You are unwittingly confirming his point. Apple isn't randomly working on random stuff, they know exactly where their bread is buttered - features that have potential of diminishing that butter get skipped, neglected or implemented half-baked.
From my perspective, Google tends to focus on somewhat niche features that will benefit a small slice of web apps. In contrast, the things Apple works on are those that benefit everything from static blog sites to huge commercial web apps.
I wish Google were more like Apple in this regard, because the primitives from which everything web is built are still overwhelmingly crude, which results in the half-ton-truck-built-on-a-golf-cart frameworks and apps the web has become famous for. Making the web reasonable to develop for without a dependency tree that looks like a spiral fractal would do way more to make it flourish as a platform than things like access to the GPU and USB devices.
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
>> 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.
Chrome-only non-standards. Note that Firefox is against these, too.
> Any adequate analysis of Apple's behavior and motivations must mention Apple's conflict of interest
I've yet to see an adequate analysis that doesn't pretend that anything Chrome shits, sorry, ships is immediately a standard that must absolutely be implemented by everyone immediately.
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.
> 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
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".
The rest of demagoguery is irrelevant.
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.
>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.
> Apple's conflict of interest is motivating them to reject entire feature sets for competing technology instead of helping to implement a safe standard
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.
Nope. "They must work on better standards for these features that Chrome ships".
> The choice and freedom should be the users' and not that of Apple's finance division.
Funny how in the paragraph you respond to I didn't mention Apple once.
> And the fact that you're so hyperfocused on specifics while failing to grasp the broader argument
There's no broader argument. You literally dismiss Firefox as irrelevant [1], assume that whatever Chrome ships is good, and assumes that Apple is both a bad actor driven entirely by money an must implement whatever Chrome comes up with (under the guise of "should work to implement a safe standard").
It literally is "everyone must immediately not implement anything that cuts into Apple's bottom line"
Apple has veto power over what becomes web standards now. If they didn't abuse that power, and also forbid other browser engines on iOS, then there wouldn't be a problem. They abuse their power in a way that hurts everyone but Apple, and the DOJ took notice.
You say Firefox doesn't implement the same APIs that Apple won't as proof of something, but Opera and other browsers do implement those APIs, so that really cancells out whatever argument you thought you had.
Back in the day, Microsoft invented XMLHTTPRequest, and if Apple had veto power over web standards back then, the web might still be "Web 1.0", hypothetically speaking.
But now Apple can block progress in web browsers now, and the DOJ will likely prove that they are abusing their position to the detriment of everyone that uses a web browser, so Apple can make a few more dollars from their app store.
It should not be so difficult for anyone to understand.
>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.
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.
> 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
Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
> There is no such assumption,
"the wholesale refusal of features to deny rival technology equal rights, instead of helping to implement a safe standard." Yup. "Whatever Chrome ships must be implemented no matter the cost and despite any opposition for any reason".
> only the fact that Apple has a conflict of interest, which manifests itself in anti-competitive behavior
Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
>Rule of the thumb is "nothing you say before 'but' matters". Apple's opposition to Chrome features is not just echoed by Mozilla. It is repeated almost verbatim.
And yet, you completely ignore all that, and go to say "well, Apple is bad, and conflict interest, so Apple must work on a better safe standard for these features". You don't even for a second assume that two of the three browser vendors oppose these features for the same reason. No. Chrome shipped them, so they absolutely must work to implement these features (in some form) because Apple bad or something.
It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information, because you can't understand how it has been debunked several times now. You insist on distorting nuanced arguments into gross misrepresentations, because that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions.
>Which literally has nothing to do with Chrome-only non-standards. Chrome wants them. It's on Chrome to design and implement them safely. Neither Apple nor Mozilla owe them anything regardless of the amount of demagoguery around their decisions. Both Apple and Safari pointed out the issues they have across many discussions. Chrome didn't care.
Your framing around this is absurd, you're the one turning a technical discussion into some team sport where you try to inflate your argument by pretending it's Google vs A&M, when it has been proven that Mozilla accepted new iterations of proposals which you yourself have admitted! This collapses your entire false narrative, since it's evidence that, just because a current implementation is temporary rejected by Mozilla, it is not an eternal rejection similar to Apple's, whose motivations are not guided by (faux) privacy concerns but by fear of losing their App Store dominance and revenue. You however, take this to underhandedly create anti-competitive Apple apologia, where you downplay Apple's conflict of interest by writing your own "Google vs A&M" screenplay.
