3 ms·

On iOS, it is about the browser, as Apple is acting anti-competitive by not allowing any other browser engines but their own. Browser makers can't compete with

On iOS, it is about the browser, as Apple is acting anti-competitive by not allowing any other browser engines but their own. Browser makers can't compete with Safari by making a faster browser for example, because they won't be able to deploy it on iOS device. All applications go through the App Store, and the App Store forbids any browser engines not made by Apple. Regarding the app stores, it seems like lawmakers are catching up with the idea of "If I buy it, I should be able to own it and make my own decisions", which includes being able to install applications from 3rd party developers. It seems like a fine idea that Apple has a default application index where you can install applications from, but what is not fine is Apple deciding which application indexes should be allowed to exists in the first place. Kind of like how lawmakers wouldn't look the other way if suddenly all macOS computers only allowed installation of software from the App Store. Purchasing a device shouldn't mean "The company decides what I'm allowed to install on this thing".

scarface74 4y ago
Does that include consoles and smart TVs?
- ThatPlayer 4y ago
  If they get to the point of hurting competition, why not?
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Hurting competition? Console manufacturers have had stricter requirements and more onerous developer restrictions than any mobile platform since the 80s.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Sounds like they’re overdue for oversight, then.
    - ThatPlayer 4y ago
      That's not the same as hurting competition though. Are there games that consumers are playing on mobile platforms that aren't allowed on consoles?
      - scarface74 4y ago
        The approval process and the dev kit requirements for console games have always been a nightmare for third party game studios compared to just buying a $599 Mac Mini and $99/year to get into the developer program.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  If definitely should in my opinion, though legislation seems to fall behind there because the tight grip on hardware has been there for decades now. Although, I don't see any technical reason why Google wouldn't be able to put Chrome on Xbox and PlayStation. Nintendo is very browser averse (probably because every time they stick a browser in something it's full of holes and leads to jailbreaks). Hopefully, the Steam Deck will open people's eyes at what could be. So far its sales don't seem to be dropping off.
daviddever23box 4y ago
There is one key requirement of a mobile phone that doesn’t apply to a desktop scenario: the device MUST adhere to carrier-specific requirements, some of which may block access to telephony-associated hardware, or require that a manufacturer be able to provide a minimum standard of performance. Do you see AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or other carriers complaining about having only one browser engine per device?
- slightlyoff 4y ago
  Do you see them requiring only one browser engine on all of the Android devices they sell? No. The requirements of carriers are orthogonal to browser choice post-sale.

scarface74 4y ago

Does that include consoles and smart TVs?

ThatPlayer 4y ago
If they get to the point of hurting competition, why not?
- scarface74 4y ago
  Hurting competition? Console manufacturers have had stricter requirements and more onerous developer restrictions than any mobile platform since the 80s.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    Sounds like they’re overdue for oversight, then.
  - ThatPlayer 4y ago
    That's not the same as hurting competition though. Are there games that consumers are playing on mobile platforms that aren't allowed on consoles?
    - scarface74 4y ago
      The approval process and the dev kit requirements for console games have always been a nightmare for third party game studios compared to just buying a $599 Mac Mini and $99/year to get into the developer program.
jeroenhd 4y ago
If definitely should in my opinion, though legislation seems to fall behind there because the tight grip on hardware has been there for decades now. Although, I don't see any technical reason why Google wouldn't be able to put Chrome on Xbox and PlayStation. Nintendo is very browser averse (probably because every time they stick a browser in something it's full of holes and leads to jailbreaks). Hopefully, the Steam Deck will open people's eyes at what could be. So far its sales don't seem to be dropping off.

daviddever23box 4y ago

There is one key requirement of a mobile phone that doesn’t apply to a desktop scenario: the device MUST adhere to carrier-specific requirements, some of which may block access to telephony-associated hardware, or require that a manufacturer be able to provide a minimum standard of performance. Do you see AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile or other carriers complaining about having only one browser engine per device?

slightlyoff 4y ago
Do you see them requiring only one browser engine on all of the Android devices they sell? No. The requirements of carriers are orthogonal to browser choice post-sale.