10 ms·

Looking and pointing at you iOS and Apple. It's unacceptable that other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. Imagine Mi

Looking and pointing at you iOS and Apple. It's unacceptable that other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. Imagine Microsoft would do something like this...

dylan604 4y ago
Um, in my imagination, they did this very thing. They paid a slap on the wrist fine, were not monopolistically broken up, and have gone back towards doing the same thing.
- hollerith 4y ago
  Not the same thing because Microsoft never tried to prevent the user from installing Firefox or Chrome.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    Netscape Navigator, probably. I don't think Mozilla was around quite yet, certainly not Chrome.
  - squarefoot 4y ago
    From their position of power they don't need anymore to prevent users from installing other browsers; it's enough for them to continuously pester the user with annoying requests to make their own the default one until the user surrenders. For 99.999% of users, a browser that doesn't load by default and a browser that is not installed are essentially the same thing.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Any push back against allowing a user to do whatever the user wants is the same thing in my book. Microsoft has recently made it harder to use non-MS browsers. If you want to play a game of semantics, then sure, point to you. If you want to just have a normal conversation about users doing what they want, then I'd say you're outside of the lines on that last shot.
- neogodless 4y ago
  No, they did not do "this very thing." They bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and yes, they did some dirty tricks to try to keep users on IE rather than use alternate browsers. But "other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet" was not something they did. They still are not "doing the same thing" as that. Then again, I'm not in your imagination.
  - AussieWog93 4y ago
    >Then again, I'm not in your imagination. Something something don't be snarky something something HN rules.
  - batty_alex 4y ago
    > They bundled Internet Explorer with Windows Yeah... this wasn't what actually got them in trouble and is a gross oversimplification. They were actively working against Netscape by making other browsers *not work* on the OS. It also wasn't standards-compliant and had all sorts of proprietary tech (VBScript, JScript, OCX, and MSHTML) that would only work with their browser
- bigdollopenergy 4y ago
  If the company supplies the hardware and software as a bundled unit, they are much more able to arbitrarily restrict and wall-in the device. It's just how the law works. This is how Apple seems to get away with a lot of super anti-competitive stuff that Microsoft simply could never with it's Windows OS (Microsoft being crucified for favoring IE being a prime example, while Apple blatantly does the same thing with Safari). That said, Microsoft can and does do all the same stuff on their Xbox or surface tablets, because in that case they do supply both the hardware and software. There's no "good" or "bad" company when it comes to this issue, as they both willing to do this in every scenario when they can get away with it. Why it's structured this way, I've no idea. I don't think supplying the hardware should be the distinguishing factor that allows them to wall-in the device. It's one thing to force them to support and integrate devices/software into their product, which is probably not fair on the company, but it's another thing to actively get in the way. It's a thin line with a lot of grey area, but the way it's setup currently probably isn't right.
  - notriddle 4y ago
    Are you sure it doesn't have something to do with Microsoft holding 80% of the desktop market at the time, while Apple only has 50% of the smartphone market now?
    - dylan604 4y ago
      At 50%, do you start fudging numbers to ensure you go no higher? "No, Senator, we are not the majority of users, so we can't be a monopoly." Or maybe that's too immoral, so start funding the other(s) to prop them up? Microsoft propped up Apple to ensure there were other consumer OS makers with Apple being the most viable* competitor. *viable is doing a lot of heavy lifting as they did need that propping up
      - notriddle 4y ago
        > At 50%, do you start fudging numbers to ensure you go no higher? I get why you wouldn't want to trust Apple's self-reported numbers, but why would Wikimedia [1] also report Android as being more popular than iOS? What do they get out of it? [1]: https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-os https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sit...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
supernovae 4y ago
1990s was a long time ago.. why would Microsoft do something like this? They're all in on Chromium and choice. When you change your default browser, its actually changing the default browser, not the skin with the forced widget inside.
- therealmarv 4y ago
  yes it is a long time ago. And there was a big debate about Microsoft (including discussions of splitting up Microsoft because of bundling the browser). And Apple is doing things way beyond that for many years and nobody blinks an eye nowadays.
  - shagie 4y ago
    The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and not include 3rd party browsers. Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers. If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be an issue. The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its software to 3rd parties. On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM partners to include software, then Google would likely be facing various government bodies that have issue with this process and possibly facing fines.
    - supernovae 4y ago
      Apple has NO OEM. You can only buy completely integrated products period. The new M1s are SOCs, so there isn't even a 3rd party market unless you restrict that to USB and fashion accessories. Microsoft does make its own hardware. The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. They didn't break any OEM 3rd party market nor dictate anything. In fact, they have a "signature system" policy for their first party hardware that it won't be full of bloatware like 3rd party OEMs used to do. Google has slowly been destroying its 3rd parties and 3rd parties playing in its ecosystem have been moving towards forking for a while which is why there is always the complaint of unsupported devices after a single cycle there. (and so many community roms/hacks/installers floating around to address this)
Nextgrid 4y ago
While I agree with them about the blanket ban on alternative browser engines on iOS, when it comes to desktop, Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that. Their secret at the time? Making an actually good browser that offered features the incumbent didn't have, something Mozilla has absolutely given up on in pursuit of making a Chrome lookalike, up to the point of removing certain features (that power users - their only marketshare at this point - very much miss) and even implementing arbitrary restrictions on the add-ons you can install on Android (you have to use a complex workaround to install unapproved ones). The thing is, people who want Chrome will just use the real thing and have no reason to use a slower lookalike with poor compatibility. Here's an easy idea to sell Firefox on the desktop to the masses: built-in uBlock Origin, out of the box. Nobody I know that has tried an ad blocker ever switched back, and if they do fall for a dark pattern and switch back to an alternative browser, ads will be a persistent reminder telling them to go back to Firefox. Actually give non-technical users a real, tangible reason to use Firefox.
- admax88qqq 4y ago
  Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
    - echelon 4y ago
      Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.
opportune 4y ago
