• Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        48
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • albert180@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Android Firefox Mobile already has Support for uBlock, Sponsorblock etc…

          • Vincent@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            10 months ago

            Oh sorry, I was referring specifically to porting Gecko to iOS, not to the part where it would support uBO.

            • HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              10 months ago

              I read somewhere that they had a github preparing ios for a geko version of Firefox. Seems like theyve been anticipating this.

              • Vincent@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                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!

        • no banana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s also possible other markets would follow, like India, China, Australia, phillipines, Indonesia etc. That is a big potential userbase.

        • Virkkunen@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s a lot of work and a relatively small market.

          Well that’s just Firefox since ever

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              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.

              https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity

              • grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                10 months ago

                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.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  True. Also if Apple didn’t disallow (true) Firefox from their platform, that would probably equate to some amount of additional FF users.

  • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

  • CyberEgg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    10 months ago

    Only in the EU, because Apple isn’t quite allowing it. If they wouldn’t allow it now, they’d be forced to.

  • xor@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    10 months ago

    soooo… if i spoof my location to the within the EU, can i get it?

  • Drinvictus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 months ago

    So Mozilla would have to maintain two apps?

    • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    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!

    • KISSmyOS@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • lichtmetzger@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • 2xsaiko
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • lichtmetzger@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            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.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s their problem. If iOS has a breach because of this, they are on the hook for fines for that as well.

    • Setarkus.LW@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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?

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.