Just so I'm clear, this article's contention is that, because Apple doesn't restrict in-app browsers in the same way they do iOS Safari, they're just pretending to be mad at Facebook?
For those that weren't around a decade ago, this is a reference to Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe having conspired to not actively recruit each other's employees, for which they settled a $415 class-action lawsuit and agreed to end the prohibition.
I've long held that this is one of those areas that if Apple really cared about privacy they'd disallow in-app browsers. They'd add the rule that an app that is not a browser must list in its manifest 10 or fewer domains that its webview is allowed to access. All the rest would be denied.
This would mean many apps like the Facebook App, Messenger, Google Maps, GMail, Line, WeChat, Slack, Discord, etc would effectively not be allowed to open links to the entire internet but only domains directly related to the app and would be a privacy win.
They'd have to have some wording that would have to distinguish between a browser app and a non-browser app but i'd argue that's probably not that hard to do.
I just saw the post surface on Mastodon with some extra [0] context [1]. As an app developer, I need to keep such stories on the sidelines of my focus because otherwise it's practically impossible to do my job. Every single claim from Apple about privacy over the years has proven to be sales theatre.
6 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 31.7 ms ] threadThis would mean many apps like the Facebook App, Messenger, Google Maps, GMail, Line, WeChat, Slack, Discord, etc would effectively not be allowed to open links to the entire internet but only domains directly related to the app and would be a privacy win.
They'd have to have some wording that would have to distinguish between a browser app and a non-browser app but i'd argue that's probably not that hard to do.
[0] https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/12/market-failure/
[1] https://www.phonearena.com/news/apple-facebook-almost-worked...