←back to thread

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

(www.zdnet.com)
428 points coronadisaster | 7 comments | 29 Jun 20 10:16 UTC | HN request time: 4.157s | source | bottom
Show context
msoad ◴[29 Jun 20 17:15 UTC] No.23679601[source]▶
Google's developer relations team have done a good job convincing web devs that those APIs are pushed by Google to enable "Amazing PWAs", yet we haven't seen them used by any major app. People are choosing to download native apps for more sophisticated applications.

However Google is pushing those APIs because they know tracking people without cookies in future is a big challenge for them and they need new ways of tracking people.

So sad that Google has taken over the web. From the most used browser (Chrome) to the content hijacking (AMP) to the standards (PWA). All to sell you to advertisers.

replies(6): >>23679828 #>>23679848 #>>23680171 #>>23680533 #>>23681627 #>>23684654 #
nojito ◴[29 Jun 20 17:28 UTC] No.23679828[source]▶
Rhe fact that people don't realize PWAs are the next push by Google to regain control is shocking.

The number of hackernews threads calling out Apple for not supporting PWAs is just as insane.

replies(2): >>23680016 #>>23680817 #
1. untog ◴[29 Jun 20 17:43 UTC] No.23680016[source]▶
I don't really understand: the PWA APIs are W3C APIs, they're not created by one company. Mozilla fully supports them.
replies(1): >>23680214 #
2. ocdtrekkie ◴[29 Jun 20 17:57 UTC] No.23680214[source]▶
Just because they're standards doesn't mean they aren't standards written and promoted chiefly by Google. Mozilla also has pushed back on some of them, despite the fact that... Mozilla supporting them isn't a good argument since most of their revenue also comes from, you guessed it: Google.
replies(1): >>23682660 #
3. asjw ◴[29 Jun 20 20:39 UTC] No.23682660[source]▶
I don't have to go full PWA to make useful apps

And don't have to go through an app store, creating an account, paying Apple, waiting for their opaque reviews and giving them 30% of whatever amount I make through my app.

Android has Firefox, thanks to Apple iOS doesn't.

replies(1): >>23684563 #
4. ocdtrekkie ◴[29 Jun 20 23:15 UTC] No.23684563{3}[source]▶
I agree app stores need to face antitrust scrutiny... but websites having crazy types of permissions isn't the answer.

Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not. Native apps will always be the more private by default option.

replies(1): >>23684949 #
5. untog ◴[29 Jun 20 23:57 UTC] No.23684949{4}[source]▶
> Web apps by default talk to an outside server, native apps by default do not.

Huh? There is no permission prompt for native apps to be able to access the internet. By default they can (and definitely do!) talk to outside servers for analytics etc. It’s just that you can’t see them they way you do on the web.

replies(1): >>23685324 #
6. ocdtrekkie ◴[30 Jun 20 00:50 UTC] No.23685324{5}[source]▶
Actually, most app sandboxes have to request network access as a permission. Unfortunately most mobile OSes don't let you deny it at present. However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines. Meanwhile, once data is on a remote server, you have no control of it.

Furthermore, native apps can be retained and often installed after they're no longer supported by their developer. Web apps vanish into the night, and leave you with nothing.

replies(1): >>23685459 #
7. untog ◴[30 Jun 20 01:13 UTC] No.23685459{6}[source]▶
> However, you have a lot of options for using network devices or inspection software to intervene and block requests on local machines.

Do you? What would the average user install on their iPhone to allow such intervention? What’s the native equivalent of incognito mode?

I won’t argue with you in the retention point but that’s not really related to the privacy discussion at hand.