or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google looks to spark iOS browser war with OpenInChrome function
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google looks to spark iOS browser war with OpenInChrome function - Page 2

post #41 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Revisionist BS. Google specifically and publicly stated that Android was targeted at Apple and the iPhone. These statements were made by Vic Gundotra and he likened Apple to Big Brother at the time.

 

As we know, Google is Big Brother. You and Vic are shameless hypocrites and apparently incapable of honesty.

 

The speech you are referring to was made by Vic in 2010.  2010.  Apple was a juggernaut and continuing its efforts to close off its 'walled garden.'  Google and Vic stated that's exactly what Google wasn't doing and Android was the open choice.  They also had some ads that were not even subtle in mimicking Apples previous 1984 ads.  Remember, the ones that claimed IBM was evil and must be stopped at all costs because they controlled *both* the *hardware* and the *software* and that was just pure evil!....

 

So yes, in 2010 Android did (and does) stand in opposition to Apples philosophy and people are free to choose what system they like.  That does not change the reason of why Google bought Android in the first place.

 

Google bought Android in 2005...   The iPhone was released in 2007... How can you even remotely claim this is a counter to 'big brother' Apple?  In 2005, Apple was a company that made PC's that few people used and had that nifty iPod thing.  More or less a rather highly regarded nobody in the tech world.

 

Google thought mobile was going to be the 'next big thing'  Everybody in 2005, if they had to pick a horse that was going to win the mobile race, was betting on Microsoft.  Nobody at that time could fathom or predict the sheer ineptitude Microsoft would display on this front.  They had actually displayed the same ineptitude on the 'internet' era but had managed to come out and scratch out a win purely by their market dominance.  The consensus so far on the mobile front is 'too little, too late' and it looks like they've lost their mojo.

 

Microsoft had just released 'Microsoft Search' (it wasn't Bing yet).  In their browser they made Microsoft search the default search engine and built in a 'search box' at the top so you wouldn't have to use a url (where you might be tempted to type in www.google.com).  Fresh in everyone's minds (especially Googles!) was that Microsoft had put netscape out of business even with an inferior product simply by virtue of making it the 'default' in Windows.   Deja vu!

 

 Microsoft was predictably sued and forced to let users select other search engines easily.  They obliged by not only adding a feature to let users pick their search engine, but provided a list of possible engines to choose from... several hundred of them... the goal being to make it more difficult for users to select Google by burying alongside many others.  Its the type of behavior that made a lot of people Microsoft haters and reluctant to go back to anything Microsoft.  Google's existence and survival was threatened by that prospect.  Unfortunately for Microsoft their search product was so inferior that most people did take the time to select Google as their search engine.

 

The huge fear for Google was that Microsoft would dominate 90+% of the mobile market and lock Google out of the search business.  Google scrambled to avoid that.  They bought Android, open sourced, and the sole plan was to give it away free so that it proliferated and users would have access to Google search.  That is why Android by design was never intended to make a profit.  It was intended to ensure Google search would reach the widest audience possible.  Apple was still years away from releasing the iPhone and people then would probably laugh at you if you tried to call Apple 'Big Brother'


Edited by Frood - 5/8/13 at 1:37pm
post #42 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

How is Google able to pass on this sort of data between apps? If there is such a facility, can it be used by smaller developers?

Somehow this seems to be like pushing the envelope of what is "allowed" by Apple in iOS. If some smaller developer attempted something like this, Apple would shut him down in a heartbeat.

I don't think we have heard the last of this yet.


You haven't seen the 'share sheets' in a lot of apps that you get when you click on that button with curved arrow pointing up and to the right? Every app can switch you to another app. The developer just has to include it.

post #43 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

There's something interesting with http/https handler, though. Most of the time, opening http/https link will open Safari. One of the exceptions is if the links are AppStore links, the AppStore app will be opened. The interesting part is if the link is a YouTube link, it will open Google's YouTube app (if it's installed) and not other apps that can also view YouTube.

By creating googlechrome:// as a protocol they are doing essentially the same thing that Apple does with iBooks among other custom URLs that they use. 

 

For example, itms-books:// is the protocol that opens iBooks store on iOS. In the Google case it is a bit unusual because it is opening a browser which traditionally uses http:// as the protocol when normally this type of URL scheme would instead be opening some custom app. Traditionally the purpose of this functionality was to remap links from a browser to an app, not the reverse, which is what Google has done.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post

Considering that Google is looking to branch WebKit into their own project, at which point I don't think future versions of Chrome will be allowed on the store (unless, of course, they don't integrate the new code they swear they have and need said branching to implement)... does it really matter? Seems like they're only setting up developers - and Chrome users - for disappointment when in a few months to a year, everything gets shunted back to Safari and devs need to redo their apps.


