I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.
> It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another
They will continue to donso as long as it continues to be profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price if admission, and Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye:
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.
Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.
At a hardware level it seemed to work. Looking at USB-C on iPhones for example.
Software wise? Fail. EEA gets to disable start search in Windows 11. RoW does not. Interestingly EEA membership is decided at install time based on your selection, and is not changeable afterwards.
iPhones on the other hand have a daemon running that checks your location. It's not based on where you set up the phone. So traveling from Europe to somewhere else can actually prevent you from updating apps that you got via an alt-store:
Yea, unfortunately with software, using enough granular feature flags, they can make their software "maximally bad" for each given region. They lose a battle in the EU and are forced to make the software better? They will make it better only in the EU. Lose another one in Japan over a different issue? Just make a "japan" flag and only make it narrowly better for that use case in that region. Lose further battles in other regions, just add more flags.
They will never deploy the "better" feature worldwide if they have the opportunity to limit the better code to a particular region.
1: And of course, by "better" I am always referring to "better for the user" not "better for Apple."
There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
> Steve Jobs himself envisioned a
> web app future as the future of[...]
I'm not putting cynical motivations past Apple, but you're reading too much (or too little?) into what Jobs said at the time.
His remarks at the time of the initial iPhone release (with the benefit of hindsight) were clearly because they weren't ready to expose any sort of native API's when iOS was initially released.
Pissing on you and telling you it's raining was typical Jobs reality distortion field marketing, and not an indication that he actually believed it was raining.
I think that's the hypothetical part, it's not reality. Safari continues to be a fully modern browser. It doesn't release new features quite as fast as Chrome, but it does generally adopt them.
If Apple were attempting to put a "stranglehold on innovations on the web", Safari's feature set would look very different. But that's not what's happening.
Like I said, Apple does lots of anticompetitive things. I'm not blind to what they do with the app store. I just don't think that the single browser engine policy is motivated by this, or has much effect on it, given how Apple does keep maintaining Safari as a modern browser.
It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it...
And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement), specifically to force many developers to create a native app to use these APIs, so that Apple can force the developer to give them a percentage of any purchases made through the app. They can't force a developer to give them a cut of purchases made through a web browser, which is why they purposely hobble the Safari browser engine and then force all other browsers to use this engine. If you can't see how bad this is, then you've been taken over by the reality distortion field.
It's spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against apple, among many other anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft got sued and lost in an antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari with iOS but forbids any other browser engine but their Safari engine. Can you imagine if Microsoft forbade any other browser from being installed on Windows? It's time Apple was brought to justice over their abusive anti-competitive practices.
That's a bizarre take. It's not even available on most computers. IE was about Microsoft not following web standards and abusing its monopoly position; Safari is a minor browser by market share and is broadly standards-compliant.
> the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
No, I think Chrome is the modern IE. It has huge market share, to the point where developers often just ignore the other browsers. Just like they did when IE was dominant.
I'm torn on this honestly. Safari (particularly mobile Safari) is literally the only thing keeping the web from becoming Chrome-only. While I would love to see Safari-alternative engines on the iPhone, I fear that the "open web" in terms of browser compatibility is cooked the day that happens: Commercial web developers are supremely lazy and their product managers are, too. They will consider the web Chrome-only from that day forward and simply refuse to lift a finger for other browsers.
I think when IE6 died, on one hand it was a relief for web developers, who (very quickly) deleted all the code needed to maintain compatibility, but on the other hand, it made the web worse by bringing us closer to browser monopoly.
This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other.
If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves. If it's a big difference, it's self-evident; and small differences should show up in the battery life tool and computer press.
Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser, and if it doesn't that's not the browser's fault. Maybe restrict access to password filling and such though / figure out how to offer an API to reduce the impact.
Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms (Android and Windows) makes it a pretty wonky standard. I guess there's a claim to be made for the embedded browsing engine, but IMHO, that should be an app developer choice.
>> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
>No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
Yes they will, Apple has made it very easy to see.
To check iOS app power usage, go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app for the last 24 hours or 10 days, showing usage time and background activity, allowing you to identify power-hungry apps and manage settings like Background App Refresh to improve battery life.
