8 ms·

They were simply too late to the market, but they had to do something, if they stick to the same course they will always have a very small slice of the mobile m

They were simply too late to the market, but they had to do something, if they stick to the same course they will always have a very small slice of the mobile market as most people don't replace the browser on their mobile I'm surprised that Google and in particular Apple aren't coming under scrutiny from competition watchdogs as Microsoft did with IE in the early 2000s.

MawNicker 10y ago
It's not like it was before. JIT engines made the situation more complicated. The security problems are hard.
- disordinary 10y ago
  Yeah, but on the other hand there are only a handful of companies that make Browsers, and even fewer that make browser engines. The vendors could pay Apple to audit the codebases and it would be worth it to be on the platform.
- emn13 10y ago
  That's a pretty lame exuse: if anything, OS integrated JIT engines are likely to be less secure, and a more diverse engine ecosystem makes attacks less attractive. Witness how JIT engines don't cause many problems (and never really have caused many problems) on desktop. Which isn't to say they're immune from security risks, just that there are lots of other components that pose just as many risks (or more), which are not (or cannot) be avoided - not least of which the first-party JIT. Furthermore, many exploits don't care if their running on a JIT or on a scripting engine - that's an implementation detail. And if you really cared about security, you could design a verifiable native subset (as several systems have done) - webassembly shows that even slow standardization processes that need much more complicated cross-device compatibility can move meaningfully in that direction. Disallowing non-first party JITs completely for security reasons is at best delusional, but more likely intentionally anti-competitive. Minor security bonuses are just gravy.
  - comex 10y ago
    Also, as noted elsewhere in this thread, the App Store rules explicitly ban third-party browsing engines, so it doesn't help even if you go without a JIT entirely.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    > OS integrated JIT engines are likely to be less secure, I imagine you never used a mainframe OS.
    - emn13 10y ago
      I never have - what are you getting at?
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Most of them use "OS integrated JIT engines".
paulddraper 10y ago
> Remember when we prosecuted Microsoft for bundling a browser with an OS? Imagine the future we'd live in if we'd be willing to let one tech company amass that much power. > Thank God we nipped that in the bud. https://xkcd.com/1118/ https://xkcd.com/1118/
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The alt text on this comic is beautiful.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    It ain't quite accurate, though, since we can write "Fa¢ebook", "Goog£e", and "App£e" ;)
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      ¢ doesn't quite do it, though...
      - vacri 10y ago
        Fac€book? Alternatively, ƒacebook, but that's probably too subtle (and a minor currency anyway).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Google has an incredible amount of money invested in our federal government here in the US. Including at least one former FTC Commissioner in their pocket. :) Competition watchdogs in almost every other first world country, however, are investigating Google for various antitrust claims. Apple doesn't get a lot of scrutiny from competition watchdogs because they aren't a monopoly anywhere. Heck, outside the US, the iPhone has a pretty tiny market share.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  Google spent $0/year lobbying until Microsoft and the "Fair search" coalition did a lot of anti-Google lobbying in the US and the EU. They also didn't start building up a patent warchest until they were involved in a patent thermonuclear war. I don't find patents or lobbyists particularly agreeable - but for an organization of a certain size to go without them in the 21st century is likely a very expensive strategic error.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Google's PAC, NetPAC, well predates the formation of FairSearch, by at least two years.
Certhas 10y ago
An important difference is that you have a choice between iPhone and Android, where you had no choice but Windows.
- disordinary 10y ago
  At the time you had Mac os (or early iterations of OSX), desktop Linux, Beos, os2, etc.
  - mwfunk 10y ago
    Sure, but Windows had (and still has) a monopoly on desktop operating systems. Being a monopoly doesn't mean you have 100% market share, but rather that you're (a) the dominant player, and (b) your market share is considered sufficiently high that it can be leveraged to modify the market forces themselves. When you're a monopoly, additional antitrust requirements apply to you that don't apply to the lesser players in that market.
    - disordinary 10y ago
      In 2001 when the lawsuits were happening Windows (Desktop and Server) had 80% market share, Android has 88% now. And while you can switch to iOS it's prohibitive in that you have to buy dedicated hardware. In 2001 if you wanted to switch off Windows you could buy BeOS, Linux, or OS2 and run it on the same computer that you had windows on. Back then I did just that, switching from Windows to BeOS when BeOS was made free, I did my university work on BeOS running on a Toshiba laptop that came with Windows. Right now if you have an iPhone or Android phone you have very little option to switch operating system on your device.
      - pwinnski 10y ago
        Android doesn't have 88% of the US market, only the world market.[0] Also, what got MS in trouble was their contracts with hardware vendors. Companies like Compaq were required to pay MS for a Windows license even on computers they sold without Windows installed, and that was an abuse of MS' power. If Google is charging companies for Android even for phone they sell without Android installed, that would be analogous. [0] "While Android continues to grow its share of the global smartphone market, it is actually losing share in the U.S. Kantar’s data shows Android phones making up 55 percent of U.S. smartphone sales compared with more than 60 percent in the same period a year ago." http://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-android-sales-united-states http://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-androi...

