- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- firefox@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Fingers crossed Mozilla actually implements that and it gets Ublock too.
Why wouldn’t they?
It’s a lot of work and a relatively small market, in addition to have to ship it as a separate version that’s different from the version in the rest of the world, and subject to Apple’s onerous restrictions and review policy, and it’s clear that Apple is not looking to make this as frictionless as possible.
Android Firefox Mobile already has Support for uBlock, Sponsorblock etc…
Oh sorry, I was referring specifically to porting Gecko to iOS, not to the part where it would support uBO.
I read somewhere that they had a github preparing ios for a geko version of Firefox. Seems like theyve been anticipating this.
I think so, yes, but there’s still a big stretch going from “prototyping in case they open it up” to “being a full-fledged stable product that works well for everyone”. But fingers crossed that it’ll work out!
And will the Android version run on iOS?
I guess yeah. That makes sense. I was thinking abandoning the WebKit version would give them one fewer, but of course they can’t do that since the rest of the market needs it.
I still believe they’d do it, though. The EU market isn’t as small as it’s made out to be, and maybe they could win some marketshare just by doing it. Even if it’s not that big.
It’s also possible other markets would follow, like India, China, Australia, phillipines, Indonesia etc. That is a big potential userbase.
Yes. I’m assuming we’re talking short term.
It’s a lot of work and a relatively small market.
Well that’s just Firefox since ever
Painful but true.
There was like a 10 year period where Firefox had a pretty large market share, and they still have a respectable one despite being in a competition with GOOGLE. I don’t agree that Firefox as a whole is just a tiny niche considering it’s still used by nearly a couple hundred million people. That’s bigger than the population of most of the world’s countries.
It’s also worth noting that, by the nature of the demographic Firefox appeals to, Firefox users are much less likely to allow their browser to report telemetry and the stats are therefore probably quite a bit under-reported.
True. Also if Apple didn’t disallow (true) Firefox from their platform, that would probably equate to some amount of additional FF users.
I don’t like the wording “apple is allowing” when it is really more like “apple is complying with EU regulations”. The reader can easily infer apple made the choice or has one. They don’t.
Exactly. “Apple is forced to allow” would be a much more legit headline.
Only in the EU, because Apple isn’t quite allowing it. If they wouldn’t allow it now, they’d be forced to.
deleted by creator
Probably not viable unless without using mobile data and telecomms
Let me know if you find out 🧐
So Mozilla would have to maintain two apps?
Hmm, I don’t see any other option
They have been maintaining two apps since many years. The change is going from Safari’s WebKit to Gecko, the same they use for Android and desktop systems. It probably means less work for them as they can share more easily changes from the other builds to iOS.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
With iOS 17.4, Apple is making a number of huge changes to the way its mobile operating system works in order to comply with new regulations in the EU.
One of them is an important product shift: for the first time, Apple is going to allow alternative browser engines to run on iOS — but only for users in the EU.
Apple is clearly only doing this because it is required to by the EU’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA), which stipulates, among other things, that users should be allowed to uninstall preinstalled apps — including web browsers — that “steer them to the products and services of the gatekeeper.” In this case, iOS is the gatekeeper, and WebKit and Safari are Apple’s products and services.
Even in its release announcing the new features, Apple makes clear that it’s mad about them: “This change is a result of the DMA’s requirements, and means that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them,” the company says.
Apple argues (without any particular merit or evidence) that these other engines are a security and performance risk and that only WebKit is truly optimized and safe for iPhone users.
But in the EU, we’re likely to see these revamped browsers in the App Store as soon as iOS 17.4 drops in March: Google, for one, has been working on a non-WebKit version of Chrome for at least a year.
The original article contains 596 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Apple argues (without any particular merit or evidence) that these other engines are a security and performance risk and that only WebKit is truly optimized and safe for iPhone users.
They probably know, but can’t talk about how iOS and Safari are intertwined in a way that isn’t possible with other browsers.
Without being an expert on the subject, it wouldn’t surprise me if important security features were missing in iOS and patched into WebKit instead. That doesn’t pose a problem, as long as WebKit is the only way to browse the internet.only WebKit is truly optimized and safe for iPhone users
So that’s why it interprets certain standards differently than all other engines. Must be the security. The amount of rendering errors I have to debug just for iOS is annoying. Especially, since you need a MacBook AND an iPhone to debug this bad engine properly, so either me or my employer needs to buy into their ecosystem.
Especially, since you need a MacBook AND an iPhone to debug this bad engine properly
Do you? WebKit is open-source and other browsers use it too, GNOME Web (Epiphany) for example.
For some reason I thought the Safari engine was proprietary, but you’re right, you totally can.
However, you need to have the specific Webkit version on your system that’s also used on the iOS release where the bug is present. Which can be a real pain to manage and I imagine compiling this engine will take quite a while.
Still better than buying unnecessary, overpriced hardware, though! I will for sure check this out soon.
I’m guessing we’ll find out.
WebKit hasn’t exactly been the bastion of security Apple makes it out to be.
I mean it hasn’t been perfect but it has made a good effort in keeping the security issues contained in only webkit and not letting a lot of them out to affect other browsers.
But other browsers are forced to use webkit on iOS.
See how far Apple went to prevent other browser engines from being affected by security issues on their platform?
I genuinely can’t tell if you’re trolling.
That’s their problem. If iOS has a breach because of this, they are on the hook for fines for that as well.
that EU users will be confronted with a list of default browsers before they have the opportunity to understand the options available to them
What is this even supposed to mean? All other browsers are pre-installed alongside safari? It’s hard for users to choose a browser because they’re able to use others as well?
Corpo doublespeak on overdrive. My guess is that they mean that the rules say they have to give a list of alternatives without running the user through a 20 click session on why their option is the only sensible one. “Understand the options” usually means a lot of screens telling the user the “right choice”. “Being confronted with a list before understanding” means you need to think for yourself on your decision, rather than Apple making it for you.
On Windows, the EU Browser Selection system basically meant, during setup, you would be asked which browser you wanted. Internet Explorer would be hidden, and whatever you selected would be installed and set to default. I guess for non-techy users, they might not know what the difference between Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and whatever else was in the list. But its not like they couldn’t go to the store and grab another one if they weren’t happy.
