I've worked at an ayahuasca retreat center the last few years and have worked with several of what I'd consider very successful people. What I've noticed is that there are a couple types- those who are successful despite their traumas and those who are successful because of their traumas. The people I've seen successful because of their traumas tend to have difficulty making real progress (which sometimes comes off has actually having wonderful experiences...possibly all projections or other forms of dissociation/resistance). I think with them there is a subconscious fear that if they heal, they will lose the drive that made them "successful". It's a tough pill to swallow. (The other camp tends to do really well, continues to be successful with even more appreciation and compassion, despite difficult experiences if they decide to face their traumas).
David Lynch told this story, that he once went to a psychiatrist. At the beginning, he asked him if the therapy could interfere with his work. The guy said "you know, it might."
Lynch stood up and said, "thank you, have a good day" and walked out the door.
that's a cool perspective, thanks for sharing. totally makes sense that if you've internalized "bad stuff happens to me", you'd see your successful status as more precarious and not want to change anything, even for the better
I've been a proton user for a while but have always shied away from their other offerings...feels like too many eggs in one basket to use them for both email and password management (things I consider to be the most critical of all services I use). Vpn as well! Am I being paranoid? It would be nice to not pay for 3 separate services but I have kind of a blockage about it
Fair enough, I get the sentiment about not putting all eggs in 1 basket, but if your choice is between 1 ecosystem (Google / Apple / Proton), I’d argue in favour of Proton. :)
Just mentioned in another comment, but I'm not sure Firefox on iOS can actually use webkit content blockers? (I thought it could but have been using Orion exclusively for a while now)
I was under the impression that firefox could already use the Safari "content blockers" (as it uses webkit) like Firefox Focus and uBO Lite, but I'm not seeing that option actually. Been using Orion for a while now so not sure if that changed or I'm just misremembering it.
Leaving it on all the time would probably dim the backlight eventually more than turning it off, but I’m sure the monitor could handle it. Mostly a waste of energy.
The main reason anyone chooses cloudflare is for their CDN (which I suppose is a "reverse proxy"...not a way I'd refer to it but technically yes that's essentially what it's doing). If you don't need the CDN or any of the other fancy features there are plenty of straight DNS providers out there (and often provided by the registar these days).
What Orion's doing is horribly hacky and prone to cause issues with a multitude of addons, and of course Mozilla shouldn't bow to Apple's incredibly anti-competitive behavior.
You pay apple for a phone that can act more-or-less as a general purpose computer with apps. Apple should let you install the apps you want, and that they don't do so is insulting.
The fact that the EU and Japan ruled it illegal, and Apple responded by only changing it in those two countries instead of all countries is doubly insulting.
Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.
It goes well beyond requiring an established company. It's so onerous that no company has yet successfully navigated all the gates required - even Google. Apple is maliciously complying with the EU's Digital Rights Act, and many years later, the EU has not concluded its investigations. I am incredibly disappointed.
If WebKit is superior, they have nothing to worry about. They are worried because WebKit is not superior. Partly because Apple has worked diligently to ensure WebKit wrappers cannot compete with native apps. It undermines their entire business model. So if Chromium were made available, people would flock to it. I am not in favour of forcing people to use inferior technology for no other reason than it prevents Chromium retaining dominance. Competition is good and Apple should be forced to improve WebKit.
I don’t care why they do it. It’s just nice that their interests and my interests are aligned on this.
I care about the open web and see setting Google up for a monopoly on web browsers to be just about the worst thing that could happen. A duopoly isn’t much better, but it is better.
It's not a great alternative though. After all, Apple doesn't even provide a version of Safari for non-Apple platforms. They used to, but they stopped with the windows version years ago.
And not everyone on Mac uses Safari of course, I didn't use it much when I still was on Apple because Firefox could sync my bookmarks with all my other computers.
On mobile it's a different story of course (they are at 31% there, and nobody is allowed to run a different engine) but a browser isn't so important there because most services have en app.
