9 ms·

Why can't someone take Apple to court and argue that developers should be able to build native web browser apps without relying on the Web View component? We h

Why can't someone take Apple to court and argue that developers should be able to build native web browser apps without relying on the Web View component? We have st3fan saying "Firefox Focus" is not ideal because he's had to use the older and slower WKWebView to implement it. Isn't this similar to Microsoft when they were forced to allow a choice of browser, or do Apple get away with it because they allow alternative web browsers provided they use the iOS rendering system to actually display pages?

tdkl 10y ago
While it sucks, Apple doesn't have the majority of the market.
- module0000 10y ago
  This! Without a majority, the concept of antitrust isn't applicable or even on the US justice dept's radar.
roadnottaken 10y ago
I don't think you can argue that Apple has a monopoly on smart-phone OSes, so it's not really an anti-trust issue like it was with MSFT. If you don't like it, get a different phone.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  That was also only one part of the anti-trust case against Microsoft. They, at the time, had a very aggressive policy towards competitors and potential competitors. Going so far as, among other things, threatening to charge OEM PC manufacturers (IIRC, HP in particular) more for their Windows licenses (versus the discounted rate they got, eating into their margins or pushing their prices up) if they sold PCs with non-Windows OSes (such as BeOS, in particular). They bought out competitors, shutdown development on products afterwards, things of that nature. Apple's lock on their iDevices is certainly an issue, but they haven't hit half the checkboxes MS pulled off at the time of the anti-trust case.
  - delecti 10y ago
    Not to mention that that was MS imposing restrictions on devices sold by other manufacturers. This is them imposing restrictions on their own devices running their own software. I imagine there's a much higher bar for shenanigans before anything they do in that regard could get them in trouble.
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
Because they have nearly quarter of a trillion dollars to say no with. Edit for magnitude.
- jamchris 10y ago
  There was an anti-trust case against Microsoft, they also have some money in the bank, so no this is for sure not the reason
mikeash 10y ago
Apple gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly. There's a large variety of non-Apple smartphones and tablets you can buy. Microsoft's behavior was restricted because they were a monopoly. There were alternatives to Windows, but the court decided that they were sufficiently insignificant that Windows was effectively a monopoly. That changes the rules. Windows market share at the time was about 95%, Apple's smartphone market share is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.
- izacus 10y ago
  Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't monopoly law (at least in EU) dependant on the companies market power (e.g. the ability to sway market / damage consumer rights), not market share?
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I imagine so, but it's hard to be in a position like that when you have less than 20% of the market.
    - diminish 10y ago
      But Apple had 90% of profits, isnt that a better metric of monopoly?
      - grzm 10y ago
        Monopolies are interesting because they limit choice. Increased profit may be a side effect, but that's it. It's accidental, not essential, to the definition.
      - ryanpollock 10y ago
        it's actually 104% of profits now http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/11/04/apple-iphone-profit-market-share/#3048abd21394 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/11/04/apple-ipho...
      - rconti 10y ago
pvg 10y ago
The older, slower, more API-rich component FF Focus uses is UIWebView. And it's not at all similar to Microsoft because they were never 'forced to allow a choice of browser'. Apple also doesn't have a market share as dominant as Microsoft did and does not attract the same level of regulatory scrutiny.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
Start from the other end – on what basis do you think that someone would be able to take Apple to court? Why do you think that they should be stopped from deciding what the platform they develop will and will not support?
- solnyshok 10y ago
  just like there is freedom of speech, there should be freedom of browser choice. either device is browserless, or, it should allow for more than one browser. I'd add this to modern commandments, somewhere between net neutrality, independent DNS and guaranteed free internet access for everyone.
  - GavinMcG 10y ago
    "Freedom of speech" means freedom from government interference with your speech. It's not what you're construing it as.
    - solnyshok 10y ago
      People seem stuck on reacting to the "freedom of speech" here. However, nowhere did I state that there is a legal obligation for apple or government to provide browser choice. Still, I think that it would be in a public interest, and I hope it becomes a law someday, to protect not only freedom of expression and net neutrality, but also free access to internet, and to require any corporation that sells device connecting to the internet (in browser mode) - to let people choose to use free and open sourse browser to read internet.
      - GavinMcG 10y ago
        It might be because when you say "just like there is freedom of speech" you are making a reference to a legal term of art which isn't "just like" what you compared it to. The latter part of your response (after "Still") is a sensible statement, and in the future I'd suggest stating that directly, rather than tying it to misapplied legal terminology.