I understand why they don’t want to allow just any browser implementation from a security/user trust perspective. Even if technically it does nothing to make their device more secure, it really reduces their security surface area to only expose higher level primitives they control. It’s not clear what they gain from allowing other engines because probably nobody is eschewing iOS/iPhone because of having to use webkit. Apple could still easily introduce a very rigorous review process for browsers that would likely result in Chromium and maybe “actual” Firefox being approved. But, until a court forces them to, they don’t have any reason to create that headache for themselves. They probably never expected to be able to get away with this for as long as they have.
- afavour 4y ago
  > It’s not clear what they gain from allowing other engines Apple gain nothing. That precisely why they don't do it. However, we all suffer from a web platform that gets held back by there being zero competition on iOS.
  - hkt 4y ago
    I'd wonder if EU antitrust laws could give them something to gain: namely, not being fined. There's a concept of market fairness in EU antitrust law that isn't present in the equivalent US rules, such that price is not the only consideration. I'd be surprised if this couldn't be turned towards pushing for greater user choice as it was when MS was bundling internet explorer for years. If memory serves, it was competition law which was used to undo that.
  - opportune 4y ago
    I guess what I’m saying is that unless legislation or a court make Apple support other browsers, expect nothing. Apple won’t acquiesce just because technical users and developers don’t like having to use WebKit. Despite it being a terrible decision, I don’t think it affects Apple’s bottom line positively at all to support other browser engines: they won’t make any money off it, will create headaches for themselves since they need to expand their security surface and do some technical work to support it, and cede control to competitors. Approximately nobody (weighted by financial impact to Apple - whether Firefox uses WebKit or not is, as far as I can tell, completely irrelevant to Apple’s bottom line) is deciding not to release on iOS because of WebKit.
_0w8t 4y ago
Apple only forbids alternative rendering engines, one can still use own networking stack. This alone allows to differentiate a browser a lot especially regarding ad blocking.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  The vast majority of what makes a browser is the HTML/CSS rendering and JavaScript interpreter. Everything else is pretty much just glue to make it all work.
  - _0w8t 4y ago
    From an end-user point of view rendering engines are mostly indistinguishable. On the other hand the whole UI and speed of loading of pages are very much noticeable and this a developer can directly control. Note I agree that what Apple does is bad, but claiming that it prevents differentiation where it matters is simply not true.
btilly 4y ago
If iOS allowed other browsers, then parental controls as described in https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 will obviously not work. Which eliminates a feature that many parents like. Yes, yes. I'm well aware that there are many workarounds. Kids get around it. But, like the lock on your front door, its purpose is to give you a feeling of safety. And not to actually be safe.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  The XNU kernel has great network filtering capabilities, and any modern OS can filter traffic on the kernel level. Apple could force all third-party browsers to use an entitlement that simply designates them as a browsing application, and then extend the firewall/screen time rules to those apps. It's not rocket science, content blockers have been doing this since the early 2000s.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  iOS Parental Controls already allow restricting app installs. Apple could easily add an additional option to restrict installing third-party web browsers while allowing other types of apps to be installed. I'm not willing to give Apple a pass on this major issue just because they'd have to slightly rework their Parental Controls.
coldtea 4y ago
If Apple allowed other browsers there would be even less competition overall in browsers - as Chrome would also dominate there too (and third parties force its use to be compatible with them). At the monent, iOS being Safari/Webkit only is what keeps us having two engines with both having any real market share.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  What competition is "this brand of smartphone is stuck with Safari"? It's not competition if there are no advantages to be gained from the choices you make. If Safari were better than the competition, Apple wouldn't be so afraid of opening up the ecosystem. Safari would still be big on iOS because it has some very useful features and integrations that the competition doesn't offer. Apple's pseudo-TOR and lockdown mode are just two examples from the top of my head of things the competition isn't putting too much effort into. Microsoft has super-duper secure mode, but I don't think Edge users really care.
  - diegof79 4y ago
    I have a contrarian point of view regarding Safari and app installation in iOS. It will be cool if Apple opens the browser and app installation options allowing PWAs to run like iOS Apps (and all the people working with web apps will be happy). My biggest concern with PWAs is that only ads are a viable business model for small utility apps. The App Store rules are terrible (and give Apple too much power). But, it allows selling small utilities. In a world of PWAs, your monetization options are subscription, donation, or ads. A subscription for a small tool doesn't make sense. Donations don't scale. Hence, the most probable option will be ads. I agree with you. Having Safari as the only option for iOS is anti-competitive. But, honestly, the competition (Google) will love to have a world of apps relying on their ads infra. The first thing I'll do if I were Google is to add all the missing APIs to Chrome PWAs, so devs don't have a good reason to continue using the App Store. I don't love the idea of having ads and tracking in every little app.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
wlindley 4y ago
Can anyone explain why any technically aware person, especially free software advocates, would willingly use, much less pay for, a computer (even one disguised as a "telephone" which it is not) that someone else controls? It beggars belief.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pedro2 4y ago
  Same way a farmer can’t use the techniques from a thousand years ago if he wants to stay in business?
- daxelrod 4y ago
  See Cory Doctorow's article about the feudalism of digital platforms (an expansion of Bruce Schneier's idea). The gist is that digital security and compatibility is difficult enough to keep up with that most people conclude serfdom to a platform warlord is worth it. https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/ https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-...
- bombcar 4y ago
  Because it works better than the other alternatives and people can’t be arsed otherwise. This occurs time and time again.
xcrunner529 4y ago
I mean Mozilla refuses to implement WebSerial just like Apple. They’re both holding back functions just because “they” feel they get to define what we should do instead of us.
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
> on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. I also own my car, but not surprisingly Tesla won’t have anything to do with me if I replace the batteries with ones from a different producer, because even though I own it, they get the bad PR when it blows up. But of cause I have the legal right to do so, just like you have the legal right to jailbreak your iPhone. Just don’t expect the original company to be of any help to you.
- dTal 4y ago
  Tesla's a funny example to pick; if they detect that you've tampered with it, the company doesn't stop at "not having anything to do with you" - they actively kneecap your car. Not for liability reasons, but because it undermines their ability to market segment. You don't really "own" a Tesla the way you own most other cars. https://electrek.co/2020/08/22/tesla-fights-back-against-owners-hacking-unlock-performance-boost/ https://electrek.co/2020/08/22/tesla-fights-back-against-own...

