Thank you everyone for your overwhelming support! Your signature serves as proof to Nintendo that there's a real financial incentive for them to open up the built-in browser further! Here's an in-depth update on the state of things!
Nintendo Added a Timeout! Yikes!
As frequent users of the DNS browser trick are undoubtedly aware, the browser now dismisses itself after a set amount of time and forces itself to be closed. Nintendo added this via a mandatory system update in what can only be described as a terrible anti-feature to the browser! Why spend development time making the browser specifically harder to use and access, instead of spending that time working on making it more accessible? This isn't how other devices in 2021 work. This isn't how devices in 2011 or 2001 worked either! Unrestricted access to the Internet used to be seen as a selling point that allowed for a device to have access to a whole slew of additional functionality.
The addition of this timeout serves only to discourage the tens of thousands of users who are actively using the browser on a regular basis. We have the actual data to back up this usage claim! And I will do another update on these stats in the near future. We've now been running the our DNS redirection service for four years now, as we starting providing it about a week after the Switch was released. This timeout is an active product decision on Nintendo's part to try to reduce usage of this browser.
User Choice and Device Limitations
Nintendo's decision to continue to make the browser harder to use and continue to limit the user's functionality in the current year is not a new or groundbreaking thing. It is part of the ongoing battle for control between users and the device manufacturers. Look at the Right to Repair movement, or the free software movement for other glimpses into this same battle. That Nintendo is in a position to push an overnight update, specifically to handicap a use-case that they know exists, is them exercising their complete control over what content is running on the device.
This comes from a mix of somewhat defendable reasons to more unreasonable ones: If you can't use the browser to access other websites and HTML games, it provides more of a reason for you to continue using Nintendo's own eShop service. If you only use their eShop, Nintendo would argue that your device is more secure as you're now only able to access their approved content. This isn't false, but it also just-so-happens that Nintendo has a massive economic reason to force users to download apps via their eShop. Take for instance an app like YouTube, or even potentially Netflix/Hulu. Nintendo is in the advantageous position to make deals with those companies to force them to launch apps only via the eShop, and pay any and all associated fees that Nintendo deems applicable. Epic Games is fighting a not-too-dissimilar battle with Apple.
A Troubling Precedent
The phone analogy breaks down, however, as at least on the iPhone you can still access the browser on the device and the usage of the App Store is not required for all financial transactions, a defense which Apple was quick to use to justify their restrictions to Spotify. The troubling precedent being set in the Switch's case is not even about the eShop or its situation, but rather just making more available the browser that's already present! This is not the same as what Spotify/Epic Games are asking for, it's a much smaller ask! If a phone or computer had similar limitations on their browser it just wouldn't be acceptable.
Sony's Playstation 5 is now following in Nintendo's footsteps. It is another console that ships with an hidden browser that the user is not intended to access. Just like Nintendo, there are easy workarounds that can be used, and the browser is very functional... just artificially limited and tucked away. It's the same set of concerns, and Sony looked over at their competition, saw what Nintendo could get away with, and followed suit. The PSP, PS3, Vita, and PS4 had amazing browser experiences. But that doesn't matter anymore!
Do Consoles in 2021 Need a Browser?
Limiting the browser and the user like this is something Nintendo and Sony feel they can get away with in our era of Smartphones and Smart TVs. While yes the need for another browser is less pressing, as mentioned earlier, we have the data that shows some people are in a position where their Switch browser is their primary Internet device! Everyone's personal Internet-access situation is different and intentionally hiding away functionality is a complete non-solution that only hinders Internet access from those who may actually need it.
My own thoughts on this matter could and should make their way into a separate post in the future. There are more than enough use cases for access to the browser to be justified on consoles. I find it strange that I even have to make a case or argument for reasons that accessing the Internet on the Switch is a useful and good thing! There's strategy guides, social networks, conversations with friends, educational learning, access to knowledge, reading ebooks, viewing media (subscription services like Netflix or otherwise), maps / directions, and of course access to public transport or emergency services.
I've also heard the argument-against-the-browser that it's about not allowing children unrestricted access to the Internet because of some objectionable content that may be found there. This is a great point! And it's another reason Nintendo should make the browser more official, as they could update and extend their parental controls feature to restrict mature website access. Ultimately this argument boils down an argument against T-rated or M-rated games on the eShop, which is exactly why parental controls exist in the first place.
Since Nintendo already provides an Internet browser that does not have these restrictions, this argument is also a little backwards: In the current world, they're providing unfiltered but hidden access to any website, the access should instead be filterable but not-hidden!