Not really, all browsers on iOS are just skins and use the same web rendering engine as Safari (almost at least, Safari has an additional capability to compile javascript, I think it is javascript what is compilable).

 

Thus what Google does to the web rendering of Chrome has zero influence on Chrome for iOS.

post #45 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

I understand that this takes advantage of an existing feature, but it can potentially be used to identify what apps that support known URL schemes are installed on a user's device. This is a potential security and privacy risk. And, as we see in this instance, can be used to subvert user intentions.

 

Someone made this thing https://www.cocoacontrols.com/controls/ihasapp

 

Quote:
The iHasApp iOS Framework allows you to detect installed apps on a user's device. Full source code and production grade dataset included.

 

If you check the code, it has list of applications and their identifier - https://github.com/danielamitay/iHasApp/blob/master/iHasApp/schemeApps.json

 

There are also some tricks to check, from the web using javascript, if a user has certain apps installed

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/627916/iphone-safari-check-if-url-scheme-is-supported-in-javascript

post #46 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

By creating googlechrome:// as a protocol they are doing essentially the same thing that Apple does with iBooks among other custom URLs that they use. 

 

For example, itms-books:// is the protocol that opens iBooks store on iOS. In the Google case it is a bit unusual because it is opening a browser which traditionally uses http:// as the protocol when normally this type of URL scheme would instead be opening some custom app. Traditionally the purpose of this functionality was to remap links from a browser to an app, not the reverse, which is what Google has done.

 

Well technically a browser is also an app. They just happen to handle http:// or https:// schemes. But since those schemes are already taken by Safari, Google has to choose other schemes to point Chrome. Also without developers support to replace http:// with googlechrome://, links will be always opened in Safari not Chrome.

post #47 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

The speech you are referring to was made by Vic in 2010.  2010.  Apple was a juggernaut and continuing its efforts to close off its 'walled garden.'  Google and Vic stated that's exactly what Google wasn't doing and Android was the open choice.  They also had some ads that were not even subtle in mimicking Apples previous 1984 ads.  Remember, the ones that claimed IBM was evil and must be stopped at all costs because they controlled *both* the *hardware* and the *software* and that was just pure evil!....

 

So yes, in 2010 Android did (and does) stand in opposition to Apples philosophy and people are free to choose what system they like.

 

 

 

Quote:
“If Google did not act, we faced a Draconian future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice,” Google vice president of engineering Vic Gundotra told the crowd.

 

Please stop pretending that Google didn't specifically target Apple and the iPhone with the OS known as Android. They've admitted it. BTW, that other "Android" OS you were talking about, the Blackberry clone, that was also named "Android", it doesn't exist any longer.

post #48 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by iang1234 View Post

Well technically a browser is also an app. They just happen to handle http:// or https:// schemes. But since those schemes are already taken by Safari, Google has to choose other schemes to point Chrome. Also without developers support to replace http:// with googlechrome://, links will be always opened in Safari not Chrome.

It may turn out that Apple will have to back track on preventing users from choosing a different default browser just like they did when they disallowed any third party compiled code from apps. In that case, the game developers needed Unity and Apple needed game developers so they changed the rules to allow it. This of course opened the door for Adobe to get access to the app store with Flash derived apps. Now that Google has developed this workaround, it has become less friendly toward users because it puts the browser decision into the hands of developers. Some people just have Chrome on their device but don't often use it and don't want it to unexpectedly open. I would put myself into that group.

 

I have to use Chrome if I want to do some functions for online banking as Safari breaks. Probably the bank's fault but nevertheless Chrome works and Safari fails, but it is only a very specialized function in the out of bank wire transfer section.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #49 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It wouldn't make Chrome as default for all apps, only the ones you choose and it would have to be a option put in by the dev.

Is this response out of some knowledge or hope?  Seems to me that the app developer would have to decide if the Chrome use feature was configurable by the iOS user or not and that probably won't happen unless users complain a lot.

post #50 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wouldn't think Google particularly cares where the revenue initiates as long as they aren't beholden to anyone in particular or otherwise locked out of it. The whole Android effort from Google was originally intended to ensure Microsoft wouldn't hold all the keys to the mobile platform and it's advertising revenue like they tried to do on the desktop. Apple's iPhone didn't even exist then so Android certainly wasn't targeting Apple.
Oh yes, but how times have changed!
post #51 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If I read right it doesn't change your default browser, it would still be Safari. Developers would just have a choice of making a call to Chrome within their app, if Chrome is already installed. I think I have that right.