So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
>The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Javascript is already very much sandboxed. And there have been plenty of exploits that already target Safari. So saying other browsers are the problem is like blaming the victim (of Apple's anti-competitive practices).
>Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
The real reason Apple disallows other browser engines on Safari is so they can force developers to create native apps where they can get a cut of any purchase made through the app. The problems with Apple's anti-competitive practices have been spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against them:
The web browser is the singular hole in Apple's grip over the user's device. While there are definitely arguments that can be made about security, I think it's naive to think that Apple is unaware of this and is operating on something other than protecting their app store fortune.
Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs.
Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed.
I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions.
FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious:
> Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer.
The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible.
It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.
2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone.
At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.
I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
I disagree. I had an iPhone in the past and find the minimalist Graphene UI refreshing. It's like comparing KDE on Arch to Windows 11 or MacOS. Nothing gets in your way or distracts you, the OS is what an OS is supposed to be, a platform for managing and launching apps.
It’s definitely something that varies from person to person. I tried putting Graphene on a secondary Android device (an old Pixel 3XL) and compared to the stock ROM or more typical AOSP fork (e.g. LineageOS or Pixel Experience), I found it rather frustrating. I can’t imagine running it on my daily driver.
Similarly with Linux, the sheer number of rough edges, papercuts, and quirks is still too high (regardless of if I’m using a big name DE or hyper minimal tiling WM or somewhere in between) for them to serve as my main desktop environment.
KDE connect over Bluetooth or WiFi seems ideal for this, so it's definitely possible. I am not sure how the iDevices deal with this, but I really don't want anything cloud-connected.
tail scale drop is much more complicated than literally copying and pasting on iDevice. that's literally all you do, no setup, nothing and this is just one example for one type of action.
you don't need to believe me. I use it daily. don't know why you're so defensive lol - it's our own opinion. fyi I didn't have to do anything for this to work (clipboard laptop to phone)
2026 should be the last year when anyone technical-minded comes around to the realization that Google/Apple are in the Fed's pocket. If you're making the switch in 2027 or 2028, it's probably too late for you.
The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS.
It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?
I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have.
Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set.
At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999.
This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC.
It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines.
I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem.
I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
The "monoculture" has never been less of a threat. WPT.FYI is driving towards asymptotically perfect compatibility and behavior. And the real web, the long-tail of websites, is too chaotic to be controlled by any entity regardless of browser market share. Chrome can cook up whatever API they want, no website can be forced to adopt it. And if someone can't use some WebMIDI site on Safari, well, they can't complain, they didn't want that site to exist in the first place.
It's simply not a good excuse to defend the iOS browser ban.
It’s still got popularity within tech-inclined Mac/iOS circles too because it’s easier on the battery than Chrome (+derivatives) and Firefox. Some would like to switch but because neither Google nor Mozilla has much to lose for their browsers being battery hogs, relatively little engineering effort gets dedicated to improving efficiency compared to WebKit (which is similarly efficient under Linux in e.g. GNOME Web, proving it’s not purely first-party advantage).
That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up.
Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.
The reason Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS is due to them collecting up to 30% of purchases made through the apps from the app store. If a developer can do the same things with a capable web browser, then they won't need to create a native iOS app and that cuts into Apple's app revenue. So Apple purposely hobbles Safari so it doesn't have any advanced browser APIs for stuff like bluetooth or other APIs that apps have access to, forcing developers to create an app, where Apple can then cut into purchases made through the app.
It has nothing to do with people no longer using Safari and Apple being sad about that. Other browsers can technically be installed on iOS, but the underlying browser engine is forced to be Safari, which lacks many APIs other web browsers could implement, reducing the need for a native app. It's purely Apple's anti-competitive greed that drives this situation. And the EU, Japan, and the US DOJ have noticed. So far only the EU and Japan have actually taken measures to force Apple to change this.
Here's the entire DOJ lawsuit which includes many other instances of anti-competitive practices by Apple.
What evidence do you have, other than speculation, that Apple is so motivated? What standard features are missing from Safari’s rendering engine that makes it a less capable browser such that developers are forced to produce apps instead?
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit?
I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
I'm surprised Apple haven't thrown in the towel and opened things up worldwide yet. It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another.
