[calsy]

WKWebView != Safari. Safari is built on top of WKWebView. Likewise, Firefox is build on top of WKWebView. Firefox is not built on top of Safari, so your Safari skin statement is incorrect. Its called mobile app development, you work with the APIs provided to you by the OS. Attempting to write your own low level networking and rendering libraries that bypass those provided by OS will simply mean your app is not released on the app store. Should Mozilla not release a browser on mobile cause as its not 'true' to your definition?

[ploxiln]

Indeed, just own up to the fact that Apple does not allow any other browsers on iOS. (nor f.lux nor game emulators etc. Apple sucks.)

Mozilla Corp. has become increasingly frantic these days, trying to maintain market share by making all the compromises it can on its ideals. Is it working? Doesn't look like it to me. I'm the only one I know personally who still uses Firefox instead of Chrome (on Windows/OSX) or Safari (on iOS). Notably, I know a number of web developers (though I'm a systems software engineer).

[calsy]

There are very good reasons for Apple to sandbox apps in this way. It provides a controlled, consistent experience for users.

[aianus]

A controlled, consistently awful experience IMO.

[acdha]

When hundreds of millions of people keep buying things you believe are awful, perhaps it's time to ask how broadly shared your views are.

For every nerd who complains about not being able to root their iPhone, there are probably a hundred people who think “I/my kids/my parents won't get mal/ransom-ware”. Repeat for almost every other security or reliability issue.

I'm not entirely in love with the effects but I'm not going to say those people are wrong because they value stability and lack the extremely high level of skill needed to operate a general purpose computer safely.

[aianus]

> When hundreds of millions of people keep buying things you believe are awful, perhaps it's time to ask how broadly shared your views are.

It's irrelevant how many people believe in something if they're wrong. A billion people believe the Earth is 60,000 years old and was created in a week by an all-powerful bearded deity. That doesn't make it true and doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and reinforce those beliefs instead of improving education and displacing them.

[acdha]

> It's irrelevant how many people believe in something if they're wrong.

“Wrong” asserts a level of objectivity which has not been established.

My argument is simple: the computer industry has failed to produce general-purpose devices which non-specialists can safely operate. That's security threats like phishing, but also just the ever present fear almost all computer users have of installing something which will break or degrade their computer.

When a high percentage of people choose to buy devices which are more restricted – and thus safer to use – the correct response is not to crank up the smugness and say that they need better education but rather to ask what we should change to make a general purpose computer safer without going all of the way to the app store model. As the most obvious example, strong mandatory sandboxing could be a big improvement while still allowing a knowledgeable user to adjust the sandbox policies or develop their own.

> A billion people believe the Earth is 60,000 years old and was created in a week by an all-powerful bearded deity

I find this comparison apt, but presumably not in the direction which you intended:

We have a preponderance of evidence that people cannot operate computers safely, ranging from the billions of dollars spent on support and data recovery services to e.g. ransomware being an industry with at least 8 figures of annual revenue.

Smugly asserting that people buying safer alternatives is due to poor education seems rather close to the creationists who assert that every hole in their theory is caused by insufficient faith. If that was ever going to work, it would have done so already.

[jbclements]

That's not a fair comparison. I can't believe I'm going to defend Apple here, but Apple's "walled garden" is an environment that they designed, that people can choose to use or not. We can tell people that there's a long-term price associated with this, but people that choose to support Apple's model are not in the same boat with people that choose not to believe in carbon dating.

[calsy]

Your providing a service not teaching a religion. No 1 most perversive failure in all tech projects, ignoring your end user.

Apple creates devices that are user friendly, they win. Guy creates software that's pain in the bum to use and requires a manual, they lose.

Now more then ever users expect a stylish non-complicated experience. If you don't provide that then users will just move on to the next alternative.