st3fan 10y ago
For the record, I am more than happy to use Apple's web components. WebKit is great. They just need to open the APIs more. Like WebKit on macOS. Then we can actually build competing browsers and do more innovative things. The WebKit team is great. Look at all the web standards being worked on. Look at the ES6 progress. They are pushing the state of the web forward on iOS. Now put some of that same energy in WKWebView. Open it up. We need more than just loadURL()
- pietroalbini 10y ago
  But why should third party developers forced to use the engine Apple provides, instead of trying to innovate? The whole point of having different browsers is to have competition (which means better performance/new features), but currently in the iOS world there is Safari and multiple reskinned Safaris.
  - jeromegv 10y ago
    Because of security, browsers are a huge vector of attack.
    - koolba 10y ago
      > Because of security, browsers are a huge vector of attack. That's not a valid reason. With per-app sandboxing. At worst a non-Apple native browser that escape the confines of the web page and be subject to app security. That amounts to using "security" as an argument for not being allowed to do something with the reason as, "Because we're smart and you're not".
      - st3fan 10y ago
        There is a sandbox, but to be a competitive third-party browser you also need something else: Safari has a special permission (entitlement) that allows it to compile JavaScript to native code. This is what their JIT does. This is something that no third-party app has ever gotten. No JIT means slow JavaScript. No ASM.js, no WebAssembly. I have mixed feelings about giving third-party applications (browsers) this permission. Bugs can lead to remote code execution, can lead to sandbox escapes, can lead to compromised devices. This is a really tough one. Specially for apps that load random content from the web.
fiatjaf 10y ago
Because that would be unfair. Apple should be able to sell iPhones the way they want.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Caspy7 10y ago
Not precisely your question, but a company actually is suing them for poor HTML5 support in Safari and iOS. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/07/french-company-sues-apple-over-incomplete-html5-support-on-ios-macos-safari http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/07/french-company-sue...
- eridius 10y ago
  I'm really curious what French law could actually be the basis for a lawsuit like this. Apple has a platform with users. Companies want to use the platform. But companies don't have an intrinsic right to do whatever they want on the platform, and the platform does not have a monopoly. So why would the law say that someone can sue them over HTML5 support?
phn 10y ago
A much more productive question would be: Why don't they allow it? They cite performance and security control, and really, can you blame them? The web is quite the wild west nowadays, and the WebViews they provide, while not ideal, cover most of the cases while offering a decent level of protection. And I think that somewhere down the road Apple will open up, when the system is ready.
- greggman 10y ago
  Kind of an aside but, If I understand correctly any WebView's contents is completely readable by the app it's embedded in. Which means you should arguably never trust any app that opens it's own WebView for view links. For example if you use the QR-Code Reader App it opens QR codes that leads to websites into it's own WebView rather than just forwarding the link to Safari. So, if the QR code is for anything that asks you to login the QR-Code Reader App could be reading your password. In other words, WebViews are not adding security they're removing it Otherwise, Apple can claim perf and security but that's arguably false. Chrome on desktop is faster and more secure than Safari by nearly every measure. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true of a real Chrome (not embedded WebView) on iOS
  - joelkesler 10y ago
    I disagree. That is only one potential issue (grabbing passwords and info from the web view) and the threat is coming from the app it self, not the content loaded. A big issue comes from potential 3rd party browsers not being hardened to browser exploits which could circumvent device security. It may not be able to break out of the browser's security sandbox but if the browser has access to your camera, photos, contacts, etc...
2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
Assuming you could sue, what is the motivation for this? If you dislike the ecosystem so much, jump ship to the #1 mobile ecosystem, Android. What am I missing? Apple popularity in the US is unusually high?
- ryanpollock 10y ago
  Apple's devices are hugely popular among higher-income individuals, especially in the United States. Benedict Evans has written that there are 650 million iOS devices in active use globally. According to App Annie, roughly 2/3 of mobile application revenues are through the App Store. The other 1/3 is Google Play. Considering how much consumers have invested in the Apple ecosystem across multiple devices, it's not reasonable to expect that consumers will switch to Android. Apple's customers are locked in. The question is whether it's OK for Apple to prevent competition within iOS.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
    So developers want more money?
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    > roughly 2/3 of mobile application revenues are through the App Store. The other 1/3 is Google Play. Are there any indications of how much of that delta is driven by the availability of sideloading?