Here is how it works in Gmail.app now. Select "Open in Chrome" set to YES and you click a link and it opens directly in Chrome.

Set to NO? It launches in Gmail.app browser, which has a Share button that gives you the option to open in Safari or Chrome.

How SHOULD it work? Set to YES? Just like it does. Set to NO? Launch in Safari.

In app browsers were helpful Pre iOS 4. Their need has past. Time for Apple to set an expiration date on them.
post #52 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by starbird73 View Post

In app browsers were helpful Pre iOS 4. Their need has past. Time for Apple to set an expiration date on them.

That's a good point which I can only assume are related to the inclusion of multitasking APIs (I forget when they were added, but 4.0 sounds about right).

Are there any examples of apps that would benefit from an in-app browser? The only one I can think of is 1Password, but I can't say I ever use that. I just copy the password then go out and use Safari-proper. I can't see Apple taking that functionality away or unsandboxing apps to allow them to communicate with each other freely, but is there an intermediate solution? Could an APIs for pushing more than just a URL to Safari work?

I at least hope they eventually allow you to set different default apps for your camera, mail, browser, calendar, address book, et al. but I think my desire for this it clouds my ability to see its feasibility from Apple's PoV.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #53 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by sambira View Post

Is this response out of some knowledge or hope?  Seems to me that the app developer would have to decide if the Chrome use feature was configurable by the iOS user or not and that probably won't happen unless users complain a lot.

Knowledge I gained by reading the article.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #54 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

This sounds like a security hole in the sandboxing that Apple needs to plug in the next iOS update. Apps ought not be able to check what other apps are installed.


No, its not a security hole. It show inter-app communication works and is designed to work. Apps can have URL schemes like "navigon://" or "informant://" or what not. There is an explicit API that says "can iOS open this URL?". If it can, that means the app is installed.

 

So Chrome has a URL scheme (probably chrome://) and this little bit of code just checks to see if the scheme is available and if it is changes the http:// to chrome://url=<original url>&existingApp=<existing app scheme>

post #55 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


That's a good point which I can only assume are related to the inclusion of multitasking APIs (I forget when they were added, but 4.0 sounds about right).

Are there any examples of apps that would benefit from an in-app browser? The only one I can think of is 1Password, but I can't say I ever use that. I just copy the password then go out and use Safari-proper. I can't see Apple taking that functionality away or unsandboxing apps to allow them to communicate with each other freely, but is there an intermediate solution? Could an APIs for pushing more than just a URL to Safari work?

I at least hope they eventually allow you to set different default apps for your camera, mail, browser, calendar, address book, et al. but I think my desire for this it clouds my ability to see its feasibility from Apple's PoV.

 

In app browsers are very helpful. For example I hate how going in links in Mail takes me to Safari. I don't care for the Gmail app much but I like that when I click a link in Gmail, it opens in an in-app browser instead.

 

But beyond that, there are tons of reasons why in-app browsers are useful or desired. In-app browsers allow links to be handled specially for special web/app interaction. They allow for a a means of not cluttering my history with app-specific website hits. And so on.

post #56 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akac View Post


No, its not a security hole.

 

See post 45, above.

post #57 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Drama is unnecessary.  Knowledge is power.

 

As with any third party browser on iOS, it uses the same web browser engine as Safari.  Chrome on iOS is just a shell which basically adds the ability to sync tabs and bookmarks between devices.

 

The main difference in this use-case is that there will be a button that takes you back to the original calling app.

And in this case, knowledge is being aware that Google has announced they're branching WebKit to go their own way for browser development. So it's not going to be a shell for much longer, hence my speculation that this might implode when Apple slaps Chrome down for the same reason Firefox doesn't make an iOS version: no non-WebKit browsers allowed. Which will then leave Google in an interesting position: do they take the code that "required" them to announce a branch and deviation from the greater WebKit community and come crawling back to try and include it? Or do they sacrifice iOS as a platform?

 

Also, too lazy to read all 56 other posts... has anyone pointed out yet that this "in-app browsing" convenience they're offering means that Google will get a comprehensive index of all the apps you own that include the code? Not to mention that we really have no idea what kind of information Chrome truly collects about you and your usage habits; by shunting all of your links into Chrome, how much more information is Google going to walk away with about you after a day? A week? A month?

post #58 of 69

Sounds good to me! I can't think of any reason that Apple should deliberately disable the option of defaulting to Chrome, other than they intend to produce an iOS browser that isn't as good as Chrome.

post #59 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jusephe View Post

I am waiting when Apple tells : "This is our platform !"

