7 ms·

> User any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default Hello, Alphabet world domination. They finally get the chance to get rid of that pesky Safa

by tgv 4y ago

> User any browser and browser engine and choose to make it default Hello, Alphabet world domination. They finally get the chance to get rid of that pesky Safari. Next stop: obligatory sign-in for using a service.

capableweb 4y ago
Article 101 and 102 from the "EU Antitrust policy" already protects against anti-competitive agreements and abusive behavior from those holding a dominant market position, I don't think that will change.
rvz 4y ago
See. It is frankly pointless. Chrome already has a significant amount of mindshare and will grow even more after this. The users have already chosen Chrome (and its derivatives). Mozilla has done absolutely nothing to stop it as Firefox has become totally irrelevant today. The EU is about to allow the world domination of Chrome and its derivatives to takeover entirely. Just like the many choices of a Linux distro, you will have the many choices of Chromium based browsers! All thanks to 'oPEn SoUrcE'.
- Gareth321 4y ago
  As a Chrome user I feel obligated to defend my use as: "I like it the most." As long as Google continues to offer a better experience, I don't mind them dominating the market. *As long as they don't use anticompetitive practises to prevent competition.* IE, backed by the most powerful tech company on the planet (at the time), used to be 95% of the internet. If IE can fall, so can Chrome.
  - sbuk 4y ago
    This means, if blink/chromium does come to dominate, means an end to the open web. Be very careful what you wish for.
    - Gareth321 4y ago
      - trasz 4y ago
        Microsoft didn’t control server infra. Google does. And they are already abusing this position.
      - sbuk 4y ago
        It came very close. Had AOL/Netscape/Mozilla not opensourced and push open standards when they did, things would be very different.
  - pteraspidomorph 4y ago
    IE was replaced because it was a hole-riddled nonstandard mess, and Google used their position to shove Chrome into everyone's mindshare (something this regulation appears to forbid, incidentally). Chrome isn't nonstandard because Google are very careful to comply with standards - which is easy enough when they have many employees involved with designing them and tend to manipulate those committees in their favor, and even if they fail they can just release whatever they want and use the technology's widespread adoption to justify its eventual standardization. Also, as a modern browser, Chrome is patched frequently, so the security angle is also a nonstarter.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  Mozilla self-sabotages so frequently and severely, I think you need to be very naive to not suspect the massive amount of funding they get from Google has something to do with it.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    I'd believe this if that same money wasn't required to keep the lights on. Easier to just stop paying it and wait for them to run out of runway.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Two possible outcomes of Mozilla losing Google's funding: Maybe Firefox evaporates away to nothing, 0% market share, and now Google loses the fig-leaf covering their browser monopoly. Or maybe Mozilla loses their ineffectual but greedy leadership, allowing people who believe in the mission to step into those roles. I think Google prefers the status quo to either of those scenarios. They prefer it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, for that is how much they pay to perpetuate it.
rad_gruchalski 4y ago
Funny you mention that because for the last 3 weeks Google Search is nagging me to sign in on the iPhone Safari.
makeitdouble 4y ago
If that’s really how it rolls out, doesn’t it also mean that Safari wasn’t viable on itself and nobody wanted to use it in the first place ? Apple is no underdog anymore, if their browser couldn‘t compete on its own merit I won’t be crying a river over it. Firefox, while mired with its own problems, is another story; but I don’t see Mozilla losing from this decision.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  “This website only works on Chrome.”
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    C-w
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    This is a serious issue that need to be solved directly, and not by carving out weird protected turfs for other monopolistic companies. In the current situation a ton of websites are already bailing out and shoving mobile apps to their users instead of actually addressing Safari.
    - d12bb 4y ago
      I like apps. Native look&feel, less energy use, etc.
      - makeitdouble 4y ago
        Apps are great for recurring use, it’s a PITA when it’s single/twice use or if you want standard features (accessibility, print/save screen, sharing urls etc.). For instance parking payment apps, mobile ticket apps etc. that you download when in vacation and could 100% be web only, or a PWA if Apple was onboard with it, instead of their “light app” thing. Or I had some of the government services apps not exposing text labels as selectable, which is a pain if you need to search for it. Same thing when you want to print/save the screen, you end up with a single screen png instead of potentially a fully scrolled and text including pdf. All these features could be coded in the app, but realistically devs don’t give a damn as it doesn’t bring much praise or money.
ahtihn 4y ago
Safari is a garbage browser. Why is it good that people are forced to use a bad browser?
- tmpz22 4y ago
  What makes Safari a bad browser? Sometimes it feels like dev forums rate a browser entirely based on the dev tools. For the average user Safari behaves identically or slightly better (battery life, privacy defaults, integration with the OS for login and payments) then chrome and Firefox.
  - xxpor 4y ago
    Extensions are garbage (tapermonkey specifically), it requires multiple redirects instead of allowing third party cookies which increases latency. NB: This is just the desktop version. The mobile version has been more or less fine for me.
    - d12bb 4y ago
      If I'd like your crappy website to let third parties track me, I'd just enable third party cookies. I don't, so you're at fault here. If an extension is garbage, blame the developer. The API is more or less the same.
onion2k 4y ago
Hello, Alphabet world domination. They finally get the chance to get rid of that pesky Safari. Next stop: obligatory sign-in for using a service. I bet that Chrome adoption on iOS remains under 25% forever. People just don't care which browser they use so long as the default one works. Safari isn't so bad that people are desperate to replace it.
- trasz 4y ago
  Until google breaks things on other browsers on purpose again.
- microtherion 4y ago
  There won't be any "default one" anymore, because the law appears to prohibit Apple from preinstalling Safari: >[won't be able to] >pre-install certain apps or software, or prevent users from easily un-installing these apps or software >require the most important software (e.g. web browsers) to be installed by default when installing an operating system
summerlight 4y ago
If Apple gets defeated with trillion dollars of budgets and full controls on OS and its ecosystem, it may deserve its failure like IE6.

