Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedisct1 | Hacker News Reader

Meanwhile Apple is cool with the Verizon VPN [1], because it also blocks ads in applications, but server-side, and that makes a huge difference (?).

Or rather, because this is Verizon.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/28/verizons-new-safe-wi-fi-is...

View on HN

Verizon's VPN is an actual VPN. The fact that the VPN can be configured to block ads doesn't really matter very much, since, as you point out, that happens server-side, not on the device.

The Apple policy here is you can't use the VPN APIs to implement a content blocker. Or more generally, you're not supposed to use the VPN APIs to implement something other than a VPN, although they seem to be ok with some limited exceptions such as Charles Proxy. If the VPN itself offers other features, that falls outside the purview of Apple's policies.

According to Malwarebytes (they got banned too), server-side or client-side does not matter: https://twitter.com/thomasareed/status/1021095129279541249

I mean, I'm just speculating here, but that tweet makes it sound like they asked if they could add a real VPN specifically for the purposes of ad-blocking rather than for the purposes of being a VPN. And that is obviously just an attempt at an end-run around Apple's policies.

I realize the line is fuzzy here between "using a VPN to do ad-blocking" and "adding an optional ad-blocking feature to a VPN", but they are different concepts. Verizon's VPN appears to be a real VPN that simply has an optional ad-blocking feature. Perhaps the optional nature of the ad-blocking is important? I don't know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com