Apple Argued Safari Is Three Different Browsers to Avoid Regulation

[BaldiMac]

There's nothing to recant. I still absolutely feel they are comparable in that both situations involve(d) antitrust laws/regulations tied to alleged dominant tech companies and alleged anticompetitive behavior. Both involve(d) due process which did or can potentially include negotiations, settlements, injunctions, lawsuits, appeals, etc. Again, both companies had or have a choice to comply, fight (which Apple is attempting to do now with arguments like "Safari is three browsers") or leave the market.

If you can't recognize all of the similarities, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

You can't have it both ways. The DMA can't be both the settlement and the original law being violated in the analogy.

The Microsoft settlement come after they went to court and were found to have violated the law.

The DMA was enacted without Apple going to court and found to have violated the law.

 

[BaldiMac]

Fair enough, although I'd personally argue the point is the other way around: the DMA is justified because Apple (and, for the record, many others) were engaging in anti-competitive behaviour that wasn't properly addressed by existing antitrust legislation. If it had been the DMA would be superfluous.

That's a reasonable argument. Though we disagree on whether the practices being targeted are anti-competitive.

Just because there may be parts of the DMA that Apple is particularly affected by doesn't mean Apple was specifically targeted or that Apple's due process rights have somehow been violated. What would those be in this scenario anyway?

I'd say by definition, it parts of the regulation only apply to Apple's practices, Apple is being targeted. The idea that the DMA isn't targeted to specific companies is silly.

But I don't know why a legislator would be prohibited from addressing undesirable outcomes if they are only caused by a single company (and one with significant market reach and power at that).

As I said, because it bypassed due process. Antitrust and anticompetition laws exist in the EU. If Apple's practices violated them, they should have been taken to court. It Apple's practices are "undesirable" to the EU then they should be made illegal for everyone, not just companies specifically targeted by the DMA.

There's no denying that the driving idea behind the DMA is to give competitors, and preferably European ones, a fighting chance against big American tech,

In what way were they given a "fighting chance"? The DMA makes it less likely that EU companies will provide real competition to Apple and Google, because there would be no benefit to the investment.

That said, I'm all for provisions that ensure that the platform provider does not prefer its own apps and services over the competition in areas that it provides open access. For example, Apple Music should not be preferred over Spotify.

although I disagree that it's about "providing services for free." In what sense would this be true?

In the sense that Apple isn't compensated for the value provided to businesses that use it's platform.

Whether it will have the desired effect remains to be seen, but in the absence of the very unlikely rise of yet another mobile platform,

Why is it unlikely? The EU could have easily incentivized a mobile platform that meets their ideals. An android fork with EU approved services on top would provide actual competition. And actually address the real anticompetitive actor in the mobile market - Google.

Unfortunately, the EU decided to go with a regulation will likely increase Google's control of multiple markets where it already dominates.

the only way to incentivise competition is by levelling the playing field.

Where, specifically, is the playing field being leveled by the DMA?

Again, Apple can challenge all of this using the established regulatory and judicial proceedings.

Sure, but I'm not referring to challenging the DMA. I'm referring to challenging the extra-judicial decision that Apple was being anticompetitive that justified the DMA. They can't challenge that because the EU doesn't need to justify that.

 

[d686546s]

I'd say by definition, it parts of the regulation only apply to Apple's practices, Apple is being targeted. The idea that the DMA isn't targeted to specific companies is silly.

The DMA doesn't "only apply to Apple's practices." It applies to all relevant gatekeepers, including Google. The difference is that only Apple is currently not compliant with the parts you've identified above, but that's not the same as Apple targeted. It's a fine line, for sure, but I'd still stay it's a meaningful difference.

Beyond that, yes of course the DMA is targeted at specific companies. It even codifies in law the criteria for these companies.

As I said, because it bypassed due process. Antitrust and anticompetition laws exist in the EU. If Apple's practices violated them, they should have been taken to court. It Apple's practices are "undesirable" to the EU then they should be made illegal for everyone, not just companies specifically targeted by the DMA.

Again, what specific due process rights do you think the legislator has violated by passing legislation?

Governments aren't required to exhaust existing legislation before passing new laws that cover gaps in that very legislation.