>Safari has multiple issues, that's true. None of them stem from refusing to support every shitty thing that Chrome vomits into the world and calls a standard.
Wrong. That's a claim which you didn't even bother elaborating on, because if you were to elaborate, it would become clear that your claim is not only wrong, but outright deceptive. Your biased and shallow rhetoric is not a substitute for an actual argument.
>Speaking of "denying rival technology equal rights". Do you know that WebSQL was implemented by Chrome and had approval from Safari, but got killed due to opposition from Mozilla? Did Mozilla "deny rival technology equal rights"? Or perhaps, just perhaps, they had valid concerns that lead to rethinking of the approach?
Irrelevant and misleading. Not every single feature is directly relevant to establishing equal rights for competing technologies, but when Apple realizes that it does, then they fear that it might threaten their App Store's dominance and they act accordingly. None of that diminishes Apple's conflict of interest either, but it makes clear how you're consistently arguing in bad faith to downplay Apple's conflict of interest. No matter how hard you try, you will fail. Apple makes billions from their conflict of interest, so as long as that conflict of interest exists, people have the right to make other people aware how that poisons Apple's motivations in relevant decisions.
>You can't even come up with proper rebuttal of Mozilla's and Apple's concerns (you don't even know about their concerns to begin with) beyond "but native apps" and diatribes about Apple.
Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality, that it feels like I'm arguing with a LLM that loses context and forgets that I refuted that specific narrative ad nauseam. Again, you yourself have admitted to cases where Mozilla initially refused a specific implementation, but later have accepted it. This alone debunks your whole biased narrative. Your entire rhetoric is a constant regurgitation of that single spiel, but you can simply not move on, completely incapable of processing evidence that has debunked it, that's why you fail to realize how hollow and misguided your Apple propaganda is.
>BTW here's Mozilla relenting on just one of the hardware APIs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33995022 (sadly, the twitter account has been locked)/ Original quote: "Just a day after shipping an impl to Firefox Nightly, this is the first discovered case of WebMIDI-fingerprinting... Chrome still allows web developers to enumerate attached MIDI devices without user consent or even a notification, btw."
Amazing, this is exactly what I was referring to above. I swear, you're like a bot who constantly and stubbornly regurgitates the exact same debunked points, regardless of how many times your talking points have been already addressed and refuted. Finally, you do not even realize how that anecdote and precedent you so enthusiastically shared, thinking it would support your narrative, actually undermines and invalidates it. Wonderful.
Are the Chrome features useful? Are they open? If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking) or if it’s proprietary and thus expensive to license or reverse engineer that’s one thing, but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
> If it’s bad for users (e.g. some new ad tracking)
Yes
> but if it’s not that, then refusing to ever adopt those standards (or to provide their own alternatives) is either foolish NIH syndrome on Apple’s part or it’s greed.
Firefox gets paid by Google. A lot. Maybe part of their agreement is to not implement some features because it would compete with Chrome. I don't really know, and I don't really care what Firefox does or doesn't do. I only care that Apple does not allow other browsers to use their own browser engines. Opera mobile also implements the APIs I need (on Android). Even MS Edge supports the APIs. Firefox can join Apple in being lame, I don't really care.
"Every browser that doesn't jump when Google says 'jump' is driven by malicious actors and intent that I can't articulate beyond some tin-foil conspiracy theories" is not as good an argument as you think it is
I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement. I only care that Apple doesn't allow other browsers to use their own browser engines on iOS. That's it, that's all, and it also got notice from the DOJ, which is one of many reasons Apple is getting sued by the DOJ.
Until Apple lets other browser engines on iOS, they are behaving like greedy tyrants.
> I really don't care what browsers do or don't implement.
Oh yes, you do. To the point of inventing contract clauses for Firefox.
