Marketing money = wasted money.
Yeah, you did skip it, and only acknowledged when I corrected you. And still you conveniently ignored the fact MS actually won.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Argued Safari Is Three Different Browsers to Avoid Regulation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
App store apps have a developer name and other metrics on them, unlike malicious websites.
Yeah imagine people not giving permissions without any reason, whole scam industry couldn't exist.
Firefox doesn't adhere to some standards too and sometimes behaves differently from Chrome. So in the end you will anyway be developing for Chrome.
Once again, I didn't skip anything. I assumed it was obvious that a reason behind the DOJ case was Microsoft's dominance in the desktop OS market.
Microsoft had to modify its business practices to comply to the laws. I wouldn't exactly call that winning. That would be like saying if Apple allows alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. they "won." If that's how you feel then Apple can "win" here quite easily by simply following the EU laws.
No. MS struck a laughable deal. So laughable they extended it for two years deliberately. And they didn't adhere to any law in the end, they weren't split and IE never was taken out of Windows distribution.
It's a secure API, meaning that it has to come from a server with a valid HTTPS connection and certificate.
Which isn't a perfect system, and neither is Apple's vetting process (which has allowed thousands of scams into the store over the years.)
And I'm not arguing that it's perfect. I'm arguing in favor of choice. I don't want "one browser" as you keep suggesting I do. I'm actually arguing for the opposite of that. Right now there's just one browser on iOS. Presumably, it sucks since very few people use it on macOS - a platform where they're forced to use it.
Safari didn't always suck. There's a reason Google chose to fork it for Chrome. Apple used to care. Then they gave themselves a monopoly, and they stopped caring. Take the monopoly away, and it might return Apple to caring and actually make Safari competitive with the other browsers.
Apple got you covered, your accepted WebKit code contributions will magically appear in next Safari.
"Guys, you're never gonna believe this....He is his own father, his own son, and some like ghost glue we'll call the Holy Spirit..... but they're just one dude. Three people, one person....it's totally logical....we will explain that it is called CONSUBSTANTIATION and that's how is 3 different web browsers but it has one name...."
Except for plugins, which is a big reason why a lot of people don't like using Safari.
Plugins are mostly a thing of the past, but extension development for Safari is unnecessarily difficult and expensive compared to other browsers. It didn't used to be (on MacOS) but as usual the greed won out at Apple.
That being said, a third-party browser should be able to support extensions even if it's just a wrapper for Webkit. Extensions don't require low-level access like plugins did (good riddance to the days of Flash vulnerabilities). I haven't looked at the state of extensions in Firefox or Chrome for iOS so I can't speak to it much beyond that.
Last edited:
It's not quite as straight forward as you suggest. Here's a bug that was fixed in WebKit in April. People complained that the bug wasn't actually fixed, because it's still present on iOS. The ticket was closed with this comment two months ago:
Source: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=254545
Just because people contribute and fix bugs in the public version of WebKit doesn't mean that Apple actually ships the fixes in Safari/iOS (which prompts the questions - is it actually open source? Is it actually fixed, since few, if any, actually run a copy of the WebKit binary other than the one that Apple includes with macOS/iOS - indeed, you can't include a different, fixed WebKit binary within your iOS app, as Apple would say it's a different engine, even though it's just a fixed binary that presumably Apple will ship someday.)
Are you from Apple's Safari team? Because dealing with you seems an awful lot like dealing with them. You/they try keep talking down to actual web developers acting like we're idiots, when we clearly know exactly what we're talking about and the person trying to defend this nonsense is the clueless one.
Last edited:
No they are not. Plugins are not downloadable on Chrome or Firefox on iOS. If you go to their plugins store it'll give a disclaimer telling you to use the desktop version.
They're only available on the Android version of Chrome and Firefox because Android doesn't limit web engines like iOS does, and doesn't force plugins to go through app review.
That leaves Apple still legally liable as long as the service they provide is still provided to EU citizens. As long as an EU version of the AppStore exists they are legally liable.
In EU the monopoly is irrelevant because it’s not a crime to have a monopoly.
Microsoft had its trial and lost in EU because we have different legal definitions and laws targeting different effects as a monopoly isn’t illegal. And was forced to provide a browser choice.
