5 ms·

That's a very interesting point. But tracking-free services won't really have a major mindshare with the general public because you really can't compete with "f

by inapis 7y ago

That's a very interesting point. But tracking-free services won't really have a major mindshare with the general public because you really can't compete with "free." And there's nothing preventing Google from leveraging Youtube/Gmail/Search to push out other browsers which have tracking protection. Youtube already plays less well with Firefox. Gmail isn't exactly snappy on Safari either.

Vinnl 7y ago
Yes, competing with Google is still a main challenge. Still, Apple seems to be managing by providing the browser for free as a value-add when you buy their hardware, and by preventing other browser engines from running on iOS. Mozilla's financial dependence on Google is still a major challenge, which they'll hopefully be able to fix before push comes to shove. Microsoft unfortunately did not seem to be able to financially justify the maintenance of their own engine - though then again, their bet appears to be on Windows integration rather than tracking protection.
- auslander 7y ago
  > Apple seems to be managing by providing the browser for free Plus @icloud.com email service > Mozilla's financial dependence on Google is still a major challenge, which they'll hopefully be able to fix I honestly do not see how. Sticking to Safari for now.
  - rpastuszak 7y ago
    Mozilla is looking into becoming more independent from Google by introducing paid services, such as ad-free content subscriptions using Scroll, Pocket, VPN... Their approach relies on acquisitions (Pocket) or partnerships/experiments (Scroll). The language used by them when referring to Google has changed quite a lot in the past year or so.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - whoopdedo 7y ago
      But by doing so are at risk of becoming that which they hate.
      - rpastuszak 7y ago
        How so?
    - auslander 7y ago
      > by introducing paid services The only ones I'd pay for is email hosting, search engine and paid clean browser app in iOS and Mac stores. Neither exists. Ahh, and paid uBlock Origin for Safari :)
- galangalalgol 7y ago
  When MS prevented other browsers from working well in Windows it was slapped with antitrust. Why is it ok when Apple does it? Is it because macos and ios don't have the same level of os monopoly that MS had back then?
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    I'm not saying it's OK when Apple does it; in fact, I've heavily criticised that in the past. I do think, however, that plays a role in Apple's ability to keep WebKit relevant, so it does have positive side-effects.
TelmoMenezes 7y ago
> And there's nothing preventing Google from leveraging Youtube/Gmail/Search to push out other browsers which have tracking protection. Nothing except antitrust laws...
- samoa42 7y ago
  yea... maybe not, because its profitable nonetheless
awinder 7y ago
I think Apple is pretty clearly able to "compete with free" and has shown it's possible to make great money by bundling some costs into the hardware + offering good cloud services with low-friction payments.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Andrex 7y ago
> Youtube already plays less well with Firefox. In most other cases I could agree there may have been nefarious intent, but as someone who's followed web components for a while I think YouTube just made a bad technology bet -- that being rewriting their front-end in Polymer v1, which was based on Web Components v0. Jumping the gun on an unratified standard is risky, and this example shows why.
- billiam 7y ago
  this.

by inapis 7y ago

Vinnl 7y ago

Yes, competing with Google is still a main challenge. Still, Apple seems to be managing by providing the browser for free as a value-add when you buy their hardware, and by preventing other browser engines from running on iOS. Mozilla's financial dependence on Google is still a major challenge, which they'll hopefully be able to fix before push comes to shove. Microsoft unfortunately did not seem to be able to financially justify the maintenance of their own engine - though then again, their bet appears to be on Windows integration rather than tracking protection.

auslander 7y ago
> Apple seems to be managing by providing the browser for free Plus @icloud.com email service > Mozilla's financial dependence on Google is still a major challenge, which they'll hopefully be able to fix I honestly do not see how. Sticking to Safari for now.
- rpastuszak 7y ago
  Mozilla is looking into becoming more independent from Google by introducing paid services, such as ad-free content subscriptions using Scroll, Pocket, VPN... Their approach relies on acquisitions (Pocket) or partnerships/experiments (Scroll). The language used by them when referring to Google has changed quite a lot in the past year or so.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - whoopdedo 7y ago
    But by doing so are at risk of becoming that which they hate.
    - rpastuszak 7y ago
      How so?
  - auslander 7y ago
    > by introducing paid services The only ones I'd pay for is email hosting, search engine and paid clean browser app in iOS and Mac stores. Neither exists. Ahh, and paid uBlock Origin for Safari :)
galangalalgol 7y ago
When MS prevented other browsers from working well in Windows it was slapped with antitrust. Why is it ok when Apple does it? Is it because macos and ios don't have the same level of os monopoly that MS had back then?
- Vinnl 7y ago
  I'm not saying it's OK when Apple does it; in fact, I've heavily criticised that in the past. I do think, however, that plays a role in Apple's ability to keep WebKit relevant, so it does have positive side-effects.

TelmoMenezes 7y ago

> And there's nothing preventing Google from leveraging Youtube/Gmail/Search to push out other browsers which have tracking protection. Nothing except antitrust laws...

samoa42 7y ago
yea... maybe not, because its profitable nonetheless

awinder 7y ago

I think Apple is pretty clearly able to "compete with free" and has shown it's possible to make great money by bundling some costs into the hardware + offering good cloud services with low-friction payments.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Andrex 7y ago

> Youtube already plays less well with Firefox. In most other cases I could agree there may have been nefarious intent, but as someone who's followed web components for a while I think YouTube just made a bad technology bet -- that being rewriting their front-end in Polymer v1, which was based on Web Components v0. Jumping the gun on an unratified standard is risky, and this example shows why.

billiam 7y ago
this.