←back to thread

Apple declined to implement 16 Web APIs in Safari due to privacy concerns

(www.zdnet.com)
428 points coronadisaster | 2 comments | 29 Jun 20 10:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.4s | source
Show context
philistine ◴[29 Jun 20 13:03 UTC] No.23677180[source]▶
I’ve heard so many people complain on HN about Safari’s lack of support for APIs. Before now, we didn’t have a public justification why Apple refused to implement them. Now we know.

The price of a Safari user in the ad market is going down, and it’s exactly what should be happening. I’m very happy with Apple.

https://9to5mac.com/2019/12/09/apple-safari-privacy-feature-...

replies(8): >>23677237 #>>23677240 #>>23677307 #>>23677333 #>>23677632 #>>23678116 #>>23681749 #>>23682896 #
1. Sayrus ◴[29 Jun 20 13:12 UTC] No.23677237[source]▶
Safari already implements API that leaks enough information to uniquely fingerprint a device.

For instance, the Audio API. You can test it using OpenWPM [1][2] and you will get the same ID in both normal and incognito mode. And this is only one of many things not blocked by default. ETAG tracking is pretty popular on pixels.

I'm not saying they aren't right, I'm just saying that they are somehow doing more PR than anything else. And as other comments are calling out, this makes it even harder to compete on IOS using PWA (How is a website asking for permission different from an app? Can't we have a permission framework just like apps?).

[1] https://audiofingerprint.openwpm.com/

[2] https://github.com/mozilla/OpenWPM

replies(1): >>23680279 #
2. reaperducer ◴[29 Jun 20 18:02 UTC] No.23680279[source]▶
Safari already implements API that leaks enough information to uniquely fingerprint a device.

What's your point? Because one API can be used for something, Apple should let Safari be a free-for-all?