 

When they will kill gmail for iOS- 

Didn't Google do that by disabling push?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #60 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosslad View Post


Me too. I downloaded Chrome and Google Search just out of curiosity. Never use them at all.

 

I deleted them the other day, when I noticed location services was always on and my battery seemed to be not lasting as long.

 

Problem fixed.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #61 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Right now, once you're done using the iOS-app-launched browser, you have to remember / find / relaunch the app that sent you to the web in the first place.

 

Yeah, because double tapping the home button is oh, so hard.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #62 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have to use Chrome if I want to do some functions for online banking as Safari breaks. Probably the bank's fault but nevertheless Chrome works and Safari fails, but it is only a very specialized function in the out of bank wire transfer section.

 

Where I live most of the banks have enough resources to make their own Apps, which work quite well.

 

I very rarely access banks via a browser.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #63 of 69

Quote:

Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

i have chrome installed, but i don't want it to be my default browser... so this is rather annoying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If I read right it doesn't change your default browser, it would still be Safari. Developers would just have a choice of making a call to Chrome within their app, if Chrome is already installed. I think I have that right.

It can't change your default browser system-wide.

 

It however does have the default setting of checking to see if Chrome is installed, and if it is, using that rather than Safari to open hyperlinks in GMail.

 

This setting It is easily toggled to off if one so desires, but I guess Google is betting on the majority of users not knowing how to tweak their apps, which will give Google by default a "Google User Experience" of sorts on the iOS platform.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #64 of 69

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Right now, once you're done using the iOS-app-launched browser, you have to remember / find / relaunch the app that sent you to the web in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Yeah, because double tapping the home button is oh, so hard.

 

Yes, quite right, and that's what I find (slightly) inadequate about the whole experience - I would have thought that Chrome would incorporate a back-button using the same routine in reverse to send the user back to the calling Google app - but I quickly surmised that a double-tap of the Home button would also suffice.

 

Not quite a seamless "Google User Experience" after all... probably the next update will include this, if Apple approves it.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
post #65 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have to use Chrome if I want to do some functions for online banking as Safari breaks. Probably the bank's fault but nevertheless Chrome works and Safari fails, but it is only a very specialized function in the out of bank wire transfer section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Where I live most of the banks have enough resources to make their own Apps, which work quite well.

 

I very rarely access banks via a browser.

 

I initially had problems with my Mac's Safari browser accessing my Bank sites via https, so I installed Chrome and used that for a while.

 

However with regular testing I found out that these problems have largely disappeared as Safari iterated; better still my bank now has very comprehensive mobile apps that allow almost instantaneous and secure access to any functions.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
post #66 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers go_quote.gif



i have chrome installed, but i don't want it to be my default browser... so this is rather annoying.


It can't change your default browser system-wide.

It however does have the default setting of checking to see if Chrome is installed, and if it is, using that rather than Safari to open hyperlinks in GMail.

This setting It is easily toggled to off if one so desires, but I guess Google is betting on the majority of users not knowing how to tweak their apps, which will give Google by default a "Google User Experience" of sorts on the iOS platform.



 


 





 


 





 


 





 


 





 


 




The problem with the gmail implementation is that if you check yes to open chrome, clicking a link in gmail opens immediately in chrome. If you have it checked to no, it should open immediately in safari. But it doesn't. It opens in the gmail in app browser, with a button to open in safari.

In ther words? Google is getting the clicks it wants anyway and reducing the quality of the user experience if you just so happen to to not want to use their browser.

In app browsers are no longer needed. iOS 4 in 2010 introduced fast app switching. I hope Apple sets an expiration date for this feature. At minimum I hope they start requiring in app browsers to have an option to turn them off. Safari on iOS is the best experience. I understand that is due to Apple rules, but that doesn't change the fact it is true. I always end up needing an extra tap to view in Safari. I'd love that to change
post #67 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

 

So yes, in 2010 Android did (and does) stand in opposition to Apples philosophy and people are free to choose what system they like.  That does not change the reason of why Google bought Android in the first place.

 

Google bought Android in 2005...   The iPhone was released in 2007... How can you even remotely claim this is a counter to 'big brother' Apple?  In 2005, Apple was a company that made PC's that few people used and had that nifty iPod thing.  More or less a rather highly regarded nobody in the tech world.