It is also quite common for regulations to apply differently to companies depending on size or other factors, so I'm not entirely clear why they should have followed an all or nothing approach.

Isn't it entirely sensible to limit regulation to where it is necessary depending on eg the harm that can be caused?

Why is it unlikely? The EU could have easily incentivized a mobile platform that meets their ideals. An android fork with EU approved services on top would provide actual competition. And actually address the real anticompetitive actor in the mobile market - Google.

It is the government's role to regulate the market, there is no requirement to become an active market participant.

Are you seriously suggesting the EU should become a tech company competing on services, rather than do what governments do? Odd.

Sure, but I'm not referring to challenging the DMA. I'm referring to challenging the extra-judicial decision that Apple was being anticompetitive that justified the DMA. They can't challenge that because the EU doesn't need to justify that.

'Extra-judicial?!' I'm really not sure this word applies here. You are basically delegitimising the legislative process because you don't like the result.

We can disagree over the merits of the DMA, I think it's not a clear case and reasonable people can arrive at opposing views.

However, Apple or anyone else didn't have their due process violated. There's no extra-judicial boogeyman lurking in the shadows that is unaccountable.

Government has made a policy decision based on existing evidence. New legislation was drafted, consulted on, taken through the normal legislative process and voted on by elected representatives. Companies will need to comply.

Officials will make regulatory decisions that can be challenged and those with standing can challenge the legality of the legislation for courts to determine whether the legislator has overstepped its constitutional boundaries.

That's how it works.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I have no idea what a single thing in this post has to do with what I said. It's like you read a few keywords and then go all stream of consciousness.

How do you not?

I quite literally spelled everything out for you.

Where Apple is in the legal process,(step.1 negotiating with the regulator)

The fact Apple convinced EU commission that iPadOS is separate and that iMessage perhaps doesn’t qualify.

I provided services that is impacted by competitors in the same way such as Google chrome and the play store.

I listed the objective criteria where harm is presumed to occur based on historical cases, and therefore implements new obligations.

This is an Ex-anti regulation

Overall the DMA has two main goals. The first one is to increase legal certainty for (business) users of digital gatekeepers and ensure that they receive fair treatment. The second (less prominent) goal is to limit the gatekeeper's ability to unfairly handicap potential rivals. The goal is more to ensure a level playing field so that emerging competitors do not get quashed and set up rules of conducts so that users (especially business users) of large digital platforms are treated fairly.

Importantly, there are no measures in the DMA meant to, or with the effect of, favouring potential European competitors.

This approach entails a shift from ex-post anti-trust intervention to ex ante regulation, and enshrines a set of ex-ante rules within EU law.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'd say by definition, it parts of the regulation only apply to Apple's practices, Apple is being targeted. The idea that the DMA isn't targeted to specific companies is silly.

As I said, because it bypassed due process. Antitrust and anticompetition laws exist in the EU. If Apple's practices violated them, they should have been taken to court. It Apple's practices are "undesirable" to the EU then they should be made illegal for everyone, not just companies specifically targeted by the DMA.


In what way were they given a "fighting chance"? The DMA makes it less likely that EU companies will provide real competition to Apple and Google, because there would be no benefit to the investment.

Again why do you think that’s the goal? Where do you get the notion it’s to give EU companies a chance to compete with Apple/google? It provides way to compete fairly with specific services they provide. Such as web access and application distribution for business users?

Eu companies have the exact same chance to compete against the AppStore/ browser as any other American or non western company.

In the sense that Apple isn't compensated for the value provided to businesses that use its platform.

Apple is still compensated fully, but with the clause requiring it to be merit based and the removal of forced bundling so businesses can invest without being required to use a service to reach their consumer market.

Why is it unlikely? The EU could have easily incentivized a mobile platform that meets their ideals. An android fork with EU approved services on top would provide actual competition. And actually address the real anticompetitive actor in the mobile market - Google.

Unfortunately, the EU decided to go with a regulation will likely increase Google's control of multiple markets where it already dominates.

But how is that the government’s job to do the job of the market?

How is it a problem if Google dominates a market they acquired fairly as long as they don’t abuse it to maintain it?

Where, specifically, is the playing field being leveled by the DMA?

