I would dare to argue that other browser might be safer Researchers devised an attack that can steal your Safari data
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
Existing companies and newer companies, even the ones that still have to be founded.
Investors as always, and not far behind private capital funding.
Why should they?
Build a compatibility layer to existing foundations, now a days it's all cross platform anyway.
Porting an App is not rocket science anymore.
With a compatibility layer in addition to native apps, no prob at all.
Common practice that even Apple had to do for their Intel -> Apple Silicon transition.
See webOS, FireOS, Windows, Linux they all can run Android Apps, even macOS can run Android Apps.
What you have seen? Tell us!
Last edited:
I do. And I don't know what you're talking about.
What constitutes “different”? Different name? Different code base? Different security protocol? How exactly do they think Apple is harming the consumer here? They provide a seamless experience on Safari between different devices with the same privacy features.
Forcing webkit on everyone? What about Android, Windows, and Linux users? Oh, you mean just Apple users who make up a significant minority of the web browsing universe. Gatekeeper my ass. Can’t Apple users choose to leave the platform for some other gatekeeper? Like Google?
Do people even realise, that these regulations are bought and paid for by Apples competition and have nothing to do with the consumer? 😡
Apple recently claimed that Safari is three different browsers in effort to avoid regulation in the European Union (via The Register).
The claim came as part of a response to the European Union in August, just before the European Commission designated many of Apple's iOS, App Store, and Safari as gatekeeper platforms. This classification means that Apple now has to ensure that these platforms fall in line with the Digital Markets Act's requirements, such as allowing browser engines other than WebKit and the installation of third-party app stores.
It has now emerged that after being informed that Safari was likely to fall under the DMA's regulations, Apple filed formal a response to the European Union claiming that Safari is, in fact, "three distinct web browsers." The company's claim is based on the argument that Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are entirely different and serve different purposes.
On example cited by Apple is Safari's sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history. Since this feature is unavailable in the version of Safari for iOS, Apple claimed that it is a distinctly different browser. The company added that each version of Safari serves different purposes for users depending on the device upon which it is accessed.
The European Commission went on to point out that Safari's functionality and underlying technologies are near-identical across platforms. The Commission even highlights Apple's own marketing materials for its Continuity feature, which appear to contradict the company's claims, touting the tag line "Same Safari. Different device." As a result, the Commission rejected Apple's claim and insists that "Safari qualifies as a single web browser, irrespective of the device through which that service is accessed."
Apple is now obliged to ensure that Safari adheres to the DMA's requirements, such as by allowing non-WebKit-based browsers on iOS and iPadOS. Companies that do not adhere to the new regulations risk facing EU investigations, substantial fines, and the imposition of "behavioral or structural remedies." The fines can amount to 10 percent of a company's global turnover, with a 20 percent penalty for repeat violations. Questions remain about whether Apple's argument about Safari being three different browsers violates the DMA's Anti-Circumvention provision that forbids subdividing a platform's market share to avoid regulation.
Article Link: Apple Argued Safari Is Three Different Browsers to Avoid Regulation
Ultimately a company should be able to decide what to allow or not allow on their own devises, not the corrupt eurocrats.
So EU basically wants Google Chrome to own the browser market. Stupid people.
The bottom line is that competition is good when Apple is winning and bad when Apple is losing it seems.
No one is stopping Apple from making a browser people actually want to use. Personally, I'd prefer a full version of Firefox with extensions over Safari.
Let Safari/WebKit win or fail on its own merit, rather than being strong armed by Apple.
They supposedly want to encourage competition. As it stands, WebKit on iOS is the only thing standing in the way of Chromium being pretty much the only option. Allowing Chromium on iOS just serves to allow it to become even more monopolistic than it already is. Even if more competition wasn’t their goal, in the end they’re just helping Google gain more power on the internet as a whole.
I thought MSFT switched Edge to the Chromium engine because web developers never made an effort to support their proprietary one, so web pages would render incorrectly or just perform worse?
It might not be the ideal outcome, but there is something nice about technology being standardized. (Just look at how Apple is leaning into the whole USB-C transition)
It would probably make it even more desirable, as long as they left the existing infrastructure in each country and it would definitely not affect us in the UK 😊
Norway would be the other hub for new devises
I had no idea there were all these "browsers-in-waiting" in the EU just waiting for...something...to happen instead of bringing it to market like normal business creators.
Nope, the EU's DMA also affects Google, the EU just want its citizens to use whatever they want.
I use Firefox, except on iOS because it's cut down due to Apple's anti-competitive restrictions.
Then all you have is another OS/2. That went really well…
OK. If that's the case, why aren't webOS, KaiOS, etc. successful? What prevents you from buying a phone that doesn't run Android or iOS? Because it sure ain't Apple. It's companies not wanting to target more than two platforms.
But that wouldn't be a case of standardization (which is already here, at the W3C, IETF, and others). It would cede control to one vendor. A vendor who has a specific vision of the Web, with less privacy.
Right now, we have a detente of sorts between three vendors, and we already have web sites saying you should be using Chrome. If Google gains even more power, things would become worse.
See how Apple forced you into their Apple bubble! 😜
Comparison of browser engines - Wikipedia
List of web browsers - Wikipedia
Not like the EU would apply this to itself.
I don't use Safari as my devices are Windows and Android.
Bring Safari and Mail to non-Apple platforms.
I use Chrome on Android and Firefox on Windows.
Why? Syncing my bookmarks.
Only my iPad has Safari. I tried syncing my Firefox bookmarks in Windows with iCloud, only to loose everything.
Thunderbird is a huge pain, as is Outlook Mail.
So bring Safari to Windows and Android. Bring Mail too, and put them both on ATV.
Bring Safari and Mail to non-Apple platforms.
I use Chrome on Android and Firefox on Windows.
Why? Syncing my bookmarks.
Only my iPad has Safari. I tried syncing my Firefox bookmarks in Windows with iCloud, only to loose everything.
Thunderbird is a huge pain, as is Outlook Mail.
So bring Safari to Windows and Android. Bring Mail too, and put them both on ATV.
If a user chooses to use a browser with different privacy features then so be it. I want other browsers on iOS devices, even though I genuinely like Safari. Why? My job involves web development and I need to test other rendering engines and would prefer not to need an Android device. Also, one of the main things holding my iPad Pro back from being useful to me professionally is the restriction on browser engines. If you do not want any browsers that do not use WebKit, then don't install any third party browsers if they come with their own rendering engine. It is pretty simple. I don't care about the alternate app stores or side loading not being allowed, but I do care about browser rendering engines.
Do you really consider chromium inferior to webkit? I don't use it much as Safari is so much better than most browsers, but Brave does a good job blocking ads so I use it for YouTube mostly. But Safari for everything else. I never knew chromium was considered inferior to webkit. Who knew...
Safari is the second-most used browser in the world. I'm not sure how that equates to "losing" or people not wanting to use it, since Apple has a small slice of the computer market--yet obviously lives rent-free in the EU's mind.
And yet we still have a few hundred computer manufacturers across the globe. Software and hardware are two different industries.
You are making a giant mistake of thinking the software must be distinct from the hardware. If Apple leaves, not only will iOS disappear but iPhones will also disappear. And multiple manufacturers can take their place offering their own flavour of android or a new Os etc. that’s for them to decide what they want to invest in.
No, Apple lawyers are the pedantic ones who think they can use legal arguments against technical experts to argue a difference without meaningful distinction.
Not EUs fault Apple doesn’t know how to make logically coherent argument’s.
Irrespective if Apple ls harming the consumer is kind of irrelevant as they are harming the market. Apple is the one who argued it’s different.