It's just extremely unfortunate that Safari is now between a rock and a hard place (only because of Apple) as really they are the only web engine of note to withstand "whatever Chrome spits out is standard now"
Please stop this now. You are in breach of several guidelines, notably these ones:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
I can't fathom how a subthread about browser engines became so toxic. HN is a place for curious conversation and it is only a place where people want to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than dragging them down. Please do your part to make this place better not worse.
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.
> Your deceptive rhetoric in defense of Apple's anti-competitive business practices i
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
>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.
> but that is still not even remotely a conspiracy. It is a completely valid potential thesis
I dunno, man. It's claiming a literal conspiracy between Google and Firefox to make Firefox worse. In reality, it's an outlandish proposition because Google already holds such high market share for Chrome, they need Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid antitrust concerns. The idea that they'd contractually (or behind-closed-doors) engage in hobbling Firefox is fantasy territory -- literally conspiracy theorizing. Because of the huge legal and financial risks that would entail if ever discovered. So, when something's an actual conspiracy theory, it's right to call it out as such.
> Your diatribes and foul language against the Chrome dev team... you need to stop with these gross misrepresentations...
I'm Ctrl+F-ing here through troupo's comments and not seeing anything like that. Their points seem perfectly reasonable, that Firefox also doesn't implement these features, and therefore Apple's actions might be very reasonably explained as having the same genuine reasons.
On the other hand you're the one saying things like:
> Apple will uphold its usual charade to claim that it's about pRiVacy & sEcuRiTy
> Your bias in this matter couldn't be more obvious, due to your dedication to distorting any evidence that refutes Apple's propaganda narrative
> It's absolutely insane how you keep repeating the exact same argument with no additional information like a bot who is incapable of processing new information
> that's the only way you can uphold the illusion that your underhanded Apple propaganda is anything other than a whitewashing of Apple's conflict of interest that motivates every single one of their decisions
> Your rhetoric is so vapid and detached from reality
> It's incredible how you insist on being so obnoxious
> That reads like an #ad that Apple would pay for
It looks like you're the one imagining conspiracies in Apple's behavior -- "that motivates every single one of their decisions" -- and attacking others in your own "diatribes". And you're the one using incredibly insulting and inappropriate language. It seems to be your comments that have a lot of inappropriate tone for HN, which is presumably why I see a lot of them downvoted. Maybe you should think about whether this is really the best way to engage here, maybe re-read the HN guidelines?
> That's why you didn't even bother discussing the evidence I've provided
I don't engage in argument with people who accuse me of having another account. If you want to have productive discussions on HN, I suggest you rethink the way you go about them.
This is false and it's against the guidelines to accuse people of shilling/astroturfing/coordinated activity. You've posted enough in this thread, and the thread is days old. Nobody is seeing these comments other than us moderators. Please stop.
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.
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.
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.
Super confused. 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.
Most of the fraud at my job comes from the android platform, because the security model on android is much worse than Apples.
Why is Google citing fraud as a reason to lock down android if "its been working on android just fine"?
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.
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:
>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.
>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:
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.
Your premise has the false dilemma: "If we can't perfectly block fraudsters from by-passing security checks, then we might as well have no security checks."
Another simple test is we can compare the amount of malware running on closed ecosystems with open systems. Which system hosts more malware: linux/windows or iOS?
I want to clarify that I'm not saying there are no financial benefits for Google/Apple. I am saying there ARE financial benefits to users and businesses on these platforms.
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:
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...
You realize in the very WSJ article you cited it said this?
> A similar vulnerability exists in Google’s Android mobile operating system. However, the higher resale value of iPhones makes them a far more common target, according to law-enforcement officials. “Our sign-in and account-recovery policies try to strike a balance between allowing legitimate users to retain access to their accounts in real-world scenarios and keeping the bad actors out,” a Google spokesman said.
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
- 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.
Well you realize it’s not a good look to post a citation and then immediately say the article is wrong only about the part you disagree with? See “Gell-Mann amnesia effect”.
But Apple implemented features to block that over a year ago.
> 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?
>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.
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.
It just props up the monopoly. Appeased consumers have no reason to buy other products. There is no financial motive for Apple to do good because they can do bad until government forces their hand, and they have no reason to fear competition. It’s an admission we’re all at the mercy of Apple until daddy government steps in.
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.
reply