 

Google thought mobile was going to be the 'next big thing'  Everybody in 2005, if they had to pick a horse that was going to win the mobile race, was betting on Microsoft.  Nobody at that time could fathom or predict the sheer ineptitude Microsoft would display on this front.  They had actually displayed the same ineptitude on the 'internet' era but had managed to come out and scratch out a win purely by their market dominance.  The consensus so far on the mobile front is 'too little, too late' and it looks like they've lost their mojo.

 

Microsoft had just released 'Microsoft Search' (it wasn't Bing yet).  In their browser they made Microsoft search the default search engine and built in a 'search box' at the top so you wouldn't have to use a url (where you might be tempted to type in www.google.com).  Fresh in everyone's minds (especially Googles!) was that Microsoft had put netscape out of business even with an inferior product simply by virtue of making it the 'default' in Windows.   Deja vu!

 

 Microsoft was predictably sued and forced to let users select other search engines easily.  They obliged by not only adding a feature to let users pick their search engine, but provided a list of possible engines to choose from... several hundred of them... the goal being to make it more difficult for users to select Google by burying alongside many others.  Its the type of behavior that made a lot of people Microsoft haters and reluctant to go back to anything Microsoft.  Google's existence and survival was threatened by that prospect.  Unfortunately for Microsoft their search product was so inferior that most people did take the time to select Google as their search engine.

 

The huge fear for Google was that Microsoft would dominate 90+% of the mobile market and lock Google out of the search business.  Google scrambled to avoid that.  They bought Android, open sourced, and the sole plan was to give it away free so that it proliferated and users would have access to Google search.  That is why Android by design was never intended to make a profit.  It was intended to ensure Google search would reach the widest audience possible.  Apple was still years away from releasing the iPhone and people then would probably laugh at you if you tried to call Apple 'Big Brother'

Daniel Eran Dilger, perhaps Apple's most rabid supporter, absolutely agrees with us both that Google's Android plans were aimed at Microsoft not Apple. 

 

Mr Dilger didn't consider Android nor even a "Google Phone" to be targeting the iPhone but rather plainly intended to blunt Microsoft's mobile plans. It wasn't until after a couple of Mr. Jobs well-publicized supposed tirades against Android that the opinions of Apple fans started to flip over. Prior to that I don't know of anyone here who said Apple had to rid their platform of them. If there's any "revisionist history" being written it's by a couple of members here trying to rationalize their new-found hatred of "all-things-Google". 

 

For those in doubt here's a couple of 2007/2008 blog articles from DED, before the Big Bang. There's not even a hint that he believed Google's intent was to compete with Apple.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/10/20/the-great-google-gphone-myth/

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/08/25/will-googles-android-play-dos-to-apples-iphone/

 

 

"As reports began to leak out about talks between Google and hardware makers throughout 2007, rumors began to fly about “the GPhone,” a competitive offering that was supposed to take on the iPhone. Some phone enthusiasts hoped Google would jump in to rescue the struggling OpenMoko project and turn it into a viable project that could attack Apple’s new smartphone.

In October 2007, I printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google’s services were already on the iPhone.

In November, Google played its hand: it had organized a consortium of companies called the Open Handset Alliance to develop open standards for mobiles. The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel.

Google wasn’t getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop. "

(Huh. . .I think I said the bolded part myself)


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/10/13 at 6:40am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

See post 45, above.

I saw that. How is that a security hole? Explain. It is standard URL schema functionality. Without it so much expected behavior works.

This isn't like accessing private data or being able to do something behind your back. In fact in iOS 6 Apple introduced new APIs for inter app communication which if you customize to offer more options requires this scheme functionality to work.

And for anyone who says that the app should ask or iOS should ask the user like for contacts, location, calendar, photos, etc. you have no idea how bombarded you will be because this is a fundamental part of code. It's like an app can inquire the device type, it's OS, it's wifi IP address -many things. You'd get dozens of "allow" messages if that kind of stuff was requested.

So I stand by my assertion that this is not a security hole or risk. And I do so by my experience developing on multiple platforms for the last 15 years.
post #69 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yeah, because double tapping the home button is oh, so hard.
It's annoying. It lacks context. Why should using my "smartphone" be a frustrating experience?

And anyone asking for in-app browsers to be removed have no idea what they are asking for technically.

If you don't like it - don't use apps that use them. For many others its a better experience, is more private, and they want it.

Just because you don't - don't punish everyone else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google looks to spark iOS browser war with OpenInChrome function