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 Further Explains iOS 17.4's New Default Browser Prompt in EU
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like that analogy a lot. People who care can always drain the oil and put in their oil of choice if it really matters to them (just as they can install another browser on their own).
But the majority of people, if the dealer rattles of a list of oil brands and choices (since more choice is always better!), will probably react with "The heck if I know, aren't you people supposed to be the experts?"
I’m aware that Microsoft makes money off of people using edge, but does Apple make money off of safari? Without built in ads, I’m not sure how that would work.
Google pays Apple around $19 billion a year from Apple sending search traffic to them via Safari.
To answer your question they make a metric **** ton of money via Safari from Google, but other than that I’m not sure. I don’t think so.
But it’s not really about what they do as much as it’s about what others want to do. Keeping Apple’s users on Safari helps keep them Apple users in general. Letting them use truly independent browsers just helps push them into the hands of their direct competition, Google and Microsoft.
Getting a strong sense of dayja voo with The Windows/Internet Exploder debacle all those years ago. Fun times.
This is more like the AT&T debacle all those years before the later AT&T debacle all those years ago. The EU is going to be in the same situation here. First they're going to create a Chrome monopoly, then they're going to have to figure out how break up that Chrome monopoly which I expect will just keep coming back together the same way AT&T keeps coming back together.
Not seeing the irony. People are CHOOSING to buy Apple. And last time I checked, Google and Microsoft, Apple’s main competitors, are doing just fine. In fact, Microsoft is growing a lot faster than Apple and I’m pretty sure they’ve overtaken Apple in market value, and I don’t see Apple’s $4,000 version of metaquest changing that.
I think the whole situation boils down to two things;
Market dominance.
Privacy.
I'd suggest that only one of these can apply to things like tyres. Then also you have the safety thing that may well physically affect others.
Good to see that the users are given an option initially to choose a browser
Yet before ‘the stupid cookie popups’ websites could and did just put whatever the hell they liked on your browser without your knowledge and with no choice in the matter. If that’s making things worse then well, I just don’t know what to say.
Apple going off the deep end with malicious compliance. Wouldve been easier to make this worldwide instead of exempting places not in the EU, but Apple knows where the ad revenue comes from (USA) so it wants to keep us using its own spyware (browser) instead of someone elses.
It is a bad solution to a real issue. But not even the EU is going to destroy internet monetization by mandating a browser-level choice during install or first boot.
There's a big problem online where people don't like ads and how ads are run, but they also dont want to pay for websites. The EU shutting off avenues for the former while being unable to do anything about the latter isn't as much of a win as you think.
The way that companies respond to the control is the problem, not the control itself. Just like how Apple is responding to this control. Even fining them with a weekly amount summing billions doesn’t stop them. That’s just proving the point that this is far too much power to wield.
EU: show privacy choices on your site
Sites: *do that*
Users: *hate it, continues not paying for content*
Do you think that before there where regulations on what any old website could put in anyone’s computer without anyone at all being any the wiser, that it was a better situation?
Now all the crap except the essentials is opt in, and fully viewable. You click on that accept button and you’re not accepting anything that they’re forcing you ti accept to browse the free internet.
Blaming a regulation for big techs privacy invasive data collection methods getting on your nerves is a bit of a stretch in my book.
The necessity for devs to use WebKit for their browsers is being removed in the EU (where this browser choice is coming in to affect), so as long as they reprogramme their apps then that should no longer be the case.
Now if sites just "do that", but they don't. It is really not implemented according to the purpose of the law.
The original intention with that law was that people should only be tracked with cookies if they accepted it.
But what do we get? We get stuff like that below. Easiest pick is to accept all cookies. And who defines the "best experience" here?
If you want the strictly necessary only you have to go menu-diving and do several clicks. And on the worst ones they don't even fit well on the screen of a phone or will be blocked by the pop up blocker making it impossible to navigate.
And public/government sites that has zero interest in tracking you to show adds have to do it as well, just so you can accept the cookies that are required to make the site work.
If "sites" implemented this according to the intention of the law they would show three options. Equally sized buttons and with no nudging color schemes
- No cookies at all (may make the site non-functional)
- Only cookies essential for the site
- Allow cookies that allow us to track you and show you more personalised adds
I get it. The people behind macrumors and the gazillion other sites on the WWW cannot live of thin air. They can either show adds or put the site behind a paywall unless they want to work for free. That's only fair. So if people pick option 1 or 2 above, they could be redirected to a "please pay to get in" page.
I guess what I'm advocating for is just:
Less BS. Be honest. Don't be "evil" (now who had that value a few decades ago?).
Then less regulation is needed.
But since companies have to make more profit every freaking year, then they either have to be seriously innovative or they will eventually end up in the BS and evil category. That's a natural law right next to the laws of thermodynamics.
Less BS. Be honest. Don't be "evil" (now who had that value a few decades ago?).
Then less regulation is needed.
But since companies have to make more profit every freaking year, then they either have to be seriously innovative or they will eventually end up in the BS and evil category. That's a natural law right next to the laws of thermodynamics.
agh, this is total sh*t. I will need to scroll though a bunch of crap to find Safari and set it as a default. And one more annoying UI element.