Do you have a single shred of evidence for that? Especially when Google has even more legal obligations with android, playstore, Google services and chrome?
Then don’t use chrome. As they recommend in the article, you can use opera or Vivaldi
This isn’t a good defense to enforce a single way to render web content. Apple left the windows pc market years ago. It’s not the competitions fault that they provide a seamless user experience across windows, Mac, Linux and android. It’s not EUs problem that Apple needs to use artificial life support to maintain their user base instead of making it more desirable or available on more platforms.
This isn’t a political push against Apple.
How about Apple made safari available on windows, android and made it actually competitive?
Indeed they should, but they don’t as it’s not possible to use plugins written for the gecko or blink engine (chrome/firefox) in a WebKit based browser as they are completely incompatible. Just how you can’t run iMovie or Final Cut Pro on windows or use adobe plugins in iMovie.
Why would they be incompatible? If you're writing an adblocker for example, what you're doing is creating a blacklist and/or injecting a script. These should be engine-agnostic operations, as long as the wrapper makes the appropriate API calls. Adobe plugins in iMovie is like Chrome extensions in Firefox – this isn't necessarily possible even on desktop (it definitely didn't used to be before Mozilla changed Firefox's extension API to be more like Chrome's). But we're not talking about different wrappers, instead different API calls underneath.
Or maybe that's the part they won't bother with unless they can advertise 100% compatibility with every type of extension imaginable.
Last edited:
If it was such a "laughable deal" then Apple should make a similarly laughable deal with the EU by lifting restrictions on alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. just as Microsoft had to modify several anticompetitive practices they were engaging in. How things continue to be evaluated or enforced long term can change with changing market conditions.
EU according to @webkit: "We'll just skip the courts and due process and settlement negotiations, and go straight for the punishment!"
That's not the freedom I'm looking for.
Sure that’s how it should work ideally but they don’t share the same APIs and standards making some thing incompatible.
Just how safari WebKit doesn’t use JIT JavaScript, while the others do.
Safari can’t use Firefox/ chrome plugins. And Firefox/ chrome is just a modified version of iOS safari browser. They can’t make them compatible even if they wanted. Unless they make a completely new plugin.
That’s so hilariously wrong that you don’t know what the issue actually is.
Apple hasn’t been punished, sued or targeted. A new law camomes in to effect in 5 months, Apple filed a complaint alleging they didn’t fulfill the requirements needed to be covered by the new regulation.
Apple claimed the didn’t have enough safari users to be considered a core gatekeeper service.
As usual, you can't be bothered to follow the conversation that you interject yourself into. Which is pretty low bar considering it consisted of two short posts.
And the idea that Apple wasn't targeted by the DMA is actually hilarious.
March 2010 following a decision in EUCJ Court of First Instance. Microsoft had to allow users that had not made, or were unaware of, a choice to try other browsers, and thus comply with the European Commission's ruling.
The user can scroll across the page to reveal some more possible browsers in another random order.
Microsoft's obligation to display the Browser Choice screen to Windows users expired in December 2014
I’m following the conversation, you just arguing aagainst a point that doesn’t make sense or exist because you don’t understand how the legal process works.
Apple argued they wouldn’t be required to follow the new law, and EU said no they have to as they meet the criteria. If Apple don’t agree they will need to go to court and have a judge make a ruling.
You claiming Apple is targeted by the DMA doesn’t make it true. The DMA is targeting a specific behavior
Last edited:
No, you're not. Your reply had nothing to do with my post. The poster I replied to compared the DMA to Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the DOJ. I pointed out that the big difference between the two is that the EU skipped the courts and decided to force a non-negotiated "settlement."
Yes. And coincidentally, some of those "specific behaviors" being targeted are only used by Apple. If you craft a law with provisions that require exactly one company to change their practice, that is certainly targeting.
No one is taking away Apple's freedom to try to make their case such as the "Safari is three different browsers" argument. These sorts of arguments/discussions/negotiations can be common during a litigation process. Whether or not I agree with their argument(s) can be a different matter but I would be quite fine with this going to court if that is the path it ends up taking but we're not there (at least not yet). Apple can choose to comply with the law, fight it (in and/or out of court) or stop doing business in the EU.