Sound more like something else is the problem. If the iOS and browser as the same than logically something else is the problem.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should Apple Continue to Ban Rival Browser Engines on iOS?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They didn't have the same os on them. The iPhone 8 has iOS and the iPad has iPadOS. They are both safari browsers but are different versions for the respective hardware.
Indeed, still, I end up with a problem only fixable in a less than user-friendly way. If Firefox was allowed to use its own engine, I wouldn't have the problem in the first place and just switched from safari until the next update roles around
Potato, potato essentially unless we want to go technical. And likely why one have the bug but not the other.
Right. Heck, that was a key point regarding security in Case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR Document 812 Filed 09/10/21: allowing you to download from any website willy nilly decreases security and make you more vulnerable to malware.
As a developer perspective, it's a interesting topic. It's true that free choice should exist but it's true too that this kind of web browser market dominance is very delicate. Anyone remember what happened with Microsoft when they had the browser monopoly? Was a disaster, they used their dominance to engage developers to code only for IE by creating JavaScript APIs that only worked in IE. That's the reason because jQuery was born, to help developers write using a single codebase for IE and another browsers.
We don't want to repeat that story. Browser competition is so important but non-devs people don't understand by obvious reasons. I'm an open source contributor and I believe in free choice but in this case I'm on the Apple's side and I have another particular reason for this.
Google wants to add hardware capabilities to Chromium. They are advocating and proposing several APIs hardware-related like WebUSB, Web Bluetooth, WebSerial, etc. You can find more info in https://web.dev/fugu-status/. I think this is not the nature of the web, I feel it like force the web to be something else, against it's principles and foundations along with possible security breaches in those APIs (https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-yubikey-phishing-webusb/).
Apple has neglected the web for several years, happily they are working hard in the webkit team to take the engine to the next level. Just hope it's not too late.
We don't want to repeat that story. Browser competition is so important but non-devs people don't understand by obvious reasons. I'm an open source contributor and I believe in free choice but in this case I'm on the Apple's side and I have another particular reason for this.
Google wants to add hardware capabilities to Chromium. They are advocating and proposing several APIs hardware-related like WebUSB, Web Bluetooth, WebSerial, etc. You can find more info in https://web.dev/fugu-status/. I think this is not the nature of the web, I feel it like force the web to be something else, against it's principles and foundations along with possible security breaches in those APIs (https://www.wired.com/story/chrome-yubikey-phishing-webusb/).
Apple has neglected the web for several years, happily they are working hard in the webkit team to take the engine to the next level. Just hope it's not too late.
I remember a time when Microsoft purposefully induced developers to create websites that hosted ActiveX controls (IE only). I forget the exact prize, but you got free goodies from the Microsoft Developer Network if you could demonstrate the existence of such a website. Very naughty behaviour.
I believe Apple have avoided implementation of certain "standards" that you mention, precisely because they pose a privacy risk. Other vendors, with more of an interest in tracking users, have a different approach.
I guess there are no "Standards" (ECMAScript standard) with potentially privacy issues. In the other hand, some Chromium shipped APIs could be used to make a fingerprint of users like Web Bluetooth and Web HID.
Those comments are plainly nuts. Wouldn’t be the first time!
Many Thanks to both!!!
How does firefox behave in regards to these?
Microsoft Edge?
Firefox shares the Apple's perspective for most of those APIs. They blocked several of those APIs for fingerprinting or security issues (see https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/58). Edge in the other hand is chromium-based like Opera, Brave and a lot more. I didn't read anything about taking them out from Edge, maybe in Brave could be because it's a privacy-focused browser.
So, Apple shouldn't force all iOS browsers to use Webkit and Webkit Javascript. Because of the same policy, browser extensions and dual-engine browser in third-party browsers in iOS becomes impossible. Additionally, the Digital Markets Act is important to stop Apple from limiting iOS browsers to use third-party browser engines.
This is not the case, no developer is do stupid to believe this, is just pure interest.
“... the evidence that we have seen to date does not suggest that there are material differences in the security performance of WebKit and alternative browser engines.” Says the voice pushing for alternatives..we are talking Google here I can’t even read security and Google together without laughing 😂
I never understood why Apple didn't allow other browser engines. They should just allow everything but not allow changing the default browser, if it uses a different engine. User experience is very important and Apple wouldn't want to risk it.
it's funny that it's even worse than what MS had been accused for back in the 90's regarding their Internet Explorer.
not to bash Apple, since MS is also magnitudes worse now with Edge's persistence on being the default browser, just curious how they now can get away with this, when they were sued for way less questionable behavior in the past.
not to bash Apple, since MS is also magnitudes worse now with Edge's persistence on being the default browser, just curious how they now can get away with this, when they were sued for way less questionable behavior in the past.
really?
as far as i remember they got sued because they were "shipping their OS with a web browser already pre-installed, so people won't see an incentive to use some 3rd party browser", thus "abusing their monopoly"
as far as i remember they got sued because they were "shipping their OS with a web browser already pre-installed, so people won't see an incentive to use some 3rd party browser", thus "abusing their monopoly"
Microsoft was accused of a few things in the 1990s that were tied to abusing its monopoly/market power in desktop OS. This included issues regarding exclusive contracts, bundling, undermining competitive products, predatory pricing, etc.
As far as browsers specifically, some of the complaints were that Microsoft unnecessarily bundled IE with Windows, had agreements with computer OEMs and others which discouraged them from offering or promoting alternative browsers, and engaged in predatory pricing by giving away IE for "free" while the major browser competitor (Netscape) had largely been charging for its browser (Navigator) at the time. However, Microsoft was less restrictive than Apple is now in that Windows users were still allowed to easily install whatever browser/browser engine they wanted.
yes, of course they were/are sued for more things than just that, often even justified.
just like everyone that is big enough to get some nice change from when sued.
just like everyone that is big enough to get some nice change from when sued.