> It's only a matter of time until it becomes too confusing and problematic to try and run the same system relatively openly in one country and walled in another
They will continue to donso as long as it continues to be profitable. Navigating the complexities of multiple jurisdictions is the bread and butter of MNCs - it's the price if admission, and Apple is guaranteed to have lawyers, admins, and executives already on the payroll for this task.
This. It’s computation. Computation doesn’t really “get” geopolitical borders.
I’m so sick of the ever increasing variances between the different “store” offerings in different regions of the world. Seems like every time I push an update (every month or so), I have to answer updated questions and declarations, often relative to different parts of the world.
FeatureToggles.swift
I know this isn't new for Japan, but this requirement caught my eye:
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content
Would Apple themselves meet this requirement? Isn't WebKit C++? Of course, I'm not sure what would be considered "features that improve memory safety within other languages," that's kind of vague.
https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/wiki/Safer-CPP-Guidelines
Documentation to guide devs on safe usage of C++ is enough?
So any language should be allowed as long as they instruct developers to be careful.
I don't know if they do this, but those conventions could be enforced by a tool.
Yes, in WebKit, SaferCPP guidelines are enforced by a static analysis tool.
Theres C++ in military airplanes, they just cut out 90% of the features: https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
And heres a nice video about it: https://youtu.be/Gv4sDL9Ljww?si=Z4riPMKAKcIKaU0s
Yes, they do this, and it's really not an unreasonable requirement.
Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
My hope for laws such as the ones Japan and the EU enacted was that companies would see the writing on the wall and change their practices worldwide, if only for cost reasons (it presumably being more expensive to maintain multiple sets of rules.) However, these companies are now so large that they can choose to absorb any inefficiencies on a country-by-country basis.
At a hardware level it seemed to work. Looking at USB-C on iPhones for example.
Software wise? Fail. EEA gets to disable start search in Windows 11. RoW does not. Interestingly EEA membership is decided at install time based on your selection, and is not changeable afterwards.
iPhones on the other hand have a daemon running that checks your location. It's not based on where you set up the phone. So traveling from Europe to somewhere else can actually prevent you from updating apps that you got via an alt-store:
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/06/alternative-ios-app-sto...
Yea, unfortunately with software, using enough granular feature flags, they can make their software "maximally bad" for each given region. They lose a battle in the EU and are forced to make the software better? They will make it better only in the EU. Lose another one in Japan over a different issue? Just make a "japan" flag and only make it narrowly better for that use case in that region. Lose further battles in other regions, just add more flags.
They will never deploy the "better" feature worldwide if they have the opportunity to limit the better code to a particular region.
1: And of course, by "better" I am always referring to "better for the user" not "better for Apple."
There are many things Apple does that have anticompetitive motivations, but the browser engine doesn't seem like one of them. It's genuinely about security and battery life and standardization. So if cost was never the reason in the first place, cost is not going to be the reason to change.
It is literally done for strategic reasons to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web, so that there is no risk of web app technology developing to a point to threaten the dominance of native apps and the app store.
Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive, Steve Jobs himself envisioned a web app future as the future of technology; before Apple found out the gold mine that the app store became.
His remarks at the time of the initial iPhone release (with the benefit of hindsight) were clearly because they weren't ready to expose any sort of native API's when iOS was initially released.
Pissing on you and telling you it's raining was typical Jobs reality distortion field marketing, and not an indication that he actually believed it was raining.
> to put a stranglehold on innovations on the web
I think that's the hypothetical part, it's not reality. Safari continues to be a fully modern browser. It doesn't release new features quite as fast as Chrome, but it does generally adopt them.
If Apple were attempting to put a "stranglehold on innovations on the web", Safari's feature set would look very different. But that's not what's happening.
Like I said, Apple does lots of anticompetitive things. I'm not blind to what they do with the app store. I just don't think that the single browser engine policy is motivated by this, or has much effect on it, given how Apple does keep maintaining Safari as a modern browser.
It absolutely is reality. Safari is the worst browser by far, it's been compared to Microsoft's old Internet Explorer browser. But don't take my word for it, lots of people have written about it...
https://www.google.com/search?q=safari+is+the+new+ie
And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement), specifically to force many developers to create a native app to use these APIs, so that Apple can force the developer to give them a percentage of any purchases made through the app. They can't force a developer to give them a cut of purchases made through a web browser, which is why they purposely hobble the Safari browser engine and then force all other browsers to use this engine. If you can't see how bad this is, then you've been taken over by the reality distortion field.
