Riiiiight, so when you access a web site on Safari, somehow, magically, that site can't track you? Delusional.
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
Some people would certainly miss it emotionally (I would), but in the end you can do the same tasks adequately on Android and Windows (most people do), so the minority that currently uses Apple in the EU would adapt, and it would be mostly Apple losing out on a quarter of their revenue. It's like if your favorite brand of cars/clothing/cigarettes/whatever disappears, yes it's sad but life goes on.
You have to realize that Apple has a minority market share worldwide, so Apple is more dependent on their customers than the general consumer base is dependent on Apple for their computing needs. That’s why Apple would never withdraw from the EU over regulations they can easily meet.
Yeah, come on Apple, hurry up and make two versions of iOS… The safe FREE version that you normally release or the $199.99 version that allows side loading!
Do you even realize that these competitors are also designated gatekeepers and are also subject to the same rules?
European Union: Commission Designates Six ‘Gatekeepers’ under Digital Markets Act
On September 6, 2023, the European Commission published a press release to designate six companies — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft — as “gatekeepers” under Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 on Contestable and Fair Markets in the Digital Sector (Digital Markets Act, DMA)...
www.loc.gov
The EU wants Apple to compete. They can do that by ..cough ...cough, making a better browser rather than stifling competition using stupid rules and enforcing them due to their monopoly.
Probably no new engines will emerge, this market is settled, but it will at least force Apple to sweat a bit more on Safari features and performance when Chromium will be available.
Hopefully the EU lets us install emulator apps, like Provenance, easily. I'd prefer Apple just allow them in the App Store though. I like the App Store being a safe place, I just wish there was a little more freedom for developers to make apps that are standard fare on Mac and PC.
LOL as if there is a free version of it, it's all calculated in their gadget prices and YOU also pay it already.
Anyway, this wouldn't work out, adding a public price tag to their OS does not give them a license to escape the DMA.
If they actually allowed you to add extensions (like Chrome, Edge, FF) I would have some sympathy here.
But no, if it's three browsers it's three ****** ones.
But no, if it's three browsers it's three ****** ones.
Oh that’s why chrome works better on iOS vs Mac?
I consider anything chromium based malware at this point.
And what do you think is going to happen to this percentage in the US when the most popular phone changes from being webkit only? Again, replacing a context specific monopoly (just iOS users, Webkit) with a global monopoly... (Chromium, so Edge, Chrome, Arc, etc...)
As I said in my original post, I usually side with the EU, but I find this move to be extremely short sighted. How could they even go about breaking up the Chrome monopoly this will create when Google isn't headquartered in Europe? This isn't like USB-C where there's no downside to forcing companies to comply... This isn't a case where "the best browser will win," Google already makes using many of their websites annoying with non-chromium browsers and even browsers that aren't google chrome. And it's so popular now many websites don't even bother to test if their code runs correctly on Safari or Firefox. This will just get worse.
Here is something else to think abput. Everything BUT Firefox and some of the others is more or less webkit. When Microsoft dropped their tritent engine we went down to a 2 browser core system.
Chromioim under the hood is pretty much webkit.
It's kinda not Apple (but still kinda is). Apple pay a huge retainer each year for a bunch of fancy lawyers, these lawyers need to show that they are earning said retainer. This probably falls under that work. They don't really have a leg to stand on here, but the lawyers still want Apple to see that they tried.
I'm not privy to anything that happened here, so take this with a grain of salt.
No thanks...this is why android exists. If that what you want, you can get it. I like my walled garden
You know that is the same arguments used in 2007 before the app store. It was you don't need apps or use BlackBerry/ windows phone. Html5 was all that was needed. Those where the arguments.
Or so you want the rich arguments on why the iPhone should not support mms saying email was fine.
Basically calling your argument bad and very short sighted.
The "bubble" in this case is related to the browser engine restriction on iOS and iPadOS where Chrome, Edge, and Safari all use WebKit. If there was no "bubble", alternative browser engines like Blink, Gecko, etc. would be allowed.
And people had choices for desktop operating systems in the 1990s (Mac OS, OS/2, Linux, BeOS, etc.) but that didn't make restrictions on Windows or anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft right.
Not at all the same. Those arguments were perfectly valid in regards to the store I prefer one that has apps that go through a review process and running malicious and junk isn't as easy. I just want my phone to work and have malware be much lower risk. Bottom line a garbage organizaton like the EU shouldn't have the power to force a private company on what to do with their own products when it comes to how the end user interacts with it. As much as I love USB-C and it's good for consumers, Apple shouldn't have had to do it.