kelthuzad

We are not "helpless" and setting an arbitrary 2-year deadline is a distraction. The DOJ and EU are moving faster than they have in decades. You ask what we can do? We can enforce browser choice screens and allow alternative engines immediately. This gives Firefox (Gecko) a fighting chance on mobile for the first time in history. Keeping the ecosystem locked down ensures Firefox never has a chance.

That line of roleplay of yours also seems to be just 'Doomsday Defense' part 2. Now you’re adding an arbitrary time limit ("next two years") to justify inaction. We don't need to "unwind" Google before we stop Apple's anti-competitive behavior, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The fact that you view "allowing other browsers" (like Firefox) as "handing Google control" reveals the flaw in your logic. You are effectively arguing that we must destroy the village (the open web) to save it from the dragon, if this isn't concern trolling then I don't know what is.

I mean, @lepton literally wrote this: "Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome" about Firefox. No smearing required.

Then you should have been more specific, but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis. Thus, your attempt to hastily dismiss it as "conspiracy" is factually an act of smearing.

I literally say nothing avout Apple's business practices. All I'm talking are a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards that people on HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them

Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team have been in constant service of justifying Apple's actions at all cost, while outright ignoring and downplaying their evident conflict of interest. Furthermore, you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations of "HN pretend are standards and claim that everyone must immediately implement them" which is a distortion, that you keep forcefully putting in people's mouths, despite many people calling you out on it numerous times throughout this thread.

[flagged]

[flagged]

It literally is "everyone must immediately implement anything Chrome shits out". You don't even accept the fact that both Safari and Firefox team reject the entire premise on the same grounds.

It isn't factually and certainly not "literally" that. I've explicitly stated that the problem isn't the rejection of the specific implementation in its current form, but the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard. That is evidence of Apple's bad faith motivation to hobble competing technology in favor of their App Store tax funnel. You consistently refuse to understand this and resort to deflecting from and distorting that fact.

There's no broader argument.

There is, it's the one you've been deflecting and distracting from, because it refutes your biased talking points completely.

You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1][1] Their position on these Chrome features is literally the same as Apple's https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/

No I don't. You're literally making stuff up and ignoring the fact that I have actually even started my response with an acknowledgement of that point: "You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457938

and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with

There is no such assumption, only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior, for which I've provided documented evidence. I've also never stated that they "must implement whatever Chrome comes up with", that's a gross misrepresentation, which you are stubbornly repeating, despite me having refuted it several times now. Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative, so you keep blindly repeating the same tired and old talking points despite evidence to the contrary.

It's interesting how the "Apple can do no wrong" shareholders and "I will hate on PWAs no matter what" types, curiously converge and keep regurgitating the same talking points that have been addressed ad nauseam, even in this thread. Every technology has its "own problems" regardless of Apple, but it certainly doesn't help when Apple, being one of the biggest companies in the world, persistently engages in its sabotage.

So then why aren't PWA's super-popular on Windows and on Android? Since Safari doesn't affect those?

Says who?

"Yes, PWAs have become popular on these platforms. I work for Microsoft on the Microsoft Store (app store on Windows) and I work with the Edge team, and I work on PWABuilder.com, which publishes PWAs to app stores. Some of the most popular apps in the Microsoft Store are PWAs: Netflix, TikTok, Adobe Creative Cloud, Disney+, and many others.

To view the list of PWAs in the Store, on a Windows box you can run ms-windows-store://assoc/?Tags=AppExtension-microsoft.store.edgePWA" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46457849

Funny how you agree that Firefox opposes these non-standards, and how Google rushes things. And immediately turn around and basically say "no-no-no, Apple is to blame and Safari (and, by extension Firefox) must absolutely implement these non-standard features from Chrome".

There is nothing "funny" about me acknowledging facts, that's what a reasonable person should always do, try it. What's not funny though, is how you're butchering and misrepresenting my arguments to such a gross degree. I've never stated that everybody "must implement these non-standard features from Chrome", instead I've made a much more nuanced argument about how Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard, which is indicative of their bad faith motivations. That anti-competitive strategy has been essential for Apple in collecting billions in app taxes by systematically hobbling any competition before it can emerge.

BTW literally the moment Firefox relented and implemented WebMIDI they had originally opposed, they immediately ran into tracking/fingerprinting attempts using WebMIDI that Chrome just couldn't care less about.

So? Just as native apps give users certain freedoms that can have problematic aspects, web apps should have _equal rights_ and be able to play on a level playing field. The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division. None of this gives Apple the right to uphold its anti-competitive strategy with its corporate double speak. And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument, so you can cheerlead for Apple's anti-competitive behavior, is revealing a clear bias.

You're right that Firefox also opposes some of these specific implementations in its current form, and that Google often rushes features. However, that doesn't diminish Apple's conflict of interest at all, so sometimes their arguments happen to align with reality just as a broken clock is correct twice a day. Apple applies many double standards e.g. they allow native apps to access these hardware features (where they happen to collect a 30% tax) but block the Web from doing the same (where they collect 0%). If privacy was the only concern, they would work on a safe standard, but instead they block the capability entirely to ensure that any of the App Store's rivals remain constrained and thus inferior such that the App Store's revenue isn't threatened.