Not sure your point. You claimed "Nobody would install chrome on iOS even if they could". That is provably false by easily checkable usage metrics. Heck, You can just go to the App Store and see it's one of the top downloaded apps.
there is sites that simply don't work in safari, I have family that sometimes I have to help them do something by opening what they want on my android phone that does support chrome and firefox. In order to accomplish their tasks. It would be great if apple supported other browsers
We need laws that make Apple's business model illegal. No more walled gardens, including game consoles. If you sell a Universal Machine (or product containing a Universal Machine), then the owner/purchaser/leasee must have full control of the Universal Machine.
Just like the laws against bad cars are called "Lemon Laws," call these new laws against bad Universal Machines "Apple Laws." Forever memorialize AAPL in this negative light to warn its future successors what happens when you act in anti-customer ways even when technically not illegal to do so.
By the same logic, we could also use "Anthropic Laws" to curb the nanny-moralism of model guardrails too!
Personally I'm happy to carve out an exception for game consoles. Other than play games I don't do anything essential to my life on my game consoles. On my phone though I bank, shop, book hotels, flights, make doctors appointments, etc...
I'm sure there is some definition we could use that exempts game consoles and not smartphones. For example, I'm sure the game consoles would be happy to live under the restriction of never allowing banking apps, non-media shopping apps, hotel apps, flight apps, medical services apps.
Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.
True, but I don't see how that answers the original question of "why does Firefox not support extensions on iOS?". Clearly extensions can run on WebKit. I assume it has much more to do with Apple restrictions rather than with the fact addons are built for Gecko.
Its not as simple as extensions running on webkit. Webkit is just a component. Extensions are basically apps. Apple goes through a lot of trouble to make it so you cant build an app platform inside your own app. Not saying impossible. But non trivial. Its not as simple as “webkit runs extensions”
The law that requires allowing alternative browsers, the DMA, applies to the entire EU.
But I believe there are still zero third party browsers, to publish their browser in the EU Mozilla need an EU development team because developers outside the EU are unable to install it, and Mozilla cannot publish it as their existing app. Enforcement is taking years.
Their approach yielded arguably the least exploitable general purpose computing devices that people ever actually wanted, without making people feel they were crippled, in a market where there are thousands of alternatives.
It's been wildly successful and, like nearly everyone, I'm fine it.
:( where’s the hacker ethos here? I suppose you have a nice Linux machine or something you customize as you see fit, and you can make calls and listen to podcasts on your phone and that’s good enough for on the go…?
I want grandma to have a locked-down iPhone but I want to be able to go through a process to be able to own my own iPhone. Doesn’t feel fine to have something crippled unless maybe it’s rented or something. Or my phone’s in an HOA.
It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.
It also makes me “:(“ when I think of an alternate reality of where phones were as customizable and open as a plain old desktop. Open boot loader, manu supported open drivers (no blobs).
Makes me seriously consider Ubuntu touch / graphene or something else and a $200 low end / 2nd hand locked-down phone for everything else.
Both Ubuntu and GrapheneOS don't allow you to fully control you phone like Linux desktop does. However Librem 5/Pinephone can run PureOS/postmarketOS that do.
Sure, but even when (or if) it these issues get fixed, it will all be academic unless the devices can run the apps that normies want (or "need"). Up to and including the OS-level wallet app that unbricks the NFC chip, and all the banking and similar "high-security" apps that increasingly require some kind of device attestation to run at all. The trend is all in one direction.
It's easy to say, "Just don't use that stuff". But if everyone wants ("needs") it and we don't have it, then we're left with a <1% user base of activists and eccentrics. And at that point we've lost all influence on the ongoing slide towards surveillance dystopia. It's dispiriting. I'm just hoping that somehow I've got something wrong in this pessimistic analysis.
You're not wrong, but everything starts with activists, and hopefully if enough activists start using such devices and demand services for them, something might change. I do my part.
>It’s a combination of Stockholm syndrome, having an expensive phone as a status symbol, and corporate worshiping.
Can any amount of pain cure stupid? I am still so baffled that AAPL is as market successful as they are, that I am forced to hate-long their stock while never buying their products (and telling others to not buy them either, which is going about as you would expect).