tdkl 10y ago

While it sucks, Apple doesn't have the majority of the market.

module0000 10y ago
This! Without a majority, the concept of antitrust isn't applicable or even on the US justice dept's radar.

roadnottaken 10y ago

I don't think you can argue that Apple has a monopoly on smart-phone OSes, so it's not really an anti-trust issue like it was with MSFT. If you don't like it, get a different phone.

Jtsummers 10y ago
That was also only one part of the anti-trust case against Microsoft. They, at the time, had a very aggressive policy towards competitors and potential competitors. Going so far as, among other things, threatening to charge OEM PC manufacturers (IIRC, HP in particular) more for their Windows licenses (versus the discounted rate they got, eating into their margins or pushing their prices up) if they sold PCs with non-Windows OSes (such as BeOS, in particular). They bought out competitors, shutdown development on products afterwards, things of that nature. Apple's lock on their iDevices is certainly an issue, but they haven't hit half the checkboxes MS pulled off at the time of the anti-trust case.
- delecti 10y ago
  Not to mention that that was MS imposing restrictions on devices sold by other manufacturers. This is them imposing restrictions on their own devices running their own software. I imagine there's a much higher bar for shenanigans before anything they do in that regard could get them in trouble.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago

Because they have nearly quarter of a trillion dollars to say no with. Edit for magnitude.

jamchris 10y ago
There was an anti-trust case against Microsoft, they also have some money in the bank, so no this is for sure not the reason

mikeash 10y ago

Apple gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly. There's a large variety of non-Apple smartphones and tablets you can buy. Microsoft's behavior was restricted because they were a monopoly. There were alternatives to Windows, but the court decided that they were sufficiently insignificant that Windows was effectively a monopoly. That changes the rules. Windows market share at the time was about 95%, Apple's smartphone market share is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

izacus 10y ago
Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't monopoly law (at least in EU) dependant on the companies market power (e.g. the ability to sway market / damage consumer rights), not market share?
- mikeash 10y ago
  I imagine so, but it's hard to be in a position like that when you have less than 20% of the market.
  - diminish 10y ago
    But Apple had 90% of profits, isnt that a better metric of monopoly?
    - grzm 10y ago
      Monopolies are interesting because they limit choice. Increased profit may be a side effect, but that's it. It's accidental, not essential, to the definition.
    - ryanpollock 10y ago
      it's actually 104% of profits now http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/11/04/apple-iphone-profit-market-share/#3048abd21394 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/11/04/apple-ipho...
    - rconti 10y ago

pvg 10y ago

The older, slower, more API-rich component FF Focus uses is UIWebView. And it's not at all similar to Microsoft because they were never 'forced to allow a choice of browser'. Apple also doesn't have a market share as dominant as Microsoft did and does not attract the same level of regulatory scrutiny.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

Start from the other end – on what basis do you think that someone would be able to take Apple to court? Why do you think that they should be stopped from deciding what the platform they develop will and will not support?

solnyshok 10y ago
just like there is freedom of speech, there should be freedom of browser choice. either device is browserless, or, it should allow for more than one browser. I'd add this to modern commandments, somewhere between net neutrality, independent DNS and guaranteed free internet access for everyone.
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  "Freedom of speech" means freedom from government interference with your speech. It's not what you're construing it as.
  - solnyshok 10y ago
    People seem stuck on reacting to the "freedom of speech" here. However, nowhere did I state that there is a legal obligation for apple or government to provide browser choice. Still, I think that it would be in a public interest, and I hope it becomes a law someday, to protect not only freedom of expression and net neutrality, but also free access to internet, and to require any corporation that sells device connecting to the internet (in browser mode) - to let people choose to use free and open sourse browser to read internet.
    - GavinMcG 10y ago
      It might be because when you say "just like there is freedom of speech" you are making a reference to a legal term of art which isn't "just like" what you compared it to. The latter part of your response (after "Still") is a sensible statement, and in the future I'd suggest stating that directly, rather than tying it to misapplied legal terminology.

