8 ms·

It's quite amazing no one is suing apple on this front yet. It would seem to be an easy case to make given the microsoft IE history

by mcfedr 6y ago

suprfnk 6y ago
Apple is not a monopoly and can do what it wants.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Trust != monopoly
  - selectodude 6y ago
    Apple isn't a trust either.
dmitriid 6y ago
Suing Apple for what, exactly? And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS. Here are just some of the reasons: https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com
- seppel 6y ago
  > And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS. Then don't install it. Seems to be quite simple.
  - cyrksoft 6y ago
    Then don't buy an iPhone. Seems to be quite simple ;)
    - bsaul 6y ago
      The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software, such as browsers. Unlocked iOS versions do exists, and alternate app store like cydia exist as well, but it’s relying on people hacking security measures which shouldn’t be there in the first place.
      - Someone 6y ago
        “The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software” That’s an opinion. Apple has another one, and, AFAIK, doesn’t advertise that as a feature of their product. Some people argue Apple shouldn’t be allowed to sell such a product, but I don’t know of legal precedents for that (could be my lack of knowledge in this, of course) Certainly, the same situation exists for game consoles and, to a lesser extent because nobody can install additional software on them, cars, toasters, etc. (Cars may be even more similar. Tesla doesn’t give you the means to run your own self driving software on the hardware you bought, do they?)
      - cyrksoft 6y ago
        Why should you be able to do whatever you want on it? This doesn't apply to many other products.
        LocalH 6y ago
        It does actually, in the context of personal usage. The vast majority of products have no such "after-purchase" restrictions. Why should a company have the right to restrict what I do with a device throughout its life at such a level, unless I am actively harming them? Should they be able to remove features? Brick devices? How far should that level of control go? That mindset is going to be the death of general purpose computing within the general public.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      This argument really holds no water to my eye because the average consumer is subject almost solely to paid adverts and maybe a little knowledge about tidbits like this rather than any deep knowledge about the platform or Apple - the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour so there is almost no inherent protection for the consumer in this regard when compared to (say) even an Android phone, or better a PC
      - cyrksoft 6y ago
        You know what you get when buying an iPhone. Your argument stems from you believing you know more about the preferences of the average consumer than himself. Why should Apple be forced to offer a specific product? Don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives out there.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour Boohoo, I really feel sorry for companies like Google (5th richest company in the world, and whose Android runs on ~80% of smartphones) and Samsung (23% market share last quarter compared to Apple's 21%). It's too bad the information asymmetry doesn't protect them.
- gpvos 6y ago
  Neither would I, but I would want Firefox (if I had an iOS device).
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    Yup, Firefox would be an alternative. However, if you allow Firefox (an alternative browser), you'd have to allow Chrome and others (also alternative browsers). I guess it's possible to allow an alternative browser with restrictions like "must include tracking protection" etc. But that's probably more hassle than it's worth.
    - gpvos 6y ago
      Ah yes, you mean Chrome might dominate iOS browsing by sheer power of existence, which is indeed likely and unwanted.
carlosgj94 6y ago
It's actually not Safari but WebKit. Gnome browser uses it as well (and a few others). I guess that makes it harder to sue? Since it's not a project that "belongs" to them?
- capableweb 6y ago
  Last time I checked (maybe 2015 or something like that?), Apples contributors are about 50% of the total contributors to webkit. I used to have a script to aggregate the data, but doesn't work now and I have no time to fix it. Maybe someone else wanna give it a try? The list itself is here: https://webkit.org/team/ https://webkit.org/team/ / https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/config/contributors.json https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy...
matthewmacleod 6y ago
It's not that amazing if you take a step back, have a look at the background of US vs MS, and understand the different positions of the market and the companies in question. I mean, you might be able to build a convincing case – but it's not at all as clear-cut as you seem to think.

