices outside the U.S. don't count? I guess this is the closest you'll come to conceding that you were wrong.

Why exactly is a website more trustworthy with your javascript engine than your app?

What does this even mean? The restrictions are on what runtime you are allowed to use to run downloaded code.

Android is vastly less secure than iOS, which is why there are millions of android devices participating in botnets, and millions of users having money stolen from them by malware on Android.

Apple is cautious about allowing their consumer products to run downloaded code for this reason - it provides a clear and undeniable benefit for customers.

Of course some people want to trade this benefit for the benefit of more flexibility. That is one of the reasons for choosing Android.

Pretending that the iOS approach is just about stifling competition is ignoring the facts.

Also your claim that Chrome uptake was just about speed is unsupported. It was installed as part of the flash installer on many people's machines, and pushed on the Google homepage. Some people may have chose it for technical reasons but many people did so because it was marketed heavily, or installed with another product.

The Android and iOS devices running malware are nearly all doing so due to the built-in security measures being disabled by the end user to enable the addition of apps not from their respective app stores. Specifically, Android devices with side-loading enabled or iOS devices that are jailbroken. Pirated versions of paid apps and games will often contain malware. There are numerous examples for both platforms. As to the numbers, there are a lot more Android phones where the user has enabled side-loading or rooted than there are iOS devices that are jailbroken.

Anecdotally, I don't know a single person in real life on either iOS or on Android that's gotten malware.

Anti-competitive behavior to keep apps that compete for Apple's customer data and money off of iOS provides a clear and undeniable benefit for Apple. It's not like this is unusual or new behavior for them: http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/apple-deleted-non-itunes-...

You have proven the point. If Apple allowed sideloading or rooting, nobody would accuse them of anti-competitive behavior.

Therefore you are asserting that what you are calling 'anti-competitive' behavior is precisely what limits malware on iOS vs Android.

Bear in mind that all of the major vendors, including Google have been convicted of wrongdoing and anti-competitive behavior, so linking to breathless headlines demonstrates nothing.

an utterly pointless distinction, since a "rendering engine for content that contains JavaScript" is a browser. so like the guy before you said, on iOS you don't build a browser, you build a skin.

I still wonder why hasn't anyone sued Apple for anti-competitive behavior...

Anti-competitive behavior is often legal. It's often only illegal when a monopoly as Microsoft was when the US and the EU leveled previous decisions against them. Apple has 42% of the smartphone market in the US, its largest market, and far less everywhere else.

> the rendering engine for content that contains JavaScript

Right. So, a browser. You just proved my point. Apple allows exactly one browser on iOS. Theirs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com