Agreed. For example ban on competing browsers embedded in the iOS SDK is simply a monopoly protection, and has nothing to do with customers' interests.
By this logic any browser should be banned from the system, including their own, since their sandboxes have vulnerabilities as well. So I'm not buying this argument. Using security arguments to hide anti competitive intentions just doesn't cut it.
It's not about vulnerabilities. It's a line in the sand that says "you can't have executable code in your app which is not signed and vetted before release".
They actually DON'T let you have the optimized javascript engine they use in their browser in your app either, probably for the same reason (security loopholes).
The last time I checked their SDK license, it let you use their JavaScript VM for the dynamic code (unless this changed recently):
===>
3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any
means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other
frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in
an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin
interpreter(s).
<===
So the argument that they ban any interpreted code is hypocritical. They ban competing browsers through banning JavaScript VMs.
No, there is an optimized Javascript interpreter only in safari, then there is the UIWebView control which you can use a less-optimized javascript interpreter in your app.
>It’s a trade-off. Most OSes allow marking memory pages as executable for performance reasons. iOS disallows it for security reasons. If you allow for pages of memory to be escalated from writable to executable (even if you require the page be made permanently read-only first), then you are enabling the execution of unsigned native code. It breaks the chain of trust. Allowing remote code to execute locally turns every locally exploitable security flaw into a remotely exploitable one.
Great, so they just know that there are more vulnerabilities in their own optimized engine, still they use it in their own browser. At the same time they ban anything else on the system, claiming that it promotes security. Doesn't sound convincing to me at all. Meaning, that if I, as user will find a more secure browser - I won't be able to use it, since it's banned on pretense that it'll compromise security (hypothetically, not that I use iOS as a user anyway).
I don't know who down voted it, but you make two false statements.
First off, there is no ban on competing browsers. There are a wide variety of browsers available in the AppStore, and I use one of them-- iCab-- a fair bit.
Secondly, there is no "monopoly" to protect. You're using that word because it has an emotional impact, when in reality, its like saying you have a monopoly on your home. The iOS is Apple's product, for it to be a "monopoly" there'd have to be no android and no Windows phone.
FWIW, The post you're responding to has been heavily down voted, as are any posts which talk about Apple that do not bash them. I've had posts that stated simple facts- not even taking a personal position- and linking to an authoritative source to back up that fact, down voted to oblivion. On HN, if you're not an Apple basher, you get down voted constantly.
I look at simple facts. Firstly, Firefox or any other browser which uses its own JavaScript engine can't be ported to iOS due to license ban. You don't consider it uncompetitive behavior given that browsers are a very competitive field in general? Well, I do. Secondly, Apple of course can argue that it's not a monopolistic thing in the global sense, since there are non Apple OSes around which don't enforce draconian restrictions. And it most probably can even work in court, to dodge possible antitrust inquires. Yet, it wasn't all that so good for Apple, and they removed some restrictions from their SDK to avoid some of these problems (it's slightly better now). I'm sure their lawyers are trying to find the edge there. If you don't like the term "monopolistic practice" because of those nuances, you can call it anticompetitive practice, fine with me.
Right, Apple has taken actions that are clearly in the consumers best interests, and you're choosing to see it in a light which allows you to characterize Apple as evil. That's the facts, Jack.
Banning 3rd party browser engines is not even close to being 'clearly' in the best interest of the consumer. Neither is preventing the sideloading of apps. Those are in Apple's best interests because Apple does whats good for Apple first, before it does whats good for the consumer.
That's how most businesses work and I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees that this is how Apple works.
If you're worried about downvotes (You're not in the gray so I don't think you have that many), perhaps I can offer the suggestion that they are because your definition of 'fact' has been, uh, rather generously deformed?
"Clearly" claim isn't convincing here. Apple says those bans are in consumers interest. Others say they are really in Apple's interest. You can probably find arguments for both. I personally see it as a second case, because it's against me as a consumer who wants to use other browsers for example.
The reason why competing browsers aren't prevalent is that they don't want any executable code downloadable that isn't in their sandboxes.
Browsers have executable systems (Javascript, being the biggest issue), so they aren't allowed.