the UK is not in the EU
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.
UK Revives Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Browser and Cloud Gaming Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You really think WebKit is so bad that basically the only reason it is used on iOS is because users are forced to?
Perhaps regulations like this will push Apple to try to make WebKit and/or Safari more desirable not only for users but developers. Making Safari/WebKit available on Android, Windows, etc. would help increase usage too. Restricting browser engine choice on a major mobile OS is not the answer.
The sooner WebKit gets abolished, the better.
Don't ever doubt a British mom's wisdom. When she says it's time to switch your iOS browser, you best hop to it, or she'll have you eating toast that's been on the floor for way more than five seconds!
Well isn’t the market open? Apple left the windows market and never made a safari version for android, so it’s apples issue to convince developers to support WebKit over blink.
Consumer on iOS can’t chose anything else but WebKit, so if consumers chooses blink then that’s Apple who failed to market the product
I’m so tired of European authorities trying to protect their consumers and foster competition. Why can’t they be more like their American counterparts?
At this rate sadly yes. Different is Chrome is a better browser and still improving. Apple is lagging on doing Safari updates because it does not have to compete. That means they might lag on doing secuirty updates or other improvements because they do not have to complete.
This is more it would force Apple to improve Safari and put real resources behind it.
The change of browser engine affects roughly 13% of iOS users who aren't using Apple's default Safari browser. Unless companies are okay with failing to support 87% of users on iOS, that's not enough users on third-party browsers to support this argument.
Firefox: 3% share. Orion gets bundled into "other" which combined has less than Firefox.
You're kind of making my point for me.
You are both missing the point here by a wide margin. Users can't install actual Chrome on iOS, so websites must support what iOS allows or lose those users.
Post regulation, those sites will simply say "for best experience, use Chrome" and abandon the 20% browser. Easier for them to develop and maintain, and once a few of the bigger sites force people to have Chrome installed anyway users are just going to throw up their hands and comply.
And @webkit, let's be clear what you mean by "make Safari more desirable for developers": it means reduce or eliminate the security and privacy protections Safari provides so sites can profit more off their visitors.
I agree. This regulation restricts what browsers I'll be able to use in the future to Chrome versus the choice I have now which is Chrome or Safari and a smattering of also rans.
It could happen for a small number of sites, but is more than likely not the big issue you're making it out to be. For instance, despite Firefox's small market share, browsing the web using Firefox is still quite possible. That's because all browsers use roughly the same set of web standards which eases the burden of supporting a minority browser immensely.
I wish the same was true for native apps, but right now making native apps for both iOS and Android is a huge pain unless you have many thousands to throw at dedicated teams for each. It also binds people to either iOS or Android and makes it impossible for any minority OS to flourish on smartphones, unlike on desktop where developers are incentivized to make decent web apps to the benefit of users on Linux. This is why we need to have the option of mobile web apps and capable browser choices for them.
Last edited:
Hmm, pot calling the kettle black? Two examples:
FDA has really strict control over standards of pharmaceuticals sold in US. FDA even has site visits on European companies on European ground and their visits and standards are dreaded but European companies must comply with US rules. Safety for US citizens or harassment of non American companies?
I believe VW was heavily fined by the US for the diesel scandal or was that just a way to protect US car industry?
We all have different rules and entering a market in any country you need to follow it. The IT giants (and Musk) are juvenile to think they are above the law and local customs and they should learn by their mistakes and don’t repeat them.
You know how many websites in the past 15 years I couldn't access due to being Chrome exclusive? One. Just one website. That's it, and said website was made by the Pokemon Company to distribute the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl Soundtrack for free limited use that didn't work right.
You're making a big deal out of nothing. If Chrome actually did become a problem where they were the only option for a web browser they'd be labeled as a gatekeeper by the EU under the Digital Markets Act/Digital Services Act.
Last edited:
I understand the point you are trying to make. I simply disagree that allowing alternative browser engines on iOS is going to essentially mean the end of WebKit usage.
Again, if Safari/WebKit is that undesirable to users, Apple needs to try to make it better and these regulations may give them the push they need. Making Safari/WebKit available on Android, Windows, etc. would help increase usages too. I think Apple gave up too quickly/easily on Safari for Windows back in 2010.
Because anyone who wants an iPhone based customer can't be Chrome exclusive.
No, the people making a big deal out of nothing are the people trying to undermine the minority and standards compliant browser.
And then what? They're a gate keeper-- how does that encourage anyone to support an alternative? If being a gatekeeper meant nobody could write Chrome exclusive sites, then that would have an impact, but that's not what it means. The sites aren't gatekeepers, so there is no regulation on them.
That’s still one too many sites, but what’ll really most likely happen is that most sites will work normally or mostly normally, but when a problem does come up, you’ll contact the webmaster or QA, and they’ll tell ya, “I don’t know what to tell you, it works fine for me on Chrome”. Implying that they’ll only support Chrome.
(Though I wouldn’t put it past Google to push some new web API into Chrome, one that only makes sense in Chrome, and degrade their services to browsers that don’t implement the API. That way, they can say “oh, we don’t actually require Chrome or Chromium” while virtually requiring a Chromium browser.)
I made an edit to the post you quoted, hopefully that explains where I'm coming from a bit better. More capable browser choices = more web apps = a good thing from my perspective. What I hate more than a website telling me I have to use Chrome is a website telling me I have to download a native app (or simply not existing because it can’t afford to make one), and that’s where we’re at now.
Last edited:
This was back before the iPhone became big no less. I've been on FireFox since middle school in 2007 and haven't had a single issue.
Again, I do understand the point you are trying to make but disagree. I do not believe that allowing alternative browser engines on iOS is going to essentially mean the end of WebKit usage. I do not believe that allowing alternative browser engines on iOS will mean sites will simply say, "for best experience, use Chrome" and abandon other browsers.
Dear UK CMA,
We believe Apple has a monopoly and unfair business practices with their streaming restrictions.
Love,
MicrosoftActivisionBlizzardBethesda
We believe Apple has a monopoly and unfair business practices with their streaming restrictions.
Love,
MicrosoftActivisionBlizzardBethesda
Chrome is the single biggest offender is incompatible web apps. The Google Suite apps really only work on Chrome.
So if you want more capable browser choices, don't kill the only one that seems to be forcing some level of standards compliance.
Look at the chart I shared of web browser market share. Tell me why Safari is the only viable alternative to Chrome where Microsoft, Samsung and the FOSS army can't make a dent.
Unless you're defining the end as a literal 0%, then the numbers suggest you're very, very wrong.
You mean the same browser that didn't support Web Notifications on mobile until earlier this year?