Not impressed. I'd be much more impressed if we could run software like Little Snitch on iOS, or install Firefox. Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year.
(Note: a Safari webview with a Firefox logo on it does not count.)
> Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year
Then use an Android. Apple has taken a stance on this since it was formed. If you don't know by now that Apple is actively hostile toward hobbyists with their approach to computing, I can't help you. That is why there are alternatives from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so many others.
To others (me), this is a feature. I would rather the $100/yr fee exist for several reasons.
> You can; or, at least, the APIs are available for this, and have been for some time.
Why is there no citation on this one? iOS has a (fairly limited) VPN API but it is woefully insufficient to make an application-level firewall and I don't think any exist.
That requires an entitlement that A.) is only available in the EU for apps distributed in the EU and B.) as far as I know, has never been granted to anyone. Mozilla for example does not have it.
If it weren't for EU regulations we would probably still not even be able to change the default browser in iOS, so realistically it appears regulating Apple works great. It's hard to argue against regulating Apple while also defending it by showing the fruit bore from regulating them.
> Then use an Android.
I own both iOS and Android devices for what it's worth. Anyway...
> Apple has taken a stance on this since it was formed.
Since... it was formed? Really? I don't remember the Apple II requiring a $100/year developer license to "side load" software.
> If you don't know by now that Apple is actively hostile toward hobbyists with their approach to computing, I can't help you.
This is a frankly insane thing to say to someone who is in middle of criticizing Apple for this exact hostility. Of course framing it as a developer problem is a convenient way to ignore that developers are users and users are developers, and that these restrictions also have negative impacts on even users who aren't developers.
> That is why there are alternatives from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so many others.
Apple is the same company that ran a tirade about how Android was a stolen product, so I find it amusing that in just ten years it has become the crutch to defend any and all bad practices Apple holds dear. Don't like it? Just use something else!
Of course, I do use other devices, but I can't magically not be impacted by Apple's persistent brain-death. For years I have had to deal with the utter stupidity that is the fact that Apple refused to support patent-unencumbered video formats like WebM, and devices that can't play WebM natively and in Safari are still plentiful in the wild. So I can't just pretend Apple doesn't exist.
Not that it matters: I am free to criticize Apple however I want, even if Apple fans do not like it. Even just because I feel like it, but even moreso as a paying customer of Apple, and a developer who has dealt with the impact of Apple being involved in the ecosystem. (Thank you Apple, for refusing to support SPIR-V in WebGPU, we love having an additional standard for something for basically no reason.)
> To others (me), this is a feature. I would rather the $100/yr fee exist for several reasons.
I know. I don't think highly of this position, but I am well aware of it.
So Apple kneecaps Meta's cross-app advertising, something that literally makes them no direct revenue to implement, and protects users (it famously reduced Facebook cross-app analytics traffic to a significant degree), and you think this is business as usual?
Then you should reconsider my comment at the top of this thread, because it is 100% speaking to this exact phenomenon.
Not impressed. I'd be much more impressed if we could run software like Little Snitch on iOS, or install Firefox. Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year.
(Note: a Safari webview with a Firefox logo on it does not count.)
> I'd be much more impressed if we could run software like Little Snitch on iOS
You can; or, at least, the APIs are available for this, and have been for some time.
> or install Firefox
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/i...
Inb4 "you cannot replace the built-in browser engine"
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit
> Or even just side load apps without pay $100/year
Then use an Android. Apple has taken a stance on this since it was formed. If you don't know by now that Apple is actively hostile toward hobbyists with their approach to computing, I can't help you. That is why there are alternatives from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so many others.
To others (me), this is a feature. I would rather the $100/yr fee exist for several reasons.
> You can; or, at least, the APIs are available for this, and have been for some time.
Why is there no citation on this one? iOS has a (fairly limited) VPN API but it is woefully insufficient to make an application-level firewall and I don't think any exist.
> https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-private-safe-browser/i...
That's Safari in a trenchcoat.
> Inb4 "you cannot replace the built-in browser engine"
> https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit
That requires an entitlement that A.) is only available in the EU for apps distributed in the EU and B.) as far as I know, has never been granted to anyone. Mozilla for example does not have it.
If it weren't for EU regulations we would probably still not even be able to change the default browser in iOS, so realistically it appears regulating Apple works great. It's hard to argue against regulating Apple while also defending it by showing the fruit bore from regulating them.
> Then use an Android.
I own both iOS and Android devices for what it's worth. Anyway...
> Apple has taken a stance on this since it was formed.
Since... it was formed? Really? I don't remember the Apple II requiring a $100/year developer license to "side load" software.
> If you don't know by now that Apple is actively hostile toward hobbyists with their approach to computing, I can't help you.
This is a frankly insane thing to say to someone who is in middle of criticizing Apple for this exact hostility. Of course framing it as a developer problem is a convenient way to ignore that developers are users and users are developers, and that these restrictions also have negative impacts on even users who aren't developers.
> That is why there are alternatives from Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and so many others.
Apple is the same company that ran a tirade about how Android was a stolen product, so I find it amusing that in just ten years it has become the crutch to defend any and all bad practices Apple holds dear. Don't like it? Just use something else!
Of course, I do use other devices, but I can't magically not be impacted by Apple's persistent brain-death. For years I have had to deal with the utter stupidity that is the fact that Apple refused to support patent-unencumbered video formats like WebM, and devices that can't play WebM natively and in Safari are still plentiful in the wild. So I can't just pretend Apple doesn't exist.
Not that it matters: I am free to criticize Apple however I want, even if Apple fans do not like it. Even just because I feel like it, but even moreso as a paying customer of Apple, and a developer who has dealt with the impact of Apple being involved in the ecosystem. (Thank you Apple, for refusing to support SPIR-V in WebGPU, we love having an additional standard for something for basically no reason.)
> To others (me), this is a feature. I would rather the $100/yr fee exist for several reasons.
I know. I don't think highly of this position, but I am well aware of it.
2 replies →
> Not impressed.
So Apple kneecaps Meta's cross-app advertising, something that literally makes them no direct revenue to implement, and protects users (it famously reduced Facebook cross-app analytics traffic to a significant degree), and you think this is business as usual?
Then you should reconsider my comment at the top of this thread, because it is 100% speaking to this exact phenomenon.
I mean I'm unimpressed as far as user agency goes, not as far as privacy goes.
1 reply →