MawNicker 10y ago

It's not like it was before. JIT engines made the situation more complicated. The security problems are hard.

disordinary 10y ago
Yeah, but on the other hand there are only a handful of companies that make Browsers, and even fewer that make browser engines. The vendors could pay Apple to audit the codebases and it would be worth it to be on the platform.
emn13 10y ago
That's a pretty lame exuse: if anything, OS integrated JIT engines are likely to be less secure, and a more diverse engine ecosystem makes attacks less attractive. Witness how JIT engines don't cause many problems (and never really have caused many problems) on desktop. Which isn't to say they're immune from security risks, just that there are lots of other components that pose just as many risks (or more), which are not (or cannot) be avoided - not least of which the first-party JIT. Furthermore, many exploits don't care if their running on a JIT or on a scripting engine - that's an implementation detail. And if you really cared about security, you could design a verifiable native subset (as several systems have done) - webassembly shows that even slow standardization processes that need much more complicated cross-device compatibility can move meaningfully in that direction. Disallowing non-first party JITs completely for security reasons is at best delusional, but more likely intentionally anti-competitive. Minor security bonuses are just gravy.
- comex 10y ago
  Also, as noted elsewhere in this thread, the App Store rules explicitly ban third-party browsing engines, so it doesn't help even if you go without a JIT entirely.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  > OS integrated JIT engines are likely to be less secure, I imagine you never used a mainframe OS.
  - emn13 10y ago
    I never have - what are you getting at?
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Most of them use "OS integrated JIT engines".

paulddraper 10y ago

> Remember when we prosecuted Microsoft for bundling a browser with an OS? Imagine the future we'd live in if we'd be willing to let one tech company amass that much power. > Thank God we nipped that in the bud. https://xkcd.com/1118/ https://xkcd.com/1118/

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
The alt text on this comic is beautiful.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  It ain't quite accurate, though, since we can write "Fa¢ebook", "Goog£e", and "App£e" ;)
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    ¢ doesn't quite do it, though...
    - vacri 10y ago
      Fac€book? Alternatively, ƒacebook, but that's probably too subtle (and a minor currency anyway).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Google has an incredible amount of money invested in our federal government here in the US. Including at least one former FTC Commissioner in their pocket. :) Competition watchdogs in almost every other first world country, however, are investigating Google for various antitrust claims. Apple doesn't get a lot of scrutiny from competition watchdogs because they aren't a monopoly anywhere. Heck, outside the US, the iPhone has a pretty tiny market share.

sangnoir 10y ago
Google spent $0/year lobbying until Microsoft and the "Fair search" coalition did a lot of anti-Google lobbying in the US and the EU. They also didn't start building up a patent warchest until they were involved in a patent thermonuclear war. I don't find patents or lobbyists particularly agreeable - but for an organization of a certain size to go without them in the 21st century is likely a very expensive strategic error.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Google's PAC, NetPAC, well predates the formation of FairSearch, by at least two years.

Certhas 10y ago

An important difference is that you have a choice between iPhone and Android, where you had no choice but Windows.

disordinary 10y ago
At the time you had Mac os (or early iterations of OSX), desktop Linux, Beos, os2, etc.
- mwfunk 10y ago
  Sure, but Windows had (and still has) a monopoly on desktop operating systems. Being a monopoly doesn't mean you have 100% market share, but rather that you're (a) the dominant player, and (b) your market share is considered sufficiently high that it can be leveraged to modify the market forces themselves. When you're a monopoly, additional antitrust requirements apply to you that don't apply to the lesser players in that market.
  - disordinary 10y ago
    In 2001 when the lawsuits were happening Windows (Desktop and Server) had 80% market share, Android has 88% now. And while you can switch to iOS it's prohibitive in that you have to buy dedicated hardware. In 2001 if you wanted to switch off Windows you could buy BeOS, Linux, or OS2 and run it on the same computer that you had windows on. Back then I did just that, switching from Windows to BeOS when BeOS was made free, I did my university work on BeOS running on a Toshiba laptop that came with Windows. Right now if you have an iPhone or Android phone you have very little option to switch operating system on your device.
    - pwinnski 10y ago
      Android doesn't have 88% of the US market, only the world market.[0] Also, what got MS in trouble was their contracts with hardware vendors. Companies like Compaq were required to pay MS for a Windows license even on computers they sold without Windows installed, and that was an abuse of MS' power. If Google is charging companies for Android even for phone they sell without Android installed, that would be analogous. [0] "While Android continues to grow its share of the global smartphone market, it is actually losing share in the U.S. Kantar’s data shows Android phones making up 55 percent of U.S. smartphone sales compared with more than 60 percent in the same period a year ago." http://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-android-sales-united-states http://www.recode.net/2017/1/11/14239038/iphone-apple-androi...