> Apple, concerned about the rising competition, decided to sabotage Puffin in order to protect the billions of dollars of search revenue from Google.
Settings → Safari → Search Engine → Yahoo/Bing/DuckDuckGo. There, look, no Google.
The next sentence:
Setting aside whether that is a good rule or not, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous claim.
I think this is a pretty weak complaint and it lacks any real substance.
Now apple has a heavy handed walled garden, and Google has a heavy-handed one (chrome/chromeos) and a "light" one, in android. All ... well, suck.
So it's similar to Google's Android, although with the caveat that it's much easier for companies to have sideloaded company apps.
The vast majority of people will never change their default settings on the vast majority of things. The ability to change something does not contradict the view that a company is engaging in that behavior, and persisting it, for money. E.g. Mozilla/Firefox recently swapping to Google as their default browser would be the same thing, even if they know it's likely somewhat antithetical to many of their users - they will profit from those who are too lazy, or too ill informed, to change it.
That said, in my experience if Apple has secretly decided they don't like you, they tend to move the goalposts on you in subsequent reviews, so migrating their systems to WebKit may not be time well spent.
Puffin isn’t a native or local web browser; it’s an optimized, virtual, remote browser viewer. If they sell it as a “Citrix for the web,” they might have a shot.
"Many of you have asked why we haven’t updated our iOS app and we’re finally ready to share our story – Puffin is a victim of Apple's abuse.
In 2010 we brought our cloud-based Puffin browser to iOS, allowing iPhone users to enjoy the wicked fast speed, frugal data usage, and extreme virus protection available through server-side rendering.
But, Apple has now decided to reject our app, claiming it violates its guidelines. For seven years, Puffin has been approved with no mention of this violation. But now that Puffin has grown to almost 100 million active loyal users, such as yourself, Apple wants to sabotage Puffin in order to protect the billions of dollars of search revenue from it receives Google.
It’s time to call out the #BadApple and if you agree, feel free to share your comments via the hashtag. For our full story, please visit us on Medium: http://bit.ly/2BsLqI2"
See also: when Rollout got rejected, their open letter  didn't help them either.
We disputed and escalated but Apple insisted it has jurisdiction over our server-side technology.
You made your bed. Sleep in it.
There are plenty of alternatives apps for:
6. Ebook reading
11. Cloud storage.
It seems a really ridiculous policy that doesn’t really benefit anyone.
If they allow alternative engines on iOS they'll just slowly lose browser market share they still have which likely end up in death spiral for Safari support.
It's extremely hard to compete with Google since even Firefox on Android is still extremely rare no matter how much effort Mozilla put into it.
On the face of it, this seems bizarre but I could definitely see how Apple has an interest in having their User Agent stamped on outgoing requests.
Besides, Opera Mini does the same thing - Server side rendering - and has been on the Apple Store for years.
- Ensures a minimum level of battery performance for users browsing the web. Chrome and Firefox for macOS are notoriously hard on your battery and iOS versions would likely have the same issue.
- Reduces the number of vulnerabilities present on the platform.
- In the event that a bad vuln does crop up, Apple can and will scramble out a WebKit patch to fix it, quickly protecting all users, even those using browsers by small/independent developers. This would be impossible if said indie devs were using Blink or Gecko or something instead.
These problems could be worked around if alternate engines were bundled with the OS as part of a partnership with Google and Mozilla, but such a scenario seems unlikely at best.
2) Game engines are very low level and Apple doesn't have a problem with UE or Unity. Maybe the problem is the iOS sandbox would not work with JS engines?
3) I don't buy the security argument. Google and Mozilla are very diligent with updates, even more so than the Webkit team. It could be argued that the Android approach of unbundling components from the OS is actually better in terms of security.
All you say can be said for any other app on the app store.
Imagine if you could only use Safari on macOS...
Am unfamiliar with Puffin, but the post leaping straight to "it's a conspiracy!" without indicating what the stated rationale for rejection was appears a bit off.
(I'd I'm normally first in line to attribute things to corporate greed)
There are tons of games in the App Store with custom user interfaces that don’t match anything from Apple.
You didn't say anything about security, but there is no security problem either.
“Take the “BatteryGate” for example. Apple secretly and deliberately reduces the performance of old phones in order to boost new phone sales in the name of extending the battery life. The company only revealed this after being caught red-handed.”
If they wanted to encourage people to buy new phones wouldn't it just be easier to not support older phones with new iOS updates? Why base the slow down on battery life instead of just slowing the phone down after two years?
There are much easier ways to encourage people to buy new phones if they wanted to be underhanded than the Rube Goldberg conspiracy that you are suggesting.
You and me know to not use something like this for any kind of sensitive site. But the common iOS user doesn’t know this. Apple is protecting their users and their platform.
It’s 2018. making a web browser where all traffic goes through the browser makers server, being unencrypted and then reencrypted is not acceptable any more (I would argue it never was, but then, back in the days of 9600 bits/s it was more excusable)
>Not seeing any documentation on https and puffin. If I log in using puffin, can your servers see my password?
>Yes. Puffin server will see your password even for HTTPS. The browser is physically running on the server. The closest analogy to Puffin is RDP (remote desktop).
Am I reading this right? Who in their right mind would use this shit?
Liking it or not, of the major tech companies Apple has had a track record of caring about its users' privacy. I remember Tim Cook mentioning that as a basic value for him personally.
1. If Apple was so concerned about protecting its search ad revenue from Google, why would it offer a method to install third party content blockers?
2. Puffin offers "extreme virus protection"? Apple banned "virus protection" programs in the App Store a year or two ago because they were all scams.
It also circumvents all the parental controls provide by Safari.
It’s a great idea but it Likely needs to incorporate the settings on the phone.
This doesn't happen on Android, if you don't like Play Store, you can still distribute apk and ask the user to download & install.
People may spin it any way they want but this is corporate greed !