The solution is to stop using platforms that are so actively hostile towards people's freedoms.
Edit: folks downvoting my comment are deluding themselves. Apple is hostile towards freedom. It is only by regulation and laws that we're able to gain any, and they actively lobby against those.
It's a relatively low effort comment, but I'm not actually sure why you're being downvoted for this.
If you value being able to use your device in whatever way you please then I'd agree it's kinda silly to use an iOS device. If you're the kind of person who's going to want to use obscure search engines or side load apps then maybe an iPhone just isn't for you.
I suppose the pushback would that "freedom" comes at the cost of usability so from a practical standpoint it makes sense that there is some limitations.
Every HN user starts without the downvote button. It's only after your own comments get upvoted enough times that the downvote button appears for you (and then you start having to be really careful when aiming for the upvote button, and checking every time that, after clicking the arrow, the link next to the timestamp reads "unvote" and not "undown").
I must admit that you made me chuckle, but the truth is that for the last 15 years I've been using Neo FreeRunner, Nokia N900 and then Librem 5 as my phones and couldn't be happier.
So how would you code this feature so it works with any search engine off the bat and how would the team know this might be a priority to develop next if you haven’t filed a radar?
Use the OpenSearch specification [0]. Most search engines and even websites support it. It’s how, for example, you can search YouTube directly in the FF address bar.
OpenSearch is a bit of a confusing mess, because it describes both search descriptions for a site as well as for a site to ask to be a global search engine (aka OpenSearch plugins)
Interestingly, Safari at least used to support the first - if you type something into the bar on a site which advertises opensearch, those results will be incorporated into the displayed list.
For the global behavior, the guidance seems to have shifted from opensearch plugins to web extensions. Safari does not seem to support any of the search engine metadata fields currently.
A workaround approach - disregarding any existing standards - would be to simply give the user a random, unique string to search for and then try to detect that string in the URL (typically as a query parameter) - then the browser just has to replace that string with the user's actual search query in subsequent searches.
Here's a few options at different places in the spectrum for ease of UX vs. work required by the search engine:
Make search engines (appearing in that list) installable as apps.
Have search engine websites include some metadata about the API. When this metadata block is present, add a "make this site the default search engine" to the Safari menu.
Allow the user to enter an arbitrary URL with some substitutions.
The approach seems to be shifting from #2 (which winds up being an invasive prompt in some cases which is separate from management) to #1 in the form of Web Extensions.
Safari however does not currently support new search engines via web extension metadata.
Thanks good suggestions. I think both your last options would work. Either one could be passed through automatically with a deep link from their website (either the search engine base url or your special url in the last point)
No one outside top Apple & Google brass knows exactly how much Apple's protection racket with Google costs the latter, but estimates are $13B a year, which would be a healthy chunk of either's profits.
FYI, Kagi has an app that provides an extension that takes over the DDG domain (and maybe other default search engine domains) to redirect searches to Kagi. This still leaks the query to the original search engine, but it's better than nothing.
Yeah, I use these bangs too, but it also means that every query is sent to 2x search engines - DDG and the destination search.
There is a Safari extension called xSearch [0] which implements bangs client side, but I uninstalled it because I noticed weird TLS errors on a few sites while it was running, and I'm generally uncomfortable with the level of access required for it to function.
Probably they don’t do that because the experience would be confusing for 98% of users. Is there some search engine people actually use not in that list?
There’s a Kagi safari extension that will redirect any searches to Kagi. I still set my default to DDG because I think the extension intercepts after the request has been sent.
I'm pretty sure that every non-Google, non-Bing search engine on this list (Yahoo, DuckDuckGo and Ecosia) is actually powered by Bing. So really Apple is restricting me to two search engines: Google and Bing.
I usually search for something by pulling down on the Home Screen and searching from there; it searches multiple types of thing for me automatically (files, photos, notes, web, etc) and is very convenient for me.
I would like to set kagi as the iOS search engine so that it redirects queries directly to kagi in my default browser, rather than routing it through another search engine that a plug-in redirects to kagi for me.
I imagine the same basic request is what brave users are looking for. It’s a minor irritation but seems like it should be trivially solvable as an outside observer.
I don't think it would be confusing if Apple implemented it like Firefox does: when I'm on a site with an OpenSearch specification, give me the option to add it to my list of available search engines. Then when I'm typing in the omnibar, "Search XYZ.com for <my query>" would be an option I could tap, and similarly it would be an option available for me to choose as a default search engine in Settings.app.
Apple already takes up a bunch of space in the URL bar with that stupid microphone icon for dictation that I've never used. Maybe they could put the button there.