st3fan 10y ago

For the record, I am more than happy to use Apple's web components. WebKit is great. They just need to open the APIs more. Like WebKit on macOS. Then we can actually build competing browsers and do more innovative things. The WebKit team is great. Look at all the web standards being worked on. Look at the ES6 progress. They are pushing the state of the web forward on iOS. Now put some of that same energy in WKWebView. Open it up. We need more than just loadURL()

pietroalbini 10y ago
But why should third party developers forced to use the engine Apple provides, instead of trying to innovate? The whole point of having different browsers is to have competition (which means better performance/new features), but currently in the iOS world there is Safari and multiple reskinned Safaris.
- jeromegv 10y ago
  Because of security, browsers are a huge vector of attack.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > Because of security, browsers are a huge vector of attack. That's not a valid reason. With per-app sandboxing. At worst a non-Apple native browser that escape the confines of the web page and be subject to app security. That amounts to using "security" as an argument for not being allowed to do something with the reason as, "Because we're smart and you're not".
    - st3fan 10y ago
      There is a sandbox, but to be a competitive third-party browser you also need something else: Safari has a special permission (entitlement) that allows it to compile JavaScript to native code. This is what their JIT does. This is something that no third-party app has ever gotten. No JIT means slow JavaScript. No ASM.js, no WebAssembly. I have mixed feelings about giving third-party applications (browsers) this permission. Bugs can lead to remote code execution, can lead to sandbox escapes, can lead to compromised devices. This is a really tough one. Specially for apps that load random content from the web.

fiatjaf 10y ago

Because that would be unfair. Apple should be able to sell iPhones the way they want.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Caspy7 10y ago

Not precisely your question, but a company actually is suing them for poor HTML5 support in Safari and iOS. http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/07/french-company-sues-apple-over-incomplete-html5-support-on-ios-macos-safari http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/07/french-company-sue...

eridius 10y ago
I'm really curious what French law could actually be the basis for a lawsuit like this. Apple has a platform with users. Companies want to use the platform. But companies don't have an intrinsic right to do whatever they want on the platform, and the platform does not have a monopoly. So why would the law say that someone can sue them over HTML5 support?

phn 10y ago

A much more productive question would be: Why don't they allow it? They cite performance and security control, and really, can you blame them? The web is quite the wild west nowadays, and the WebViews they provide, while not ideal, cover most of the cases while offering a decent level of protection. And I think that somewhere down the road Apple will open up, when the system is ready.

greggman 10y ago
Kind of an aside but, If I understand correctly any WebView's contents is completely readable by the app it's embedded in. Which means you should arguably never trust any app that opens it's own WebView for view links. For example if you use the QR-Code Reader App it opens QR codes that leads to websites into it's own WebView rather than just forwarding the link to Safari. So, if the QR code is for anything that asks you to login the QR-Code Reader App could be reading your password. In other words, WebViews are not adding security they're removing it Otherwise, Apple can claim perf and security but that's arguably false. Chrome on desktop is faster and more secure than Safari by nearly every measure. There's no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true of a real Chrome (not embedded WebView) on iOS
- joelkesler 10y ago
  I disagree. That is only one potential issue (grabbing passwords and info from the web view) and the threat is coming from the app it self, not the content loaded. A big issue comes from potential 3rd party browsers not being hardened to browser exploits which could circumvent device security. It may not be able to break out of the browser's security sandbox but if the browser has access to your camera, photos, contacts, etc...

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

Assuming you could sue, what is the motivation for this? If you dislike the ecosystem so much, jump ship to the #1 mobile ecosystem, Android. What am I missing? Apple popularity in the US is unusually high?

ryanpollock 10y ago
Apple's devices are hugely popular among higher-income individuals, especially in the United States. Benedict Evans has written that there are 650 million iOS devices in active use globally. According to App Annie, roughly 2/3 of mobile application revenues are through the App Store. The other 1/3 is Google Play. Considering how much consumers have invested in the Apple ecosystem across multiple devices, it's not reasonable to expect that consumers will switch to Android. Apple's customers are locked in. The question is whether it's OK for Apple to prevent competition within iOS.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
  So developers want more money?
- Ntrails 10y ago
  > roughly 2/3 of mobile application revenues are through the App Store. The other 1/3 is Google Play. Are there any indications of how much of that delta is driven by the availability of sideloading?