It's spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against apple, among many other anti-competitive practices.
Microsoft got sued and lost in an antitrust suit for bundling IE with Windows. Apple bundles Safari with iOS but forbids any other browser engine but their Safari engine. Can you imagine if Microsoft forbade any other browser from being installed on Windows? It's time Apple was brought to justice over their abusive anti-competitive practices.
Here's the whole DOJ suit against Apple:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Safari is the modern IE. the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
The only reason Apple has banned alternative engines and continues to hold back on major web technologies is anticompetitive behaviour.
> Safari is the modern IE.
That's a bizarre take. It's not even available on most computers. IE was about Microsoft not following web standards and abusing its monopoly position; Safari is a minor browser by market share and is broadly standards-compliant.
> the fact that PWAs didn’t take off in the last decade js purely due to Safari.
So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?
No, I think Chrome is the modern IE. It has huge market share, to the point where developers often just ignore the other browsers. Just like they did when IE was dominant.
I'm torn on this honestly. Safari (particularly mobile Safari) is literally the only thing keeping the web from becoming Chrome-only. While I would love to see Safari-alternative engines on the iPhone, I fear that the "open web" in terms of browser compatibility is cooked the day that happens: Commercial web developers are supremely lazy and their product managers are, too. They will consider the web Chrome-only from that day forward and simply refuse to lift a finger for other browsers.
I think when IE6 died, on one hand it was a relief for web developers, who (very quickly) deleted all the code needed to maintain compatibility, but on the other hand, it made the web worse by bringing us closer to browser monopoly.
> Anybody that thinks otherwise is hopeless naive
This is inappropriate. People can reasonably disagree without being insulting to each other.
If you have concrete evidence that Apple is deliberately withholding some essential advancement in Safari or its support for Web standards so that it can sell more apps, by all means, cite it.
If browser F is worse at battery life than browser S, people will figure that out and adapt for themselves. If it's a big difference, it's self-evident; and small differences should show up in the battery life tool and computer press.
Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser, and if it doesn't that's not the browser's fault. Maybe restrict access to password filling and such though / figure out how to offer an API to reduce the impact.
Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms (Android and Windows) makes it a pretty wonky standard. I guess there's a claim to be made for the embedded browsing engine, but IMHO, that should be an app developer choice.
Safari has long been better for battery than Chrome but people still install Chrome on their MacBooks.
> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
> Security-wise, the sandbox should limit damage to within the browser
The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
> Standardization, eh? Forcing Safari on iOS and not making it available on the mass market platforms
Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
>> people will figure that out and adapt for themselves
>No they won't. People on HN will. Not the average person.
Yes they will, Apple has made it very easy to see.
To check iOS app power usage, go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app for the last 24 hours or 10 days, showing usage time and background activity, allowing you to identify power-hungry apps and manage settings like Background App Refresh to improve battery life.
So yeah, it's easy to see which app is taking the most power, and users can do this easily, unless you think Apple's UX is so bad that users won't know how to read it?
>The problem is, arbitrary code execution vastly expands the risks. Your "should" is doing all the work there.
If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store. There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app. Javascript is already very much sandboxed. And there have been plenty of exploits that already target Safari. So saying other browsers are the problem is like blaming the victim (of Apple's anti-competitive practices).
>Huh? Apple follows web standards. Why the heck should it make Safari available on Android and Windows? Safari isn't a standard, web standards are.
If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
The real reason Apple disallows other browser engines on Safari is so they can force developers to create native apps where they can get a cut of any purchase made through the app. The problems with Apple's anti-competitive practices have been spelled out in the DOJ lawsuit against them:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
> go to Settings > Battery, where you'll see a breakdown of battery consumption by app
And what percentage of users do you think ever check that, or even know it's there to check?
> If that's a problem for web browsers, then it's a problem for every single app in the app store.
No it's not, the app store disallows arbitrary code execution.
> There's nothing really unique about a web browser app that makes it more risky than any other app.
Yes there is -- JavaScript.
> Javascript is already very much sandboxed.
...by Safari. It wouldn't be if you allowed any developer to write their own JavaScript interpreter as part of their own browser.
