Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by astrange 1867 days ago
All those things enable fingerprinting, so they can't be added without losing privacy. If Chrome's renderer wasn't banned from the store we'd be back in an IE6 world where it's the only browser there is - it's already defeated Edge and Opera.
2 comments
wernercd 1867 days ago
Being able to use a controller enables fingerprinting? Producing a laughably restricted browser experience is protection?

"fingerprinting" is one interesting counterpoint to the fact that the browser was highlighted as an alternative to the app store. but that browser is still laughably restricted.

And "because chrome" doesn't change the fact that restricting competition doesn't remove the restrictions put into place largely to force people into an overpriced app store.

lack of competition is a big thing... blocking people from better browsers and not fixing the bad browser in iOS isn't an acceptable answer when the tax for doing so is 30% and a subpar environment.

link
sofixa 1867 days ago
> If Chrome's renderer wasn't banned from the store we'd be back in an IE6 world where it's the only browser there is - it's already defeated Edge and Opera

The difference being that Chrome is based on an open source project, Chromium, which can and is actively forked ( Edge and Brave to name two popular ones). And all the APIs it adds are wither standards, betas for standards hidden behind flags, or proposals for standards hidden behind flags.

So nothing like IE6?

link
astrange 1867 days ago
Just means Google controls the standard body as well as the only browser, so they'll be the only people who get to make up ideas, and will therefore make up tons of silly (and user-identifying) ideas to make it harder to enter the market.
link
wernercd 1865 days ago
And that still doesn't change the fact that Apple controls their ecosystem and has in place a substandard browser with restrictions built to keep people locked into its appstore.

Nothing in your 'Google Bad' diatribe challenges the fact that Safari is substandard, limited and - to your diatribe - safari in no way shape or form "makes ideas" and brings new things to the table... or "makes it easier to enter the market" (opposites of your complaint that google makes it harder).

Google is "Evil"? Okay? What does that have to do with a substandard experience and browser/app-store lock-in from Apple? It's not like Apple is "good" to counter apples "evil"...

To your IE6 point... Safari is the IE6 of Apple - stagnant, tied to the OS and blocks innovation because of company decisions. Its even worse because alternatives aren't allowed on iOS.

link