| ▲ | TheDong 6 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | Nextgrid 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | vin047 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Is this a new rule? I had my own browser published on the App Store about a year ago (as a solo dev). | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | criddell 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Apple is the only thing holding back Chromium / Blink from becoming the only browser technology that matters. I hope they keep fighting that fight. | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They don't fight it for that reason though. They don't care about an open web either. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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! |
|
| ▲ | yoavm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | enos_feedler 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s not the part you see, its what they see to implement the features you see. | | |
| ▲ | yoavm 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | prinny_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can you please expand on why what Orion does is hacky and may cause issues with other add ons? |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Tryk 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| *EU is not one country |
| |
| ▲ | benoau 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | yoavm 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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". |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wbl 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not all markets or manufacturers will have the same degree of vertical integration and that's ok. |
| |
| ▲ | Grombobulous 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dd8601fn 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >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. | |
| ▲ | Barbing 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | :( 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. | | |
| ▲ | callc 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | >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). | | |
| ▲ | callc 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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 |
| |
| ▲ | fsflover an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >rented Be careful here! Everything will turn to subscriptions and leases, which is why my proposed "Apple Laws" must also apply to leased hardware. | |
| ▲ | dd8601fn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | rustcleaner an hour ago | parent [-] | | >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. | | |
| ▲ | dd8601fn 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | grepex 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Read: not all markets and manufacturers will have the same respect for their customers. |
|