Competition between browser, software stores, more options for developers

• Preventing gatekeepers, i.e. dominant platforms that control access to customers, from engaging in unfair practices that restrict competition and harm consumers
• Allowing smaller businesses and new entrants to compete with gatekeepers on fair and equal terms, by prohibiting or limiting certain types of clauses in vertical agreements, such as exclusive distribution, resale price maintenance, or online sales restrictions
• The regulation aims to foster innovation and efficiency in the digital sector, by creating a fair and dynamic environment where:
  • the suppliers can compete on the merits of their goods or services
  • new entrants and existing competitors can challenge the market position of the dominant players
  • prevent Restrictions on the ability of customers to switch between or compare different goods or services, or to obtain information about them, by imposing technical or contractual barriers or by using design features or default settings that create consumer lock-in or loyalty effects.
  • Prevent restriction that can reduce the customer’s awareness and transparency of the available options and prices, and increase their switching costs and inertia.
  • Prevent practices that discourage/reduce the incentives the undertakers or other businesses from competing on price, quality, innovation And to compete on the actual merits of their goods or services.
  • Discourage activities that facilitate the strengthening of the existing market power or dominance.

Sure, but I'm not referring to challenging the DMA. I'm referring to challenging the extra-judicial decision that Apple was being anticompetitive that justified the DMA. They can't challenge that because the EU doesn't need to justify that.

Well EU had to justify it otherwise Apple wouldn’t have core platform services that Are classified as gatekeepers as they dictate the access to a large portion of the market

 

[webkit]

You can't have it both ways. The DMA can't be both the settlement and the original law being violated in the analogy.

The Microsoft settlement come after they went to court and were found to have violated the law.

The DMA was enacted without Apple going to court and found to have violated the law.

There's nothing "both ways" here. Agreements, negotiations, concessions, settlements, etc. can occur before going to court, can occur during a trial, can occur during an appeal process, etc. Apple has been notified of their potential violation of EU law which is why they are trying to argue their side with claims like "Safari is three different browsers." Apple isn't being forced to do anything yet. They are still in an investigation and negotiation phase right now which may lead to a settlement or agreement on one or more things. If it does, case closed (for those things). If it doesn’t, they then may end up going to trial.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

There's nothing "both ways" here. Agreements, negotiations, concessions, settlements, etc. can occur before going to court, can occur during a trial, can occur during an appeal process, etc. Apple has been notified of their potential violation of EU law which is why they are trying to argue their side with claims like "Safari is three different browsers." Apple isn't being forced to do anything yet. They are still in an investigation and negotiation phase right now which may lead to a settlement or agreement on one or more things. If it does, case closed (for those things). If it doesn’t, they then may end up going to trial.

I would bet Apple is toast at least for Safari considering they have admitted it in public marketing that they are the same.

Hard to appeal on factual or legal grounds when you have admitted and boasted about it

Only means iPadOS is hanging in the air currently

 

[TheToolGuide]

Edge isn’t a memory hog on windows compared to chrome. And I’m sorry to break it to you, but on iOS you are only using WebKit.

Edge on windows is not as good as a performer as Chrome on windows. Performance is important to me. I‘ve know that chrome on iOS is using WebKit. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s a dumb argument to allow chrome to be made natively on iOS. You get pretty much all the same services as chrome on the window’s or iOS and you can even set it as your browser to open in links. WebKit for iOS is more efficient like HTML5 was for media as opposed to Flash.

The same thing is true for Apple so that leaves us in quite the pickle.

I’m willing to bet that if Google were to be allowed to put their version of Chrome on iOS it would be harvesting way more data than Apple. I get that people either don’t believe Apple or trust Apple on their data/privacy stance but I can guarantee you Google don’t give a f**k. I will concede Apple is not innocent in wanting Safari/WebKit to be present in the iOS, but its not for malicious or data/privacy information needs. I‘d be willing to bet it has a lot more to do with wanting it to be reliable and fast.

 

[TheToolGuide]

Well, it's not mainly Google's or other Browser's fault.

Apple is also a memory/battery hog, but Apple tries to freeze(a.k.a. App Nap) and over-optimize all in favor of their battery runtime. In a few cases it's good, in others it isn't, it's more often a trade off.

