7 ms·

> Firefox, Edge and Chrome have all been banned on iOS. No they haven't! You can download each one here: [0], [1], [2]. They have been forbidden from using the

> Firefox, Edge and Chrome have all been banned on iOS. No they haven't! You can download each one here: [0], [1], [2]. They have been forbidden from using their own rendering engines. But they can still add all the chrome they want to the UI and do all their usual tracking like they do on the desktop. [0]https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browser/id1055677337 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-browser/... [1]https://apps.apple.com/us/app/microsoft-edge-web-browser/id1288723196 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/microsoft-edge-web-browser/id1... [2]https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome/id535886823 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome/id535886823

lenkite 4y ago
Good thing that regulation mentions browser engines and not the cardboard wrapping. You can use any browser you want as long it is ONLY Apple WebKit behind the scenes is a true dystopian fascist power-play.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > Good thing that regulation mentions browser engines and not the cardboard wrapping. Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly dominant engine that has ~80% of global market? Or in the case of Chromium the cardboard wrapping like Edge etc. are different engines all of a sudden?
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly dominant engine that has ~80% of global market? Because WebKit sucks! I don't intend to be vitriolic here, but this really is the status quo of rendering engines. You have Blink, which is capable of making complex webapps and fully-featured browser experiences, and then you have WebKit, which is almost exclusively capable of breaking them. I'm not mad that WebKit sucks though, we need sucky browser engines! Sucky browser engines like WebKit run great on terrible hardware like Smart TVs or WiFi Fridges or portable game consoles that wouldn't be running a browser engine otherwise. The problem is that Apple forces mobile users onto a browser that's behind the rest of the world's web technologies. They can make sucky browsers all day long, and they won't hear a peep out of me as long as I can replace it with a Chromium-based browser. WebKit is holding Safari, and by extension the rest of the internet, back. That's the problem, and arguably an abuse of market position considering Apple directly profits off the failure of webapps.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > Because WebKit sucks! Of course it doesn't suck > the status quo of rendering engines. You have Blink And so we've immediately arrived at the core of the matter: all you want is Chrome. Which is a) the dominant browser and b) whose "capable" is a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards
      - mtomweb 4y ago
        I assume you’ve never even attempted to build an app for Safari? Or a Web App at all?
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        I wouldn't complain if Apple let me install the things I want on the device I own. If Apple let me use browsers that had the featureset I wanted, I wouldn't detract from Safari so much. As it stands though, the only sane way to deliver an app to iOS is via the web. Anything else is just a ploy for 30% of my profits and an attempt to Stockholm-syndrome me into becoming an iOS developer. So yeah, I'm willing to stick it to Apple for being the largest company in the world, and criminally negligent towards their first-party browser. Obviously they're doing this because they directly profit off the failure of the web.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        > Anything else is just a ploy for 30% of my profits and an attempt to Stockholm-syndrome me into becoming an iOS developer. Have you ever tried developing for consoles or releasing games through Steam? It's probably "but it's different"? > and criminally negligent towards their first-party browser. And that "criminal negligence" manifests itself in not implementing all of Chrome's non-standards the moment Chrome comes up with them?
  - lenkite 4y ago
    Google is already being targeted here by EU regulation on several fronts. If Google abuses their dominant position of Google Chrome, then by all means let's get regulation applied to them. I am perfectly fine with regulation applied to Google Chrome! Let Google Android be forced to come with other preinstalled browsers. But at the moment, Apple is the company that is abusing control of their platform and most web-devs and many educated users look forward to having real choices.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > most web-devs and many educated users look forward to having real choices. How is giving the web completely over to Google a real choice?
      - lenkite 4y ago
        The ability to install a browser of your choice on the platform of your choice is not the same as giving the web completely over Google. Let's not make a strawman argument.
        dmitriid 4y ago
        I wish it were a strawman argument. Chrome is ~80% market share of browsers. Google search is dominant, and pushes Chrome heavily. Google's own apps and platforms push Chrome, and on mobile they ignore user choice and offer to open links in Chrome by default. Google is known to have repeatedly sabotaged Firefox [1] Google fully dominates web standards committees. Google already barrells through with their proposals with complete and utter disregard to input or objections from other browser implementers. The web is already given over to Google. More comments and discussions from other people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899606, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31897396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31897396, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899214 [1] https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686
mtomweb 4y ago
They say a picture is worth a 1000 words: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/1632015438/600x200 https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/16...
- freediver 4y ago
  And this would be completely wrong. These browsers differ so much in respecting user privacy, stance towards trackers, telemetry, using native controls and integration with native iOS services.