It's quite amazing no one is suing apple on this front yet. It would seem to be an easy case to make given the microsoft IE history

by mcfedr 6y ago

It's quite amazing no one is suing apple on this front yet. It would seem to be an easy case to make given the microsoft IE history

suprfnk 6y ago

Apple is not a monopoly and can do what it wants.

mhh__ 6y ago
Trust != monopoly
- selectodude 6y ago
  Apple isn't a trust either.

dmitriid 6y ago

Suing Apple for what, exactly? And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS. Here are just some of the reasons: https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com

seppel 6y ago
> And no, as a user, I don't want Chrome on iOS. Then don't install it. Seems to be quite simple.
- cyrksoft 6y ago
  Then don't buy an iPhone. Seems to be quite simple ;)
  - bsaul 6y ago
    The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software, such as browsers. Unlocked iOS versions do exists, and alternate app store like cydia exist as well, but it’s relying on people hacking security measures which shouldn’t be there in the first place.
    - Someone 6y ago
      “The problem is buying an iphone means i should be able to do whatever i want with it later on, including install additional software” That’s an opinion. Apple has another one, and, AFAIK, doesn’t advertise that as a feature of their product. Some people argue Apple shouldn’t be allowed to sell such a product, but I don’t know of legal precedents for that (could be my lack of knowledge in this, of course) Certainly, the same situation exists for game consoles and, to a lesser extent because nobody can install additional software on them, cars, toasters, etc. (Cars may be even more similar. Tesla doesn’t give you the means to run your own self driving software on the hardware you bought, do they?)
    - cyrksoft 6y ago
      Why should you be able to do whatever you want on it? This doesn't apply to many other products.
      - LocalH 6y ago
        It does actually, in the context of personal usage. The vast majority of products have no such "after-purchase" restrictions. Why should a company have the right to restrict what I do with a device throughout its life at such a level, unless I am actively harming them? Should they be able to remove features? Brick devices? How far should that level of control go? That mindset is going to be the death of general purpose computing within the general public.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    This argument really holds no water to my eye because the average consumer is subject almost solely to paid adverts and maybe a little knowledge about tidbits like this rather than any deep knowledge about the platform or Apple - the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour so there is almost no inherent protection for the consumer in this regard when compared to (say) even an Android phone, or better a PC
    - cyrksoft 6y ago
      You know what you get when buying an iPhone. Your argument stems from you believing you know more about the preferences of the average consumer than himself. Why should Apple be forced to offer a specific product? Don't like it, don't buy it. There are plenty of alternatives out there.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > the information asymmetry is hook, line, and sinker in apples favour Boohoo, I really feel sorry for companies like Google (5th richest company in the world, and whose Android runs on ~80% of smartphones) and Samsung (23% market share last quarter compared to Apple's 21%). It's too bad the information asymmetry doesn't protect them.
gpvos 6y ago
Neither would I, but I would want Firefox (if I had an iOS device).
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Yup, Firefox would be an alternative. However, if you allow Firefox (an alternative browser), you'd have to allow Chrome and others (also alternative browsers). I guess it's possible to allow an alternative browser with restrictions like "must include tracking protection" etc. But that's probably more hassle than it's worth.
  - gpvos 6y ago
    Ah yes, you mean Chrome might dominate iOS browsing by sheer power of existence, which is indeed likely and unwanted.

carlosgj94 6y ago

It's actually not Safari but WebKit. Gnome browser uses it as well (and a few others). I guess that makes it harder to sue? Since it's not a project that "belongs" to them?

capableweb 6y ago
Last time I checked (maybe 2015 or something like that?), Apples contributors are about 50% of the total contributors to webkit. I used to have a script to aggregate the data, but doesn't work now and I have no time to fix it. Maybe someone else wanna give it a try? The list itself is here: https://webkit.org/team/ https://webkit.org/team/ / https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/common/config/contributors.json https://trac.webkit.org/browser/trunk/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy...

matthewmacleod 6y ago

It's not that amazing if you take a step back, have a look at the background of US vs MS, and understand the different positions of the market and the companies in question. I mean, you might be able to build a convincing case – but it's not at all as clear-cut as you seem to think.