The main difference from what I understand is that with Apple’s system, if you did not have a token, you could still access the content. This is the opposite of what Google proposes which is to only serve the content to devices with the token, hence the backlash. It’s play along or no internet for you.
Google’s proposal also has sites serve content to clients without the attestation, or at least so they claim in the repo (thus the proposal to make the check deliberately fail sometimes, so websites won’t rely on it. Of course, there is no guarantee it will stay that way, Google could change that policy whenever they want.
The main difference is really in Google’s dominance on the web. Sites can’t start requiring Safari, but they can start requiring Chrome or Safari.
The main difference from what I understand is that with Apple’s system, if you did not have a token, you could still access the content. This is the opposite of what Google proposes which is to only serve the content to devices with the token, hence the backlash. It’s play along or no internet for you.
Google’s proposal also has sites serve content to clients without the attestation, or at least so they claim in the repo (thus the proposal to make the check deliberately fail sometimes, so websites won’t rely on it. Of course, there is no guarantee it will stay that way, Google could change that policy whenever they want.
The main difference is really in Google’s dominance on the web. Sites can’t start requiring Safari, but they can start requiring Chrome or Safari.
Once such a token exists, escalation to requiring it is inevitable. Therefore, Apple is no less nefarious then Google here.