I would prefer to give a bit of iDevice battery runtime to be able to run application services of my choice in the background, but Apple does not allow this. That's why you can't use IRC Apps on iOS without having a bouncer, otherwise you would flood the Channels with join and disconnect messages due to Apple's Application freezes, and probably get banned.

On macOS,Windows,Android you have the freedom to run anything you like, or any service you like in the background, this of course costs battery. Apple also tries to freeze these Apps, but they don't always succeed.
See this as a car's stop-start technology, i hate that kind of things, it often adds more harm than benefits.

That's also one of the reasons why Apple keeps releasing updates and aggressively tries to fix battery drain over and over in vain, because they are constantly over-optimizing on the edge of what's doable in term of battery.

They are constantly fighting with their own features and often have to castrate and over-optimize their own software for the sake of battery runtime promises, small abnormalities shakes their whole system:

watchOS Update Coming Soon With Fix for Apple Watch Battery Drain

Apple is preparing a fix for an issue causing some Apple Watches to experience excessive battery drain after being updated to watchOS 10.1, the...

www.macrumors.com

It's also one of the reasons why you often stumble over forum topics about safari annoyingly auto closing tabs, safari not snappy, iOS annoyingly killing apps and games, etc. in conjunction with low RAM and battery runtime.

In this case I wouldn't blame Chrome, simply because Apple has the tendency to over-optimize their Apps, and because Google might have a different view of what's important and what kind of trade off they accept in term of battery consumption.

I’m not disagreeing with you but it is their OS. People also have options around this, Android and Jailbreaking, with the latter still an option even if Apple does try to close those openings. Apple is bar far a popular phone manufacturer but they are certainly on a monopoly on smart phones.

They value some aspects of their OS like battery and performance for obvious reasons. This is like someone going into Ford and saying we want you to run your factory this way because other car companies do it this way and we like what they do. We don’t care that you do it because you want your car to run a specific way, we want what we want.

The reason it doesn’t work that way is because consumers can just guy any car they want with their money and the market will adjust to them if it is smart and the company wants to put resources into it to change. Apple may see the value in it but they value other things instead. This is definitely an issue where a small majority are the loudest about wanting something but not willing to just go and buy an Android because they also like the other benefits Apple phones have but aren’t willing to accept that it has those benefits because Apple worked hard to “over-optimize” what it wants for its products.

While there certainly things I’d like Apple to add, change, or do I recognize that it is not my only option and I can use other phones and services. With a device that has such a small battery, unlike a laptop which also spends a lot of time plugged in to an outlet where phones don’t, any company needs to be way more cognizant of how that battery is used. Apple‘s approach is way more aggressive to Androids and you could always just jailbreak it if you wanted that control.

 

[TheToolGuide]

Other browser engines are banned from the app store. Yes, "Chrome", "Firefox" and other browsers are on the app store, but they don't use the engine that they use on macOS, Windows, Linux, and Android. They instead use WebKit, Safari's engine, because Apple requires them to do so.

I’m okay with this WebKit is designed to be efficient on iOS much like HTML5 was a better choice than Flash. Chrome has been and is proven to be a resource hog on all the systems it runs on natively. Chrome and Firefox with the WebKit base so far have always had all the functions they offer with their counterparts of other OSs.

As some examples, on every platform except iOS, users can grant access to the browser to access USB devices, use wireless game controllers, the accelerometer, check your battery status, or vibrate the device.

Safari on iOS has these same limitations. This isn’t about wanting to have Chrome, Firefox, or other browsers it’s about wanting more features. I actually agree with wanting WebKit to do more. I just don’t agree with saying an external company such as Google would enable these types of features without compromising system performance and stability not to mention the security risks this could introduce. While I agree those would be great features to have, none of them are all that required nor necessary as you can either do these functions through custom build Apps or other alternatives work.

You can already hook up several 3rd party controllers to iOS and use them. I’ve played my PS4 & PS5 remotely with Sony’s app. It required Sony to jump through Apple‘s hoops and guess what it works pretty well without harvesting all the data off of my phone and being fairly power efficient. I also almost never use it. Because people will cry for what they want but rarely use it. A few will a lot but the majority will barely use it at all.

Apple is slow to add these features but they are doing it on a timescale and resource management scale they are comfortable with. If you don’t like it get an Android or Jailbreak your iPhone. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on smart phones, that would be bad, they just control their iOS, which I personally think they have a right to.