by tgv 4y ago

capableweb 4y ago

Article 101 and 102 from the "EU Antitrust policy" already protects against anti-competitive agreements and abusive behavior from those holding a dominant market position, I don't think that will change.

rvz 4y ago

See. It is frankly pointless. Chrome already has a significant amount of mindshare and will grow even more after this. The users have already chosen Chrome (and its derivatives). Mozilla has done absolutely nothing to stop it as Firefox has become totally irrelevant today. The EU is about to allow the world domination of Chrome and its derivatives to takeover entirely. Just like the many choices of a Linux distro, you will have the many choices of Chromium based browsers! All thanks to 'oPEn SoUrcE'.

Gareth321 4y ago
As a Chrome user I feel obligated to defend my use as: "I like it the most." As long as Google continues to offer a better experience, I don't mind them dominating the market. *As long as they don't use anticompetitive practises to prevent competition.* IE, backed by the most powerful tech company on the planet (at the time), used to be 95% of the internet. If IE can fall, so can Chrome.
- sbuk 4y ago
  This means, if blink/chromium does come to dominate, means an end to the open web. Be very careful what you wish for.
  - Gareth321 4y ago
    - trasz 4y ago
      Microsoft didn’t control server infra. Google does. And they are already abusing this position.
    - sbuk 4y ago
      It came very close. Had AOL/Netscape/Mozilla not opensourced and push open standards when they did, things would be very different.
- pteraspidomorph 4y ago
  IE was replaced because it was a hole-riddled nonstandard mess, and Google used their position to shove Chrome into everyone's mindshare (something this regulation appears to forbid, incidentally). Chrome isn't nonstandard because Google are very careful to comply with standards - which is easy enough when they have many employees involved with designing them and tend to manipulate those committees in their favor, and even if they fail they can just release whatever they want and use the technology's widespread adoption to justify its eventual standardization. Also, as a modern browser, Chrome is patched frequently, so the security angle is also a nonstarter.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
Mozilla self-sabotages so frequently and severely, I think you need to be very naive to not suspect the massive amount of funding they get from Google has something to do with it.
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  I'd believe this if that same money wasn't required to keep the lights on. Easier to just stop paying it and wait for them to run out of runway.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Two possible outcomes of Mozilla losing Google's funding: Maybe Firefox evaporates away to nothing, 0% market share, and now Google loses the fig-leaf covering their browser monopoly. Or maybe Mozilla loses their ineffectual but greedy leadership, allowing people who believe in the mission to step into those roles. I think Google prefers the status quo to either of those scenarios. They prefer it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, for that is how much they pay to perpetuate it.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