Re: Security Concerns
The number one feedback I've received regarding this petition from knowledgeable and well-informed developers in the Homebrew scene is that Nintendo (and now Sony too!) restricting access to their browsers is a purely security decision, and so there's no real point to a petition like this. I don't disagree that there are elements of truth to it being a security decision. I would disagree however on that being the primary reason the browsers are not easily accessible. Making intentionally inconvenient changes like adding a timeout to how long the browser can stay open has no impact on the security of the device. If there's a "Switch virus" going around the either enables Homebrew or is malicious to users, no amount of a timeout here is going to help! The presence of the browser alone, hidden or not, is already the vulnerable piece of this chain.
This is not even a hypothetical point I'm making: PegaSwitch is a browser exploit for the Switch on earlier firmware versions. This entry point made the Switch vulnerable and enabled Homebrew / unauthorized content to run on the device. This was possible because Nintendo included an Internet browser on the device. Whether it's accessible via an app or via network tricks makes no difference. The browser was present and vulnerable.
The way I see it, making the browser more fully featured and accessible would also include actively maintaining, addressing and patching bugs like this. If Nintendo does not have the resources or incentive to do that, then from a security standpoint they really shouldn't be providing a built-in browser in the first place. They clearly have weighed the potential attack vectors against the utility of allowing themselves to use web technologies (to provide news updates, access public hotspots, share to social media, browse the HTML eShop) and made a product decision. Even if I'm personally wrong on the primary reason for why the browser is hidden (which is informed by my experience in the software development field), none of that affects the arguments made in this petition for why it shouldn't continue to be hidden any longer.
The Old World
As usual when writing an update post like this, I never intend it to go for this long. But I'm going to end with an anecdote about my own personal usage of browsers on Nintendo consoles, which is likely why I even bother working to provide DNS servers that facilitate browser access or writing a bunch of text on this matter in the first place. Both the Nintendo Wii and DS's browsers were considered such great and novel inventions that they were actually sold as features, and their abilities bragged about by Nintendo's own PR.
Check out this old support page on the Wii browser! It boasts about basic things like supporting cookies, a feature which would be extremely appreciated on the Switch browser and would be used to remember which websites you're signed into without forcing you to re-sign in every time. What a complete change-of-attitude! Fast forward a decade and the Switch's browser now not only dismisses itself, but doesn't persist any login cookies, which forces the user through time-wasting hurdles as they need to sign-in again.
I had even purchased this officially licensed Logitech Wii keyboard specifically to help in browsing the Internet and writing up verbose posts and messages just like this one. This certainly and without a doubt contributed to my own verboseness / ability to write and communicate, as well as a curiosity for website development. That keyboard was a dream! It had special buttons designed to be used with the Wii browser for zooming in/out, and moving forwards/backwards (next to the space bar). The Switch already has USB keyboard support, and the hidden browser already supports it. I used to spend days using websites entirely on the Wii, often ones even made explicitly for the Wii browser (and not to mention sharing Wii-compatible sites on Nintendo's own official forums!)
A Financial Incentive
Just the act of making this already-existing browser more usable could encourage other people to do the same. And Nintendo can profit off it too! They could lean heavily into their supported capabilities and encourage web-app and web-game development like they did back in the late 2000s. It's the perfect setup for someone who wants to learn how to code or create websites to quickly make and share web apps for other people to easily use. This is another area where we can prove and show that there are up-and-coming developers who are already making Switch web apps for the limited hidden browser, but are not yet ready to make apps for the eShop. If the browser were less restricted this could absolutely be a selling point! Like Nintendo LABO or Mario Maker but less "here's our proprietary environment you can kind-of have a programming-like experience with" and more "here are real-world skills that translate into becoming an actual web developer". The Switch's unique ability to be docked / become mobile even serves as an introduction to making websites that are responsive and work in both mobile/desktop layouts.
Small additions like bookmarks and cookies, as well as an official way to access the browser, would go an extremely long way to allow communities and sites like this to exist. Anyway, that's enough from me! Please share this petition and continue to be vocal about any changes that you'd want to see Nintendo make. If you appreciate using the limited hidden browser, think about how much better it would be if it were made more official! With 9,000 signatures, there's obviously have a growing base of support, let's keep it going!
If you'd like to talk more about any of the points here, or want to contribute to helping maintain Switch-accessible web services, come on over to the ForTheUsers Discord!
- vgmoose