> And Apple purposely will never implement lots of APIs that only their native apps allow (which other browsers implement)

Can you give an example?

Web Bluetooth, Web USB, Web NFC, Web Serial...

Of course Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy to maintain plausible deniability. They could easily implement it and keep it disabled by default, such that users could make the conscious choice to enable it or keep it disabled. Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest, because Apple will be biased against technology that could diminish the value proposition of "native" apps which Apple has been taxing so unchallenged for all these years.

This is the conspiratorial version.

Everything that's inconvenient for your preferred narrative can just be dismissed as conspiratorial thinking, makes the world so much easier - doesnt it? I've compiled some of the evidences that makes clear how one of the Gatekeepers (Apple) has a tremendous conflict of interest, which manifested itself in systematic sabotaging of PWAs over the years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45534316

Has PWA become popular on unencumbered platforms like Android or Windows? No.

Obviously. When a major Gatekeeper systematically holds it back to prevent it from challenging its taxation funnel, then it has no chance of competing and will thus not be chosen on competing platforms either, which will prevent its adoption and any investment in it.

Even if unencumbered on iOS, it will still fail, because PWA is an intrinsically confusing technology.

PWA is not an "intrinsically confusing technology" and making such an absurd statement without proper elaboration reeks of pure bias.

Yeah. I worked (past tense) there so guess I’m forever not allowed to disagree with Apple?

What? You don't disagree with Apple anywhere in this thread; you are hellbent on defending their consumer hostile and anti-competitive business practices with the most absurd narratives and that's exactly the problem. It's a strong indicator that you're highly likely to still be an Apple shareholder since you've worked there, which perfectly explains your persistent bias in your Apple apologia.

But I also worked at Google, so that too. Man… I’m screwed on so many topics then…

Yes imagine, but the proper terminology is "conflict of interest". It seems new to you, have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

What a strange non-sequitur. I did not say that "my principles" are being violated, but the principles of U.S. economists, judges and relevant authorities in the United States and their views as to what constitutes a fair market. A brief study of the history of anti-trust cases should suffice to cultivate some understanding regarding those principles (see United States vs. Paramount Pictures, AT&T, Microsoft et cetera...)

[flagged]

Yes, i imagined this happening, my grandma imagined her bank account being empty, and the police imagined filing a report.

People have vivid imaginations and still none of that is relevant to what constitutes an anti-competitive business practice that is in violation of fair market principles and relevant laws.

I cannot buy her a dumbphone because we use whatsapp to keep in touch and google photos to share photos with her.

Good news! Yes you can! There are dumb phones with whatsapp and you can share images on whatsapp too! https://www.dumbphones.org/ - check the "Whatsapp Support" filter option.

It's not "elitist", it's principled. The only question that matters is if a business practice is violating fair market principles and relevant laws or not. "What about my grandma" is not an argument and not relevant to the judges' judgement. The world doesn't revolve around OP's grandma.

Furthermore, the most potent attack vector was, is and will always be social engineering, which is much more likely on smartphones than on dumb phones. So if it's not concern trolling, then the obvious move is to buy a dumb phone for grandma instead of depriving everybody else of their freedoms and rights.

The RSF are anti-islam, even a cursory reading into their history would have educated any remotely astute reader on this. They don't let the facts get in the way of their propaganda though. Just judging by the frontpage of "europeantimes", it's obvious from the crude and false narratives what their agenda is.

There is no false dilemma. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...

But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...

If you’d just said all of this upfront, it would’ve come across as more honest / less confrontational.

"I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing . So let me explain the difference:" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45690226

After me clarifying what I've meant, the response wasn't "Oh I see now what you intended to say, thanks for elaborating", but misquoting me and making hostile and snide comments. That is someone who wants to be confrontational and lacks honesty in trying to understand what was meant in the first place.

Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong

I did not say that the article is wrong, don't misquote me. You are also still failing to understand what the crucial difference is:

An iPhone was vulnerable to the pin-hijack, because of its limited security options - a security aware user was as vulnerable as an amateur.

An Android phone was only vulnerable if it was NOT properly secured.

So 100% of iPhone users were vulnerable, while Androids were only vulnerable if misconfigured.

So I was and I am still 100% correct, but you simply decided to nitpick that one sentence of mine that was prone to being nitpicked without bothering to understand what the significant difference between the systems were.

But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.

Yes they did, after a lot of time and pressure. And if you read my comment again, you can see that I have already stated that they have implemented it. So what's the point of you telling me something that I have already mentioned several times?

I should have elaborated even further, because I already suspected that someone would nitpick that phrasing. So let me explain the difference:

"according to law-enforcement officials" - they are clearly not experts in tech and are unaware of the crucial difference between Apple and Android in this scenario.

The most significant difference is that Google explicitly stated their system includes "reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors" - but only if users have properly configured recovery options beforehand.

According to Google's official statement: "Google Account Recovery flows also have reasonable time-limited protections against hijackers changing passwords or recovery factors set up by the legitimate users - provided users have set up a recovery phone and/or recovery email."