> If web standards are standards, then let other web browsers on iOS.
That's a non-sequitur.
The web browser is the singular hole in Apple's grip over the user's device. While there are definitely arguments that can be made about security, I think it's naive to think that Apple is unaware of this and is operating on something other than protecting their app store fortune.
Does this mean we'll finally have "real" firefox with support for ublock origin on iOS?
Apple is going to (mostly) obey the letter of the law but they will continue to resist strongly in every way they can. Onerous requirements, arbitrary restrictions, overzealous enforcement, and most of all bad APIs with limited capabilities and no workarounds for bugs.
Shipping a good and complete browser engine on iOS will require more than just developers. You'll also need a team of lawyers to threaten and sue Apple to get their policy restrictions relaxed and APIs fixed.
I doubt Mozilla or Google will be willing to spend the many developer-years and lawyer-years it will take to fully port every feature of a whole engine and properly maintain it in such a hostile environment, just for the Japan market. I expect to see some hobbyist-level ports but not something worth using for a long time. Unless other countries follow suit.
> just for the Japan market
Also the EU, no?
Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the web view in apps systemwide? Or does it only require that single standalone browser apps can use alternative engines?
> Does the EU also require third party engines to be able to replace the system web view in apps systemwide?
Yes.
Probably not, at least not from Mozilla themselves. They cite onerous requirements and the difficulty of having to maintain different apps for different regions.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
FYI. iOS Safari already supports uBlock Origin Lite. iOS Firefox can do the same anytime but it already has some tracking and content blocking built in too.
As someone who has recently switched from Android to iOS, I can tell you uBlock Origin Lite on Safari on iOS is a poor man’s imitation of the real uBlock Origin on Firefox on Android.
Could’ve happened some time ago already in the EU, so there must be reasons for Firefox an Google not to ship their own engines (yet?).
uBO lite works pretty well on ios/safari for me.
The separate-binary requirement makes it completely DOA, so they're still breaking the law. Deliberately. It bans actions that make it unlikely for browsers to adopt alternative engines. And they mandate no sharing of login-state with any other app from the same developer, despite violating that themselves (Safari sync is turned on by default, no encryption by default). Funny. And they mandate blocking third-party cookies, great but completely inappropriate for an OS to impose. The most hilarious:
> Prioritize resolving reported vulnerabilities with expedience [...] Most vulnerabilities should be resolved in 30 days, but some may be more complex and may take longer.
Apple does not comply with this.
The fact we still can't get this in the US is atrocious. They have already paid the cost to implement this for the EU and Japan, but simply don't allow it for US users because... spite, I guess? Horrible.
It reminds me of when I asked for my account to be deleted from some online learning site (Udacity maybe?) And they're response was: "Nope, we only do that for European users." Like they went through all the effort of implementing a proper way to delete your data, but they just... don't do it if you're not in the right geographic area.
2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good and either starting running either a free Android OS (Graphene, Lineage or a couple of other variants) or a Linux phone.
At this point, Apple and Google devices are nothing more than instruments of coercion and mass surveillance.
Lectures and admonitions won’t change anything. People will move to Graphene and Linux when it’s better for them.
Coercion and surveillance problems are pretty far down the list of complaints most people have with their personal devices.
Unfortunately, I appreciate the deep integration between my phone and my laptop too much to drop either
I don't have Apple devices to compare, but I think KDE Connect can closely replicate this, entirely locally. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's "deep integrations" rely on cloud components that are privacy-violating by design (even if Apple promises not to look at the data flowing through their servers).
Most cross device stuff in the Apple world actually works via P2P Bluetooth and WiFi and functions without an internet connection or even a shared WiFi network. Mac and iDevice WiFi hardware is even designed with this in mind and is capable of maintaining P2P connections to other devices and a WiFi network simultaneously without rapidly switching between the two like many commodity WiFi cards have to.
UX is much worse imo on graphene compared to iOS
I disagree. I had an iPhone in the past and find the minimalist Graphene UI refreshing. It's like comparing KDE on Arch to Windows 11 or MacOS. Nothing gets in your way or distracts you, the OS is what an OS is supposed to be, a platform for managing and launching apps.
