[dahart]

You’re making assumptions. There’s lots of reasons Apple might want to make their own browser to go with their own OSes, and protecting their users from Google is one of them. Controlling their own software and hardware stack is another, and Apple is famous for this. Another one is providing better user and developer experiences. Better user experience is very debatable, since as an ex web developer, I’m aware of some of the ways Safari sucks and fails to meet standards or behave like other browsers, at least as of five years ago. Standards support is better now. Safari was the first browser to have 60fps scrolling, and developing iOS and web apps with Safari dev tools is the only option, that’s not something Chrome or Firefox do for you.

[shiroiushi]

If their own browser that they force on everyone doesn't support ad-blockers, and they don't add ad-blocking to that browser themselves, then I don't see the difference: they're preventing users from blocking ads, and in effect forcing ads on their users. Their justifications are irrelevant.

Even Google (the biggest ad-tech company) isn't that bad: they obviously don't make an ad-blocker themselves, and they've worked against ad-blockers in the Android Chrome browser, but they don't do anything to stop users from installing an alternative browser which supports ad-blocking. You can install Firefox directly from the Google Play store. (Note that the same is not true for ad-blocking alternative YouTube clients like ReVanced or SmartTube, but you can't use those on iOS either of course. And even here, while Google won't allow them in the Play store, you can simply install them directly from the .apk files, something you can't do on iOS.)

By preventing users from exercising choice, Apple has taken on responsibility for them not being able to avoid ads.

[dahart]

As already mentioned in this thread, Safari does allow ad blockers, your premise is false. And even if they didn’t, there’s an absolutely massive difference between not being able to block ads and being the company both selling the ads and the browser that is engineering away your privacy.

Safari does take active steps to prevent tracking that Chrome does not. Apple has not actively worked against ad blockers the way Google has. And Apple also allows you to install a different browser on iOS, Google doesn’t get any gold stars for not preventing third party browsers on Android.

Google has a conflict of interest between your privacy and their primary source of revenue. That’s not true for Apple. Google isn’t that bad?!? Hahahaha BTW you moved the goal posts, the claim you were implicitly defending was that Apple was collecting and selling private data themselves. Nothing in this thread so far backs up that claim.

[shiroiushi]

>As already mentioned in this thread, Safari does allow ad blockers

Does it? Then why do all the iOS users complain about having to watch YouTube ads? Sounds like it doesn't allow good ad-blockers.

>And even if they didn’t, there’s an absolutely massive difference between not being able to block ads and being the company both selling the ads and the browser that is engineering away your privacy.

This is completely wrong. If (for the sake of argument) iOS definitely didn't allow ad-blocking, then that makes them worse than Google, and it does mean they are "actively working against ad-blockers". If they weren't working against them (in this scenario), they wouldn't disallow them.

>And Apple also allows you to install a different browser on iOS

No, it doesn't. It only allows re-skins of Safari.

>Google doesn’t get any gold stars for not preventing third party browsers on Android.

Yes it does. Let me know when I can side-load an open-source ad-blocking YouTube viewer app on iOS, or even just installing the browser of my choice (not a re-skin).

>Google has a conflict of interest between your privacy and their primary source of revenue.

Sure, but they also allow you freedom with Android devices, and that's something you'll never get with Apple.

> the claim you were implicitly defending was that Apple was collecting and selling private data themselves.

I never defended that particular claim. I only made my own tangential claims.

[dahart]

> It only allows re-skins of Safari

This is irrelevant, you’re confusing the engine and the browser. Chrome on WebKit is not a re-skin of Safari, it’s a Google browser, and it’s Google’s choice to not support ublock Origin on iOS, but nice try. Plus you missed the news that non-WebKit engines are now allowed in the EU and it’s only a matter of time before it spreads.

Google has announced their intention to stop serving YouTube content to anyone using an ad Blocker. Maybe soon you’ll see first hand how misguided and silly your argument against Apple is.

> Does it? Then why do all the iOS users complain…

Weird, it seems like we just had this conversation. That question was asked and answered. Did the fact that Apple does allow ad blockers, and the difference between the YouTube app and the browser not make sense the first time we talked about it?

BTW, the first Google autocomplete response I get for “how to block youtube ads on” is “Android”. That is evidence that more Android users complain about YouTube ads than iOS users.

P.S. who puts the ads on YouTube that you’re complaining about and makes them hard to skip or block? Oh, right, Google.