Websites that use these features simply don't work on iOS, because Apple hasn't added these features to WebKit. Installing other browsers won't fix the websites, because those browsers are skin deep - they're just a different wrapper around the same WebKit engine.

Already commented on this.

Apple has no real incentive to improve the engine, as it has no competition (because they forbid competition.) In fact, they have an enormous incentive to not improve the engine - if they permit websites to use these features, it reduces the need for native apps, which reduces the need for the app store, which means Apple can't shamelessly rob devs blind.

That’s one way of looking at it. Or it could be said that Apple also hamstrings themselves by not having those options and would otherwise need to make an App to get those functions on the device. Theirs a performance benefit when they separate operations and functions out of a single App. Instead of loading one really large app that does to many things and not always all at once you can have a more focused experience when you parse it out. I can absolutely see how this has drawbacks and Apple has gone at their own pace to make cross app functionality a thing but not to everyone’s liking but it is THEIR os and they want to operate at specific performance level.

Apple also has plenty of incentive to improve WebKit when it comes to performance and stability on the web, which they do quite well. They also have room to grow to ad features to it so that all browsers can take advantage of them.

That being said I welcome new features to WebKit and iOS as a while. I personally have had issues with iOS on other things that I would prefer to be there. I don’t think any of it was because Apple didn’t want implement them. I just chalk it up to they have other things on their plate they want to address any at the same time they have to abide by their own performance and reliability standards before they can implement them as well.

 

[webkit]

I would bet Apple is toast at least for Safari considering they have admitted it in public marketing that they are the same.

Hard to appeal on factual or legal grounds when you have admitted and boasted about it

Only means iPadOS is hanging in the air currently

While Apple has used "Same Safari. Different device." and related copy in marketing, they may be able to distinguish their "Safari is three different browsers" argument from that marketing in follow-up arguments. They likely have other arguments they'll also want to try during this investigation and negotiation process. Time will tell how it all plays out.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Edge on windows is not as good as a performer as Chrome on windows. Performance is important to me. I‘ve know that chrome on iOS is using WebKit. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s a dumb argument to allow chrome to be made natively on iOS. You get pretty much all the same services as chrome on the window’s or iOS and you can even set it as your browser to open in links. WebKit for iOS is more efficient like HTML5 was for media as opposed to Flash.

Well you say that
But Avast tested many browsers and found Edge to run faster than Chrome
And Tom’s Guide found Chrome used more RAM, Chrome used 3.7 GB, while Edge only used 2.9 GB.

in what way is chrome/ safari on iOS equal to chrome on windows/mac? They don’t even support and use the same standards.

Can I use... Support tables for HTML5, CSS3, etc

caniuse.com

What about Firefox? Or alternatives to blink?

I’m willing to bet that if Google were to be allowed to put their version of Chrome on iOS it would be harvesting way more data than Apple.

Why tho? The same limitations are still part of the OS sandbox unless you jailbreak it.

I get that people either don’t believe Apple or trust Apple on their data/privacy stance but I can guarantee you Google don’t give a f**k. I will concede Apple is not innocent in wanting Safari/WebKit to be present in the iOS, but its not for malicious or data/privacy information needs. I‘d be willing to bet it has a lot more to do with wanting it to be reliable and fast.

Well WebKit will still exist and be present in iOS and you can continue to use it, or even use a different WebKit fork, or Firefox gecko etc etc.

Safari on iOS have atrocious adblocking and popup blocking. Especially

 

[Sophisticatednut]

While Apple has used "Same Safari. Different device." and related copy in marketing, they may be able to distinguish their "Safari is three different browsers" argument from that marketing in follow-up arguments. They likely have other arguments they'll also want to try during this investigation and negotiation process. Time will tell how it all plays out.

Well as far as I know they won’t be able to as it’s not a retrial. And the investigation over Safari is already finished.

In quest to defeat Euro red-tape, Apple said it had three Safari browsers – not one

And with a straight face, too. Brussels didn't buy it

www.theregister.com

If they appeal they can’t present new evidence and they have two options.

