> This is really a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.
Why? Simply, when setting up the device/browser, let the user choose what safe browsing API the browser shall use (both, one of them, or none).
Letting the user make a conscious choice is the best way to handle "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. To make the choice as conscious as possible for the user, provide additional material that explains the advantages and disadvantages of each option for the user so that the user is well-informed before he/she makes his/her choice.
That’s entirely against the entirety of Apples modus operandi. It’s always make the user have as little choice as possible and assume that users are idiots. The only exception they made is to developer with cli abilities, and even that they have began to restrict
Microsoft didn’t make this assumption. Apple did. My entire extended family are now all Apple users. My tech support calls per year can now be counted on one hand.
In my extended family, the users are idiots, and thanks to Apple, I’m poorer financially but significantly richer in free time.
I didn't say it was a poor choice, rather, it's a great choice.
I'd rather be an idiot in the areas that I don't have an expertise in, I have no interest in plumbing and I would blindly follow the suggestion that the plumber who came to my house made. And I guess this strategy worked well for Apple.
Why? Simply, when setting up the device/browser, let the user choose what safe browsing API the browser shall use (both, one of them, or none).
Letting the user make a conscious choice is the best way to handle "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation. To make the choice as conscious as possible for the user, provide additional material that explains the advantages and disadvantages of each option for the user so that the user is well-informed before he/she makes his/her choice.