lenkite 4y ago

Good thing that regulation mentions browser engines and not the cardboard wrapping. You can use any browser you want as long it is ONLY Apple WebKit behind the scenes is a true dystopian fascist power-play.

dmitriid 4y ago
> Good thing that regulation mentions browser engines and not the cardboard wrapping. Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly dominant engine that has ~80% of global market? Or in the case of Chromium the cardboard wrapping like Edge etc. are different engines all of a sudden?
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > Then why doesn't it target Chromium as the vastly dominant engine that has ~80% of global market? Because WebKit sucks! I don't intend to be vitriolic here, but this really is the status quo of rendering engines. You have Blink, which is capable of making complex webapps and fully-featured browser experiences, and then you have WebKit, which is almost exclusively capable of breaking them. I'm not mad that WebKit sucks though, we need sucky browser engines! Sucky browser engines like WebKit run great on terrible hardware like Smart TVs or WiFi Fridges or portable game consoles that wouldn't be running a browser engine otherwise. The problem is that Apple forces mobile users onto a browser that's behind the rest of the world's web technologies. They can make sucky browsers all day long, and they won't hear a peep out of me as long as I can replace it with a Chromium-based browser. WebKit is holding Safari, and by extension the rest of the internet, back. That's the problem, and arguably an abuse of market position considering Apple directly profits off the failure of webapps.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Because WebKit sucks! Of course it doesn't suck > the status quo of rendering engines. You have Blink And so we've immediately arrived at the core of the matter: all you want is Chrome. Which is a) the dominant browser and b) whose "capable" is a bunch of Chrome-only non-standards
    - mtomweb 4y ago
      I assume you’ve never even attempted to build an app for Safari? Or a Web App at all?
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      I wouldn't complain if Apple let me install the things I want on the device I own. If Apple let me use browsers that had the featureset I wanted, I wouldn't detract from Safari so much. As it stands though, the only sane way to deliver an app to iOS is via the web. Anything else is just a ploy for 30% of my profits and an attempt to Stockholm-syndrome me into becoming an iOS developer. So yeah, I'm willing to stick it to Apple for being the largest company in the world, and criminally negligent towards their first-party browser. Obviously they're doing this because they directly profit off the failure of the web.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        > Anything else is just a ploy for 30% of my profits and an attempt to Stockholm-syndrome me into becoming an iOS developer. Have you ever tried developing for consoles or releasing games through Steam? It's probably "but it's different"? > and criminally negligent towards their first-party browser. And that "criminal negligence" manifests itself in not implementing all of Chrome's non-standards the moment Chrome comes up with them?
- lenkite 4y ago
  Google is already being targeted here by EU regulation on several fronts. If Google abuses their dominant position of Google Chrome, then by all means let's get regulation applied to them. I am perfectly fine with regulation applied to Google Chrome! Let Google Android be forced to come with other preinstalled browsers. But at the moment, Apple is the company that is abusing control of their platform and most web-devs and many educated users look forward to having real choices.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > most web-devs and many educated users look forward to having real choices. How is giving the web completely over to Google a real choice?
    - lenkite 4y ago
      The ability to install a browser of your choice on the platform of your choice is not the same as giving the web completely over Google. Let's not make a strawman argument.
      - dmitriid 4y ago
        I wish it were a strawman argument. Chrome is ~80% market share of browsers. Google search is dominant, and pushes Chrome heavily. Google's own apps and platforms push Chrome, and on mobile they ignore user choice and offer to open links in Chrome by default. Google is known to have repeatedly sabotaged Firefox [1] Google fully dominates web standards committees. Google already barrells through with their proposals with complete and utter disregard to input or objections from other browser implementers. The web is already given over to Google. More comments and discussions from other people: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899606, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31897396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31897396, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899214 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31899214 [1] https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686

mtomweb 4y ago

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/1632015438/600x200 https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/1129987795651399682/16...

freediver 4y ago
And this would be completely wrong. These browsers differ so much in respecting user privacy, stance towards trackers, telemetry, using native controls and integration with native iOS services.