[thyrox]

It's fascinating how we've got this double standard when it comes to Apple and Google's security moves.

Take Safari on iOS, for example—it's super restrictive. You can't even use a different browser engine; everything's just a Safari wrapper.

On the flip side, Google, with its Chrome and Android flexibility, gets a lot of flak for the same kind of security efforts.

Bottom line is both companies are only doing it for their own greed and profits, but Apple gets a high-five for being all about privacy, while Google gets the stink eye for being too controlling. It's incredibly frustrating to see this double standard.

[lapcat]

> Take Safari on iOS, for example—it's super restrictive. You can't even use a different browser engine; everything's just a Safari wrapper.

> Apple gets a high-five for being all about privacy

Apple has been repeatedly and relentlessly criticized for its iOS lockdown, including here on Hacker News. Of course it's a controversial subject, with a lot of people on both sides, but Apple hasn't received a free pass.

[cwillu]

I give apple the stink eye, but I also don't even bother with equipment that I know requires fighting the manufacturer to do what I want, so I tend to be less vocal about them.

[JohnFen]

Yes, this is me. I deeply dislike the Apple Way and as a result I don't use Apple stuff. This means I rarely actually complain about Apple's approach, because I'm not the sort of customer Apple wants.

But one thing that's different is that Apple -- once the Mac was released -- made it very clear about the direction they wanted to take things[1] and have stayed true to their statements. There was no bait-and-switch aspect to any of it.

[1] But hoo-boy did I complain when the Mac was released. It was a slap in the face to the hobbyist community. Then they added insult to injury with their gaslighting "1984" ad. I'm still grumpy about it to this day.

[nullindividual]

The motivations are/were different, though. Google is doing it to prop up the ads business and prevent user control over ads. It is one thing to never give a specific ability, but once people use it for 10+ years, yeah of course they're going to be upset.

When people see restriction as "greed", I understand why the companies are being treated differently.

[notnullorvoid]

Apple does get flak for this, just less so from Apple users.

The browser restriction on iOS could thankfully come to an end thanks to EU regulation. Though one down side, is that will serve to grow Chrome's market share even further.

[WendyTheWillow]

It’s not true that Apple is focusing on security for “greed”, and we know that Chrome can be a successful browser (and Google a successful company) without these changes.

[k3nx]

I think on the surface it looks like a double standard. I don't think that's what it is.

Apple users never had this openness, so they might not know what they're missing.

Google users did have this openness, and I think it's the taking it away that's causing the uproar.

I don't think most folks like it when things are taken away. It's not a Google/Apple thing, it's a people thing.

[bryanrasmussen]

it's almost like google has a business model where its users are the product it sells to customers and Apple doesn't

[croes]

So Apple fooled you.

Apple also happens to sell hardware and software alongside its users.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1330127/apple-ad-revenue...

[mrguyorama]

The trick with Apple's advertising is that it's kinda opt in. If you don't want to deal with apple's advertising, don't buy an apple product.

If you don't want to deal with Google's advertising, good luck

[ronsor]

Apple doesn't sell me 5 consecutive ads in a row on YouTube.

[croes]

They still sell you.

Just wait and it gets more.

Google didn't have ads in the beginning.

[theturtletalks]

Until Apple starts messing up Safari to increase that part of their business, I'll keep using it. Chrome was perfect before and didn't need more changes outside of security updates. It was "enshitified" after Google had all the market share and users locked-in. There is no incentive for Chrome to get better since their is no realistic competition. Chromium may get better since Brave and other browsers use it under the hood.

[wubrr]

Meh, Safari and Brave are crap compared to Chrome(ium).

[mardifoufs]

Brave is chromium. And how is chrome better (or worse) than safari? They both just work, and safari is even better for laptops in terms of battery life in my experience.

[wubrr]

Brave is slower than chromium from my experience, had issues related to bookmarks when I last tried it, and it doesn't do stuff it claims to - such as privacy, ad blocking, etc.

Safari has weird Apple-isms like nonstandard shortcuts, weird UI, and the dev tools are just kinda shit overall.

[wubrr]

Apple absolutely has that same business model (though it's not the only one for both companies).

[bryanrasmussen]

Google has the business model that if it goes away they're screwed, Apple has the business model that oh well since everyone else is doing it we might as well get a few extra bucks as well, cause we like money, but make sure it doesn't mess with our real business.

their models are not the same.

[wubrr]

They both have many different businesses under the hood, and they both heavily rely on advertising.

Both collect, sell, and use their users' data.

They even have special deals where Apple sells it's users to Google.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

[axlee]

The big difference is that Apple isn't the largest advertising company in the world, and makes money through other ways.

[croes]

Chrome is the web, Safari is a niche.

[beej71]

This. Or put another way, if Apple wants to do something in their private sandbox, that's one thing. But if Google wants to make changes to the core of most browsers in the world, that's something else.

[mardifoufs]

Ironically, chrome on Android is as flexible as safari is on iOS.