People have to stop assuming that everything we don't like is somehow a matter for the courts. If every party that had a grievance against Apple (or any company) got their way, there would be no more Apple. At some point we need to accept that companies have the right to use their discretion to decide what technologies and features they are going to support in their products and we are free to agree or disagree and vote with our feet or our wallets to the degree that we feel it impacts us.
But that's the point, you're NOT using Edge, just a tiny UI wrapper around Safari/Webkit. So while Edge Desktop was patched immediate and was safe from this IndexedDB bug, your Edge on iOS was not. You were still vulnerable
Did you read the article? Safari/WebKit is NOT secure, that's the entire point. Is MacOS horribly compromised because Edge/Chrome/Firefox are allowed to ship full versions? Of course not.
Did you even read the article? Webkit is buggy and updates very slowly. If you cared about user privacy and protection, you'd be frustrated by that.
But why do you want other rendering engines? Because Safari is "behind" in features that would allow the web to become an alternative to native apps. On the Mac, I believe that allowing other rendering engines on the platform has been destructive because it has allowed for technologies like Electron. (I also don't like it when websites ask me to allow notifications.) iOS generally has the most, and highest-quality native apps compared to other platforms, which I like. I believe the banning of Chromium and other Web technologies/features is a part of that. So how does one add other browsers to iOS while respecting my (and other users') choice to have a platform that prioritizes native apps? You will have increased browser choice while decreasing choice between platforms with different philosophies about apps.
OK, I'm sorry, I didn't know the history. But at this point it (and most web technologies) are heavily pushed and adopted by Google, including ones that may have privacy issues. This is because Google is a Web company and has a vested interest in the Web being a viable replacement to the OS (see Chrome OS). I don't see that as a problem, and they are free to push their vision, which happens to align with web developers’ views. But Apple is a hardware company, and they have a different vision for what role the Web should play. What's wrong with that?
True, but with a cratering user base FireFox feels more like a straw man defender against Google's monopolistic control of web standards.
Solution: Apple invests more in WebKit, not allowing other engines.
The Web has always had common standards. The problem is when specific companies have too much control over those standards. Being "open sourced" doesn't negate or remove a controlling company's influence.
It's not even about PWAs, which is another pearl in the collar. In fact, I'd burn all the Electron garbage myself, but let's not pretend Apple is setting any kind of example with the level of software they are putting out under their "native" apps.
The question is not whether or not webkit only is secure. It's not. The question is whether webkit only is more secure than the alternative.
You make some great points I hadn’t fully considered. The question is how to allow browser engine competition without also bringing along everything else. At the very least Apple needs to invest more in Safari, and decouple Safari updates from iOS.
I disagree. Apple are more than capable of rolling out minor OS updates to address important security issues in short shrift. I believe that happened not so long ago. Since WebKit is used extensively throughout iOS, as well as by Safari, a security problem is de facto an operating system problem.
That's not exactly easy as pie when numerous components of WebKit go mainstream on other devices (e.g. Android/Chrome), and they turn out to have serious security implications.
The counter argument to this (and I do wish people would stop saying that other iOS browsers are wrappers around Safari - they use WebKit is all)...
You've had IndexedDB bug leaking data all over throughout 57 days and you call this petition a "compromise" of your "security" & "privacy", guess you didn't even read the article. Also, your "privacy & security" are no better than most browsers, in fact worse than some.
A single bug (now fixed) isn't proof that Apple's solution is less secure than the alternative. That said, the delay in patching the bug is absolutely something that Apple should fix.
You wish it was a "single bug" and of course it is, every other major browser patched it sooner than your very private Safari.
None of that addresses the question of whether limiting iOS to webkit for browsing is more secure than allowing multiple browser engines. I'd argue that it is. I don't want to have to wonder what version of what engine some random app that I downloaded is using.
None of that addresses the fact that Safari is trash and there is no choice in iOS. On desktop having options, they have a measly 9.81% market share. The rest is speculation.
Impeccable logic.
Considering that it's only available on Macs, that's a pretty good market share.
How much of that would be devs? The Apple U.S. Maps bubble play all over? Plot twist: Safari is just a casual browser now? STP another poor attempt at what?