Reexamine the evidence presented or cassation, as in quashing a judicial decision on a point of law, including procedural law.
The appellant will have to attach to its appeal a request outlining why the appeal should be admitted.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Edge on windows is not as good as a performer as Chrome on windows. Performance is important to me. I‘ve know that chrome on iOS is using WebKit. It’s one of the reasons I think it’s a dumb argument to allow chrome to be made natively on iOS. You get pretty much all the same services as chrome on the window’s or iOS and you can even set it as your browser to open in links. WebKit for iOS is more efficient like HTML5 was for media as opposed to Flash.


I’m willing to bet that if Google were to be allowed to put their version of Chrome on iOS it would be harvesting way more data than Apple. I get that people either don’t believe Apple or trust Apple on their data/privacy stance but I can guarantee you Google don’t give a f**k. I will concede Apple is not innocent in wanting Safari/WebKit to be present in the iOS, but its not for malicious or data/privacy information needs. I‘d be willing to bet it has a lot more to do with wanting it to be reliable and fast.

considering Safari takes more time to be patched, Apple admitting to why they fell back… that makes it kind of bad to only have WebKit. Preventing competition doesn’t improve it or encourage innovation.

 

[Kal Madda]

considering Safari takes more time to be patched, Apple admitting to why they fell back… that makes it kind of bad to only have WebKit. Preventing competition doesn’t improve it or encourage innovation.
View attachment 2309540 View attachment 2309541 View attachment 2309542

Footnote for alleged email at top?

Also, if said alleged email is legit, it’s from 2013, that was a decade ago, hence pretty much completely meaningless in regards to current state of things or current events. Safari has clearly innovated quite a bit in that time.

 

[TheToolGuide]

considering Safari takes more time to be patched, Apple admitting to why they fell back… that makes it kind of bad to only have WebKit. Preventing competition doesn’t improve it or encourage innovation.
View attachment 2309540

Did you just quote an article from 2013. While certainly quoted from Apple it even goes against arguments that Apple doesn’t recognize where they need to innovate. While I do support folks having options I don’t think it needs to come at the cost of letting third party browsers run any code they want. Google, and others, have a lot of good features that they can code into WebKit. WebKit has gotten many patches over the years, and it is open source so if bugs are slow to come it isn’t just Apple‘s fault. Without conspiracy mongering if google wanted to sandbag a development kit in favor of their own because their’s provides them with more opportunity to harvest data they would only have to stop using WebKit and contributing to it. Google is definitely motivated to promote their code.

View attachment 2309541

This graph is so confusing. What platforms is this on, mobile or desktop? I see there are longer waits for bug fixes for safari out past 60 days which isn’t good but it doesn’t go into the severity of the bugs or really any detail at all. Not great that these bugs took that long but it is a very narrow view for sure.

View attachment 2309542

Funny for sure and I get the joke, but also inaccurate. As Firefox, Edge, Chrome, and Safari on iPhone all run on WebKit. WebKit is open source, trade marked by Apple, and has many contributors including google who also developed aspects of WebCore for their on Chrome browser. However I’m just highlights stuff you can read in the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia. Simple search didn’t take very long.

 

[Kal Madda]

Did you just quote an article from 2013. While certainly quoted from Apple it even goes against arguments that Apple doesn’t recognize where they need to innovate. While I do support folks having options I don’t think it needs to come at the cost of letting third party browsers run any code they want. Google, and others, have a lot of good features that they can code into WebKit. WebKit has gotten many patches over the years, and it is open source so if bugs are slow to come it isn’t just Apple‘s fault. Without conspiracy mongering if google wanted to sandbag a development kit in favor of their own because their’s provides them with more opportunity to harvest data they would only have to stop using WebKit and contributing to it. Google is definitely motivated to promote their code.


This graph is so confusing. What platforms is this on, mobile or desktop? I see there are longer waits for bug fixes for safari out past 60 days which isn’t good but it doesn’t go into the severity of the bugs or really any detail at all. Not great that these bugs took that long but it is a very narrow view for sure.

Funny for sure and I get the joke, but also inaccurate. As Firefox, Edge, Chrome, and Safari on iPhone all run on WebKit. WebKit is open source, trade marked by Apple, and has many contributors including google who also developed aspects of WebCore for their on Chrome browser. However I’m just highlights stuff you can read in the first few paragraphs on Wikipedia. Simple search didn’t take very long.

All good points. 👍🏻.