I don’t know what your interests are, but an analogy I would propose is if your car had a menu that let you set the brake balance and fuel mixture. I know what those things are because I’m a fan of f1 racing. But even I wouldn’t care past a “huh that’s cool”
Yes, most people wouldn’t care or even understand that, and same with their search engine. It would confuse them if they got to it. And it isn’t worth keeping it open ended just to please the 1% of nerds, most of which would tinker once and move on.
So then it is good to tell non-tech people “you can trust the list”
I for one much prefer the apple approach for mainstream users. It gives them a solid set of defaults.
If there’s a search engine that’s better than what’s on that list, then we know how to add it and it will make it to the list eventually.
Weird, because it's an option in Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox on the desktop, as well as on mobile.
They (Safari on iOS) account for 48.6% of the mobile browser market (with Chrome taking 45.11%) according to statcounter. On the desktop, they drop to 15.5% with Chrome taking the lion's share at 61.79%.
It's such a relatively common feature of all but one browser. When you add a search engine, most of the time, it's enough to add in the "%s" string for your search keyword.. and figure out where it goes. For example, with Google it is www.google.com/search?q=%s.
> I for one much prefer the apple approach for mainstream users. It gives them a solid set of defaults.
Such a weird way to think. Is your view of society such that people are just dumb and need to be coddled?
I never said they’re dumb. I said they don’t care. Most people don’t care about these things.
I am able to see the 50 things I can do every single day without having to think too hard and I am grateful for that.
I don’t care to know why the elevator I’m riding in is safe. I just care that it is. I don’t want to even have the option of tuning the torque on the elevator motor. Or to tune the right temperature on my cappuccino machine to ensure optimal frothing or whatever. Or to care that 103.5 FM in the radio isn’t exactly in the 103.50000000 MHz. I’m glad that someone made the choice for me so I can enjoy the end product and get on with my life.
I think it has to do with the use case of being able to add a new search engine that isn’t in the list is in the realm of extremely obscure features, so it isn’t obvious that leaving it out is actually hurting consumers.
I’m not trying to be some kind of Apple apologist.
My point is simply that this is an obscure setting and there might be decent reason and more downsides to not add it, rather than some nefarious anti-consumer move.
Maybe it will, but then again, I've been hearing this warning for around ten years already. What would I do differently anyway? Buy an Android phone with its own restrictions?
I had to look it up. Seems I fork over two grand, wait a year to even get it, and then instead of having any of the apps I want to use I get desktop Linux apps on a touchscreen. Where do I sign?
In Chrome for Android, the procedure is the following:
- Open any search page that follows the spec
- Search for anything (not always necessary)
- Open settings > search
- Select your search engine from the "recently visited" list
In Firefox you need to add a custom URL, which 99% of users won't know what to do with so they'll just ignore it. This allows for more customisation but it's also a higher bar to clear.
I don't think either implementations would drive away users. Worst case scenario, the procedure is too complicated for those using a popular custom search engine and Apple needs to make their default search provider list bigger.
I'm a big apple user and recognize this is messed up. If you are going to make your browser default and shipped with the phone, and not allow other rendering engines in your appstore, you better be bending over backwards to make sure stuff like this is open. This is already a solved problem and I expect Apple to already have regular features like this baked in.
Use the Brave browser then. It's on the App Store.
If you're the type of person who wants to add other search engines and trigger them via URL parameters, you're the type of person who knows that Apple's system is a walled garden. At this point, it often doesn't feel like people are asking "Hey, could you improve this?" and more like the same complaint over and over again with the complaint being "Apple is still Apple and instead of buying another thing after Apple being exactly like this, I complain about the thing I bought being the exact thing I bought".
I think the anticompetitive aspect here is different. Suppose you're some amazing new search engine startup with rapid promotion through word-of-mouth. Normally, all you'd have to do would be to present some convenient links (or walkthroughs) how your search engine could be added as the default search engine.
Except for iPhones, there is suddenly a gatekeeper. If you don't convince Apple to add you to the list, it won't matter how good you are or how much people want to make you the default engine, as long as Apple says no, they can't.
I get that and I share this sentiment 100%. However, there are various other browsers on the App Store including the one from Brave. I guess I don't see this as someone wanting their favorite search engine to be available in Safari. I see it as chapter #799 of the old story of "Let's talk about Apple making decisions for the user while others allow me to make decisions myself".
Edit: folks downvoting my comment are deluding themselves. Apple is hostile towards freedom. It is only by regulation and laws that we're able to gain any, and they actively lobby against those.