In contrast, the WSJ article describes how on iPhone:

- Thieves could immediately change the Apple ID password using just the device passcode

- there was no waiting period or time-limited protection mentioned

- Once changed, victims were instantly locked out with no grace period

- Apple's Recovery Key feature could be enabled by thieves to permanently lock victims out

Android users on the other hand could proactively:

- Set up recovery email and phone numbers that would be retained for 7 days after changes

- Enable Google's Advanced Protection Program, which specifically blocks PIN-based password resets entirely

- Configure multiple recovery options that created additional barriers

Apple users had limited options, the article mentions security keys could be added, but testing showed "security keys didn't prevent account changes using only the passcode, and the passcode could even be used to remove security keys from the account". This made Android's vulnerability more preventable and recoverable for users who had properly configured their security settings in advance, whereas Apple users were stuck and vulnerable to the pin-hijack until fixed, because iOS did not offer any similar protections such as time-based safeguards.

Super confused.

You aren't confused, you just have a preferred narrative. Hardcore Apple fans and Apple shareholders share a similar bias with different variations of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

What do you mean its been working on Android just fine? Google just announced they are closing their ecosystem exactly for the reasons I stated.

It has been working just fine and Google's claim about their consolidation and its motivations are about as credible as a Rail Robber Baron claiming that his monopolization practices are actually about "security" and not profit, the response to such propaganda was the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and today it is the DMA.

More elaborate articles regarding these bogus claims about "security" and its refutation:

https://makeuseof.com/androids-sideloading-limits-are-anti-c...

https://infrequently.org/2025/09/apples-antitrust-playbook

Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.

Your personal anecdotes are not credible evidence, especially when they are coincidentally contrived to serve as anti-competitive business practice apologia.

Apple's "security model" is supposedly so much better, yet iPhone theft was absolutely rampant on iPhones due to an Apple "feature" that literally helped thieves steal a user's entire digital life. Androids were unaffected.

"A Basic iPhone Feature Helps Criminals Steal Your Entire Digital Life" - The Wall Street Journal, https://archive.is/oW0lD#selection-1872.0-1872.1

Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?

For the same reason that Apple is using bogus claims about "security", because they can hardly be honest and say "We can't allow any competition, because it would threaten our taxation funnel"

As Cory Doctorow writes:

"In the meantime, Google’s story that this move is motivated by security it obviously bullshit. First of all, the argument that preventing users from installing software of their choosing is the only way to safeguard their privacy and security is bullshit when Apple uses it, and it’s bullshit when Google trots it out:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-ju...

But even if you stipulate that Google is doing this to keep you safe, the story falls apart. After all, Google isn’t certifying apps, they’re certifying developers. This implies that the company can somehow predict whether a developer will do something malicious in the future. This is obviously wrong." - https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2025-09-01...

Apple is not a fast moving company, but they do have a great product and have addressed many of the big issues the community has raised.

There is no "community" - there is Apple, its profit motive and the consumers. Apple was relentlessly pressured to deal with their reckless "feature" that made a mockery of modern security practices, gravely endangered its users and it still took Apple way too long to introduce a basic fix. Apple is a trillion dollar company, so euphemisms like "Apple is not a fast moving company" won't cut it, especially when it comes to security - you know, the thing they pretend to value above everything else.

This is the "think of the children" equivalent that is being regurgitated ad nauseam. Anyone who pretends that Apple cares about anything other than profit is lying to others and themselves.

I agree there should be personal accountability, but that clearly hasn't been working.

It has been working on Android just fine. And if Apple is supposedly so concerned with security, then why did it take them so damn long to implement a simple mechanism to stop thieves from simply changing your password using your pin? Only after relentless pressure did they implement additional security, which took them far too long. The "security" ruse is nothing but propaganda to protect Apple's monopoly on app distribution.

[0] https://tidbits.com/2023/02/26/how-a-thief-with-your-iphone-...

The fact that even a whiff of potential competition incentivized Apple to half their tax for specific cases shows that anti-trust regulation works and that it's the only thing that will ever force a gatekeeper to reconsider their anti-competitive business practices.

It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.

That has always been the case when market participants become too dominant e.g.

United States v. Paramount Pictures (1948)

United States v. AT&T (1984)

United States v. Microsoft (2001)

Anti-trust regulation would have dealt with Apple, Google and co by now if the lobbying weren't so out of control compared to previous times.

And that is exactly the problem that is being solved. It's not about "consumers screaming", but companies, consumers and governments realizing that anti-competitive behavior is harming everybody except the gatekeeper. The solution is competition. Since Apple is such a great and innovative company, they surely won't be afraid of competing on merit.

That's what the market will determine once Apple is forced to compete.

Apple isn't "paranoid about their battery life claims", they are paranoid about losing their taxation funnel. Everything else is contrived apologia in defense of their app distribution monopoly.

they do it on macs, they can do it on iphones. the only reason why they refuse to do so is profit maximization.

why would installing apps void their warranties? installing apps on your mac doesn't void your mac's warranty either...