6 ms·

Looks like a case for anti trust, just like microsoft had with IE.

by user5994461 9y ago

jen20 9y ago
Why? iOS has by most measures less than 50% of the market.
- connorelsea 9y ago
  Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engines. Though, afaik, Apple does not stoop to the levels of Amazon, who removed the Twitch app from Roku platform for absolutely no reason other than to line their pockets with more cash.
  - joshred 9y ago
    Before they purchased it?
    - connorelsea 9y ago
      Nah, after - to make it a "Fire TV Exclusive" app http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...
  - baddox 9y ago
    Aren’t anticompetitive and anti-consumer two completely separate things?
    - connorelsea 9y ago
      Yes, but I would say that anti-competitive behavior is inherently anti-consumer, as the consumer does not benefit from it - and Apple preventing other browser engines is both
  - Someone 9y ago
    Anti-trust is there for cases where society thinks 1) the free market doesn’t work because it is too hard for competition to enter an existing market or for existing competition to dethrone a market leader. _and_ 2) the big player(s) take (too much) advantage of their position by engaging in ‘anti-consumer’ practices. Given the existence of Android, Apple isn’t in position 1. So, do you think (2) alone is sufficient for taking legal action? The common thinking is that the market will take care of it by by bankrupting the company doing it.
    - devit 9y ago
      Android doesn't run iOS apps. Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. They abuse all of them (e.g. the Webkit-only issue for iOS, monopoly pricing on iPhones, censorship in App Store). Conversely e.g. Google has none of these monopolies except for the monopoly in running perfectly apps that require Google Play Services.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        > Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. You could also say that Samsung has a monopoly of smartphones with "SAMSUNG" printed on them.
threeseed 9y ago
1) iOS is not a monopoly. 2) Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters.
- riquito 9y ago
  > Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters. Oh please... source?
  - pls2halp 9y ago
    1) JavaScript allows for arbitrary code execution 2) Apple’s App Store policies disallow the user from executing arbitrary code I think you can figure this out yourself.
    - toxican 9y ago
      These are excuses, not valid technical reasons.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Remote execution of code is a very popular attack vector. Apple can negate this almost entirely by controlling JavascriptCore and WebKit and ensuring that their security models e.g. sandbox are tight and well tested. Leaving that up to third parties who may not be so vigilant compromises the security of the entire device.
  - 0x0 9y ago
    Efficient javascript needs to be JIT'ed, but that means your app needs to be granted API access to map writeable memory as executable, which is a security risk they are not willing to grant third party developers. So a third party browser/js engine will likely be quite slow. I guess this would give users of a bad impression of iOS perfomance as a whole then, if other browser engines were allowed and became popular?
    - 9y ago
alwillis 9y ago
Looks like a case for anti trust, just like microsoft had with IE. You must be new around here. ;-) Microsoft used their natural monopoly in operating systems (Windows has 95% marketshare) to force OEMs (HP, Compaq, etc.) to bundle IE with their machines and not Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threaten to cancel their Windows licenses. And later, it decided, against its decent decree with the US government, to bundle IE with Windows, claiming Windows wouldn't function without IE, which was a lie. Perhaps you're not aware that natural monopolies are themselves not illegal; it's using that monopoly to force the market to do things it ordinarily wouldn't in some other area. So… no, there are no antitrust issues regarding web engines on iOS. And of course, Google, Mozilla and others have browsers on the App Store that use WebKit anyway, so it would be hard to make the case they're being harmed…

Looks like a case for anti trust, just like microsoft had with IE.

jen20 9y ago

Why? iOS has by most measures less than 50% of the market.

connorelsea 9y ago
Even with a low market share Apple could still theoretically be engaging in practices that are anti-consumer, such as disallowing the use of other browser engines. Though, afaik, Apple does not stoop to the levels of Amazon, who removed the Twitch app from Roku platform for absolutely no reason other than to line their pockets with more cash.
- joshred 9y ago
  Before they purchased it?
  - connorelsea 9y ago
    Nah, after - to make it a "Fire TV Exclusive" app http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-roku/ http://www.cordcuttersnews.com/amazon-pulls-twitch-channel-r...
- baddox 9y ago
  Aren’t anticompetitive and anti-consumer two completely separate things?
  - connorelsea 9y ago
    Yes, but I would say that anti-competitive behavior is inherently anti-consumer, as the consumer does not benefit from it - and Apple preventing other browser engines is both
- Someone 9y ago
  Anti-trust is there for cases where society thinks 1) the free market doesn’t work because it is too hard for competition to enter an existing market or for existing competition to dethrone a market leader. _and_ 2) the big player(s) take (too much) advantage of their position by engaging in ‘anti-consumer’ practices. Given the existence of Android, Apple isn’t in position 1. So, do you think (2) alone is sufficient for taking legal action? The common thinking is that the market will take care of it by by bankrupting the company doing it.
  - devit 9y ago
    Android doesn't run iOS apps. Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. They abuse all of them (e.g. the Webkit-only issue for iOS, monopoly pricing on iPhones, censorship in App Store). Conversely e.g. Google has none of these monopolies except for the monopoly in running perfectly apps that require Google Play Services.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      > Apple has a monopoly on OSes that run iOS apps, OSes that run on iPhones, phones that run iOS and on App Stores that can install iOS apps. You could also say that Samsung has a monopoly of smartphones with "SAMSUNG" printed on them.

threeseed 9y ago

1) iOS is not a monopoly. 2) Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters.

riquito 9y ago
> Apple has legitimate technical reasons for not allowing other browser engines (well specifically the JS part). Intent matters. Oh please... source?
- pls2halp 9y ago
  1) JavaScript allows for arbitrary code execution 2) Apple’s App Store policies disallow the user from executing arbitrary code I think you can figure this out yourself.
  - toxican 9y ago
    These are excuses, not valid technical reasons.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Remote execution of code is a very popular attack vector. Apple can negate this almost entirely by controlling JavascriptCore and WebKit and ensuring that their security models e.g. sandbox are tight and well tested. Leaving that up to third parties who may not be so vigilant compromises the security of the entire device.
- 0x0 9y ago
  Efficient javascript needs to be JIT'ed, but that means your app needs to be granted API access to map writeable memory as executable, which is a security risk they are not willing to grant third party developers. So a third party browser/js engine will likely be quite slow. I guess this would give users of a bad impression of iOS perfomance as a whole then, if other browser engines were allowed and became popular?
  - 9y ago

alwillis 9y ago

Looks like a case for anti trust, just like microsoft had with IE. You must be new around here. ;-) Microsoft used their natural monopoly in operating systems (Windows has 95% marketshare) to force OEMs (HP, Compaq, etc.) to bundle IE with their machines and not Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threaten to cancel their Windows licenses. And later, it decided, against its decent decree with the US government, to bundle IE with Windows, claiming Windows wouldn't function without IE, which was a lie. Perhaps you're not aware that natural monopolies are themselves not illegal; it's using that monopoly to force the market to do things it ordinarily wouldn't in some other area. So… no, there are no antitrust issues regarding web engines on iOS. And of course, Google, Mozilla and others have browsers on the App Store that use WebKit anyway, so it would be hard to make the case they're being harmed…