The warden is making the prison just nice enough to not cause riots, to put it vividly.
Most people won’t care or understand about this openness. Their needs are satisfied with the limitations. Similar to other freedoms we have (at least in the US), like speech, assembly.
I think it will take very brazen acts on Apple’s part (or other gatekeepers) to get the everyday Joe/Jane to care about things enough to learn more or look for alternatives.
Things like blocking certain websites, removing super popular apps for not following monopolistic rules
If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.
I have some of them.
What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats. That would be of minor benefit to me and a detriment to many millions of people in general.
The market spoke, and a huge number of people want those. That’s fine and should remain their choice to make.
The real tragedy of outlawing Apples approach is that the only reason people want this ability is because Apple created this whole package that everyone wants.
tldr; It’s an extraordinarily selfish thing to insist on at everyone else’s expense. I’m ok doing without the one thing.
>If and when I want a device I can tinker endlessly with, that’s very available to me already.
>What I don’t have is a desire to actively deny consumers a “just works” option that is extremely safe and reliable. No caveats.
False dichotomy. Nothing about the latter means the former can't also be possible. Apple products disrespect customers in the name of the latter, telling them the former is dangerous and must be limited. I am concluding that only iron fisted pro-customer sovereignty "Apple Laws" can stop Apple and similar, as their customers themselves can't muster a wallet revolt against this business model.
Those two things are mutually exclusive here. You can't have that ecosystem and all the things people buy it for and have unrestricted control of it all. Those can't exist together.
And iPhone buyers aren't an oppressed people. They bought what they wanted in a market with alternatives.
The only anti-consumer position here is that those people should not be allowed to have that, anymore.
It's not the tinkering that's sociologically important, but the ability to install things like ICEBlock even though the government and OS vendor don't want you to.
I view Apple platform as crippling, and Google jealously trying to [slowly] pursue the same cripple model. Just because most customers are not educated enough to see the crippling aspects, doesn't mean it's not there. Sleek shiny-ness tends to hide that for normies.
Disclosure: proud GrapheneOS and Qubes OS user and never-subscriber.
Until recently Apple only allowed Webkit on iOS. In the EU and Japan now they allow proprietary engines. But this means Mozilla needs to put in all the extra effort to maintain yet another branch for iOS with all the features, for an even more limited user base in those regions alone.
I too switched to Orion for the extensions, then when I noticed they had gone about two years with regular updates but not one that addressed the performance of extensions, (their one killer feature) I switched back. I would love to have my extensions on mobile, but Orion's implementation just silently kills your extension threads when the memory manager wants the space then never restarts them.
You're never going to have an app with plugin ability on iOS because that goes against the ios terms of service. It can be seen as shipping a competing appstore.
My current excuse? Android (the only current realistic alternative; I don't have the time nor care to fiddle with technical details on a device that I need to be a reliable tool. I'm not afraid of going deep on something less standard, Linux has been my daily driven OS for literally decades) is trash and untrustworthy in my experience. Browser extensions alone are not nearly enough to tip the scale for me to go back to it. As mentioned I use something that provides extension support already (from a browser that has far fewer developers working on it!), which is why I find it stupid that Mozilla won't figure out a way to do it themselves.
Where do I buy this device that does let me run any software I want?
Most Android phones don't even let users unlock the bootloader anymore. And if you do unlock the bootloader, now Google Pay doesn't work, among other things. I don't really feel like being in control of what software I use when the software I actually want refuses to run. F-Droid homepage is also concerning.
Fair enough and good for you. My point was that currently your only options are either giving up a freedom to run the software you want, or losing utility. In neither case I feel like being in control. The war is over and the users lost.
I don't personally agree with Apple's decisions, but you "vote with wallet" people need to have at least some modicum of empathy before you start demanding that people have a lot for you and join your cause.
No. Just because I gave you an answer that doesn't satisfy you, doesn't give you the right.
People don't care about the same things you do, so they want to keep the current phone, they just want added functionality. You're gonna have to do better than to just being an asshole about it and calling it "excuses".
reply