It’s definitely something that varies from person to person. I tried putting Graphene on a secondary Android device (an old Pixel 3XL) and compared to the stock ROM or more typical AOSP fork (e.g. LineageOS or Pixel Experience), I found it rather frustrating. I can’t imagine running it on my daily driver.
Similarly with Linux, the sheer number of rough edges, papercuts, and quirks is still too high (regardless of if I’m using a big name DE or hyper minimal tiling WM or somewhere in between) for them to serve as my main desktop environment.
UX, not UI. perfect example is you copy something on your laptop and paste it on your phone. trivial on iDevice.
Trivial as in it works well sometimes and badly in other times with no explanation for why. That’s my experience anyway.
It literally always works flawlessly for me unless Bluetooth is turned off.
KDE connect over Bluetooth or WiFi seems ideal for this, so it's definitely possible. I am not sure how the iDevices deal with this, but I really don't want anything cloud-connected.
this doesn't work sometimes. my wife complains frequently
KDE Connect is more reliable than Continuity Clipboard, in my experience.
Tailscale drop is better and works across devices.
tail scale drop is much more complicated than literally copying and pasting on iDevice. that's literally all you do, no setup, nothing and this is just one example for one type of action.
https://tailscale.com/kb/1106/taildrop
look at all of that, lol. iDevice is literally copy and paste any file or text. the end - you don't even have to set it up.
How do I copy it from my Mac to my Android?
This sounds like hyperbole. I've never used tailscale, but reading that doc:
Installation: Install the tailscale client
Sharing: Click on the share menu and select tailscale
It's a beta feature so there's also a switch you have to flip for now.
you don't need to believe me. I use it daily. don't know why you're so defensive lol - it's our own opinion. fyi I didn't have to do anything for this to work (clipboard laptop to phone)
Meanwhile, for Apple:
Installation: nothing.
Sharing: Cmd+C/Cmd+V
>UX is much worse imo on graphene compared to iOS
Freedom and privacy exist on graphene.
This is profoundly out of touch with how almost everyone who isn’t a particularly zealous member of certain movements lives their lives.
> 2026 should be the year when every tech-minded person dumps Apple (and Google) for good
Why? I am a very tech-minded person but simply don't care about running alternative browser engines on my phone. Am I "wrong" in your opinion?
2026 should be the last year when anyone technical-minded comes around to the realization that Google/Apple are in the Fed's pocket. If you're making the switch in 2027 or 2028, it's probably too late for you.
Why only Japan? Seems like something forced them to in Japan.
The US DOJ was attempting to sue Apple in an antitrust suit for many things, including blocking every browser engine except their own Safari browser on iOS.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
Who knows if this will actually move forward now that "Tim Apple" gave the current leader a meaningless golden trophy.
For many Hacker News readers who check the website every day, this is not news:
• (4 years ago) Japan forces Apple to slightly loosen restrictions on ‘reader’ apps — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28387094
• (3 years ago) Japan pushes for Apple and Google to allow sideloading — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36393809
• (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36368735
• (3 years ago) Japan to open up Apple- and Google-dominated phone apps to competition — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36370398
• (3 years ago) Apple Japan hit with $98M in back taxes for missing duty-free abuses — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34156235
• (2 years ago) Japan to crack down on Apple and Google app store monopolies — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773429
• (2 years ago) Japan forces Apple and Google to open their mobile platforms — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40666651
• (2 years ago) Japan enacts law to curb Apple, Google's app dominance — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40671162
• (5 months ago) Japan: Apple Must Lift Browser Engine Ban by December — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44810061
• (5 months ago) Japan Law Will Require Apple to Allow Non-WebKit Browsers on iPhone — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44826077
• (15 days ago) Apple Announces Changes to iOS in Japan — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46307858
• (14 days ago) Apple and Google respond to new Japan smartphone law, including reduced app fees — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46310074
… and more here: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=japan+apple
It's in the EU and Japan, so basically all regions that have pushed back against Apple's anti-competitive ways.
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
Yes, there is a new Japanese law that forces them.
It's so disappointing to be fed crumbs like this instead of seeing real consumer protection laws put in place. Let users install software on their computers outside of what the manufacturer permits, why focus on browsers and "app stores"?
Because capitalism.
I'm all for privacy and alternative app stores, but opening browser engines to the competition isn't something I'm keen to have.