Funny you mention that because for the last 3 weeks Google Search is nagging me to sign in on the iPhone Safari.

makeitdouble 4y ago

If that’s really how it rolls out, doesn’t it also mean that Safari wasn’t viable on itself and nobody wanted to use it in the first place ? Apple is no underdog anymore, if their browser couldn‘t compete on its own merit I won’t be crying a river over it. Firefox, while mired with its own problems, is another story; but I don’t see Mozilla losing from this decision.

KerrAvon 4y ago
“This website only works on Chrome.”
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  C-w
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  This is a serious issue that need to be solved directly, and not by carving out weird protected turfs for other monopolistic companies. In the current situation a ton of websites are already bailing out and shoving mobile apps to their users instead of actually addressing Safari.
  - d12bb 4y ago
    I like apps. Native look&feel, less energy use, etc.
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      Apps are great for recurring use, it’s a PITA when it’s single/twice use or if you want standard features (accessibility, print/save screen, sharing urls etc.). For instance parking payment apps, mobile ticket apps etc. that you download when in vacation and could 100% be web only, or a PWA if Apple was onboard with it, instead of their “light app” thing. Or I had some of the government services apps not exposing text labels as selectable, which is a pain if you need to search for it. Same thing when you want to print/save the screen, you end up with a single screen png instead of potentially a fully scrolled and text including pdf. All these features could be coded in the app, but realistically devs don’t give a damn as it doesn’t bring much praise or money.

ahtihn 4y ago

Safari is a garbage browser. Why is it good that people are forced to use a bad browser?

tmpz22 4y ago
What makes Safari a bad browser? Sometimes it feels like dev forums rate a browser entirely based on the dev tools. For the average user Safari behaves identically or slightly better (battery life, privacy defaults, integration with the OS for login and payments) then chrome and Firefox.
- xxpor 4y ago
  Extensions are garbage (tapermonkey specifically), it requires multiple redirects instead of allowing third party cookies which increases latency. NB: This is just the desktop version. The mobile version has been more or less fine for me.
  - d12bb 4y ago
    If I'd like your crappy website to let third parties track me, I'd just enable third party cookies. I don't, so you're at fault here. If an extension is garbage, blame the developer. The API is more or less the same.

onion2k 4y ago

Hello, Alphabet world domination. They finally get the chance to get rid of that pesky Safari. Next stop: obligatory sign-in for using a service. I bet that Chrome adoption on iOS remains under 25% forever. People just don't care which browser they use so long as the default one works. Safari isn't so bad that people are desperate to replace it.

trasz 4y ago
Until google breaks things on other browsers on purpose again.
microtherion 4y ago
There won't be any "default one" anymore, because the law appears to prohibit Apple from preinstalling Safari: >[won't be able to] >pre-install certain apps or software, or prevent users from easily un-installing these apps or software >require the most important software (e.g. web browsers) to be installed by default when installing an operating system

summerlight 4y ago

If Apple gets defeated with trillion dollars of budgets and full controls on OS and its ecosystem, it may deserve its failure like IE6.