←back to thread

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

(www.zdnet.com)
428 points coronadisaster | 8 comments | 29 Jun 20 10:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.4s | source | bottom
Show context
j-pb ◴[29 Jun 20 13:59 UTC] No.23677662[source]▶
So basically everything that would allow web apps to become capable enough to provide a viable alternative to their App store.

If they really cared about privacy they'd auto-generate their new privacy labels based on a websites api access pattern, and put them in an easy to access place.

They should also simply ask the user for permission if a privacy critical api is being accessed, same as we do with the microphone and gps. Or if they want to prevent users from being bothered, they could make them opt in as others have pointed out. So you have to manually go to the privacy label, and select the stuff you want to allow.

I'd love to be able to plug midi devices into my phone. Implement pwa games that use local bluetooth connections for gameplay with friends in the train. Or be able to access my 3d printer from my phone without having to release a ridiculous App store app.

replies(2): >>23677767 #>>23678183 #
1. buran77 ◴[29 Jun 20 14:58 UTC] No.23678183[source]▶
I don't like that Apple has this tight-fisted control over the app store but I'd hate it even more if websites got the same freedoms as apps. For better or worse there is some sort of diligence being done when an app is accepted in the app store and there is a chance it gets booted out if it abuses power. There is no such mechanism for web sites. Once this is out there there's no taking it back, there's no reigning it in, we're stuck with it. Deprecating these APIs is harder than just not implementing them in the first place.

Each of these APIs is sold as a life improving feature but put together you basically end up giving way too much access to any website. Because you know most users will not understand the problem and will just accept which is like sideloading APKs from random corners of the internet. And it's not their fault, you can't be literate in every field. Even as an expert you'd have a hard time deciding if a certain feature is used legitimately or the site will piggyback on it to screw you over. That's why you pay $1000 for a phone, so the manufacturer protects you from these risks.

replies(3): >>23679624 #>>23679956 #>>23682838 #
2. ◴[29 Jun 20 17:17 UTC] No.23679624[source]▶
3. jfkebwjsbx ◴[29 Jun 20 17:37 UTC] No.23679956[source]▶
I agree overall, but:

> That's why you pay $1000 for a phone, so the manufacturer protects you from these risks.

is wishful thinking. You pay 1000$ because that is what people is willing to pay.

replies(1): >>23681216 #
4. buzzerbetrayed ◴[29 Jun 20 19:05 UTC] No.23681216[source]▶
> You pay 1000$ because that is what people is willing to pay.

And they are willing to pay that, at least in part, because

> the manufacturer protects you from these risks

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Your logic is circular.

replies(2): >>23681538 #>>23682938 #
5. jfkebwjsbx ◴[29 Jun 20 19:31 UTC] No.23681538{3}[source]▶
The average customer is not paying 1000$ for getting "protection from those risks", and it is that customer that drives the price, not the average user in HN.

And that is assuming they are trying to "protect you", but that is a different discussion.

replies(1): >>23684187 #
6. asjw ◴[29 Jun 20 20:51 UTC] No.23682838[source]▶
> so the manufacturer protects you from these risks.

Gigabytes of pictures in an archive called "the fappening" say a different story.

7. asjw ◴[29 Jun 20 20:57 UTC] No.23682938{3}[source]▶
A thousand dollars is 1/12 of the average Chinese annual salary

That's why they buy 99$ phones

You're comparing a few millions people living in SV with billions of people making less than 10 dollars a day and assuming that they have the same PPA and that they represent the entirety of the World's user opinions and/or will

8. buran77 ◴[29 Jun 20 22:34 UTC] No.23684187{4}[source]▶
> they are trying to "protect you"

They certainly are trying to protect you but I am not naive to think it's out of the kindness of their corporate heart. It's because that's what many people want right now. Apple tried to compete with Google and Facebook at their own game, predictably lost, so changed the rules of the game. Which was a brilliant strategy and if next year they change their stance I will happily reconsider my opinion.

And people don't have to know explicitly every feature and how it's achieved technically. The phone is now almost a commodity, like toothpaste. You buy one because that manufacturer built a trust. You probably buy Colgate, Sensodyne, or OralB (Crest). But not because you carefully analyzed their chemical composition, or pored through study after study. You just trust one, a friend or dentist recommended it, it just works for you, and so on.

That protection the phone affords you may not be immediately apparent but enough people start noticing eventually even if they don't understand the underlying technical part.