Now every phone will ship with 2 engines (inevitably chrome is going to be bundled in at least one of your apps). Both are tied to large tech companies. And both have approximately the same feature set.
At this stage, I can't think of any upside for the end user. New CSS crap or obscure web APIs, or proprietary DRM? And the cost is that we're going to get new website badges "only in Chrome", or "only in Safari", like it's 1999.
This is Apple, people know what they get into, and they kind of want that an iPhone is not a PC.
It looks like everyone thinks that this is a good thing. Can anyone explain beyond the "this is a monopoly" argument? It's not a monopoly if the engine is free, and if they need the engine to more or less match all the desktop engines.
I don't feel cornered by Apple on that one.
So can people in Okinotorishima, Takeshima, Senkaku Islands use that alternative browser?
Did Japan decide to push proper competition laws?
Time to force Apple to do it everywhere. Very long overdue.
I agree with the “enforce competition laws” sentiment, but in this context, enforced naively, all it’ll do is entrench the dominant browser engine, Blink, even more across the mobile ecosystem.
I’m sure some devs will love this. But equally, some may worry about the monoculture implications.
The "monoculture" has never been less of a threat. WPT.FYI is driving towards asymptotically perfect compatibility and behavior. And the real web, the long-tail of websites, is too chaotic to be controlled by any entity regardless of browser market share. Chrome can cook up whatever API they want, no website can be forced to adopt it. And if someone can't use some WebMIDI site on Safari, well, they can't complain, they didn't want that site to exist in the first place.
It's simply not a good excuse to defend the iOS browser ban.
It hasn’t on Macs. Safari is still popular among non-tech folk
It’s still got popularity within tech-inclined Mac/iOS circles too because it’s easier on the battery than Chrome (+derivatives) and Firefox. Some would like to switch but because neither Google nor Mozilla has much to lose for their browsers being battery hogs, relatively little engineering effort gets dedicated to improving efficiency compared to WebKit (which is similarly efficient under Linux in e.g. GNOME Web, proving it’s not purely first-party advantage).
That’s because Apple adds two extra legs to Safari on OS level and cuts both the legs of other browsers in a manner of speaking by rigging this comparison.
In what way do you think this is meaningfully occurring? I ask because I have not heard of Chrome or Firefox being inhibited on energy efficiency by platform limitations.
I think the narrative is that once developers have the option to tell all of their users "we only support Chrome, just install Chrome" then any support for Safari will dry up.
Unfortunately I don't think we will see if this is how it plays out until Apple has to allow other browsers globally.
The reason Apple doesn't allow any other browser engines on iOS is due to them collecting up to 30% of purchases made through the apps from the app store. If a developer can do the same things with a capable web browser, then they won't need to create a native iOS app and that cuts into Apple's app revenue. So Apple purposely hobbles Safari so it doesn't have any advanced browser APIs for stuff like bluetooth or other APIs that apps have access to, forcing developers to create an app, where Apple can then cut into purchases made through the app.
It has nothing to do with people no longer using Safari and Apple being sad about that. Other browsers can technically be installed on iOS, but the underlying browser engine is forced to be Safari, which lacks many APIs other web browsers could implement, reducing the need for a native app. It's purely Apple's anti-competitive greed that drives this situation. And the EU, Japan, and the US DOJ have noticed. So far only the EU and Japan have actually taken measures to force Apple to change this.
Here's the entire DOJ lawsuit which includes many other instances of anti-competitive practices by Apple.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1344546/dl?inline
What evidence do you have, other than speculation, that Apple is so motivated? What standard features are missing from Safari’s rendering engine that makes it a less capable browser such that developers are forced to produce apps instead?
Banning competition can't possibly help increasing competition.
It would be good to see Firefox with its own engine there for example.
The title is misleading. "Allows" need to be in quotes - they did everything they could to make sure this won't change anything in practice. Screw Apple.
Could you elaborate? Other than the "Japan" requirement it seems legit?
I guess the requirements are pretty onerous, but they all seem like table stakes for a browser these days (Firefox or Chrome should have no problem with them, for instance.)
They weren't going to title "Apple forced to allow alternative..."
They are the ones allowing the alternatives because they are the gate keepers. They have "the keys"