Looking and pointing at you iOS and Apple. It's unacceptable that other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. Imagine Microsoft would do something like this...

dylan604 4y ago

Um, in my imagination, they did this very thing. They paid a slap on the wrist fine, were not monopolistically broken up, and have gone back towards doing the same thing.

hollerith 4y ago
Not the same thing because Microsoft never tried to prevent the user from installing Firefox or Chrome.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  Netscape Navigator, probably. I don't think Mozilla was around quite yet, certainly not Chrome.
- squarefoot 4y ago
  From their position of power they don't need anymore to prevent users from installing other browsers; it's enough for them to continuously pester the user with annoying requests to make their own the default one until the user surrenders. For 99.999% of users, a browser that doesn't load by default and a browser that is not installed are essentially the same thing.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Any push back against allowing a user to do whatever the user wants is the same thing in my book. Microsoft has recently made it harder to use non-MS browsers. If you want to play a game of semantics, then sure, point to you. If you want to just have a normal conversation about users doing what they want, then I'd say you're outside of the lines on that last shot.
neogodless 4y ago
No, they did not do "this very thing." They bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, and yes, they did some dirty tricks to try to keep users on IE rather than use alternate browsers. But "other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet" was not something they did. They still are not "doing the same thing" as that. Then again, I'm not in your imagination.
- AussieWog93 4y ago
  >Then again, I'm not in your imagination. Something something don't be snarky something something HN rules.
- batty_alex 4y ago
  > They bundled Internet Explorer with Windows Yeah... this wasn't what actually got them in trouble and is a gross oversimplification. They were actively working against Netscape by making other browsers *not work* on the OS. It also wasn't standards-compliant and had all sorts of proprietary tech (VBScript, JScript, OCX, and MSHTML) that would only work with their browser
bigdollopenergy 4y ago
If the company supplies the hardware and software as a bundled unit, they are much more able to arbitrarily restrict and wall-in the device. It's just how the law works. This is how Apple seems to get away with a lot of super anti-competitive stuff that Microsoft simply could never with it's Windows OS (Microsoft being crucified for favoring IE being a prime example, while Apple blatantly does the same thing with Safari). That said, Microsoft can and does do all the same stuff on their Xbox or surface tablets, because in that case they do supply both the hardware and software. There's no "good" or "bad" company when it comes to this issue, as they both willing to do this in every scenario when they can get away with it. Why it's structured this way, I've no idea. I don't think supplying the hardware should be the distinguishing factor that allows them to wall-in the device. It's one thing to force them to support and integrate devices/software into their product, which is probably not fair on the company, but it's another thing to actively get in the way. It's a thin line with a lot of grey area, but the way it's setup currently probably isn't right.
- notriddle 4y ago
  Are you sure it doesn't have something to do with Microsoft holding 80% of the desktop market at the time, while Apple only has 50% of the smartphone market now?
  - dylan604 4y ago
    At 50%, do you start fudging numbers to ensure you go no higher? "No, Senator, we are not the majority of users, so we can't be a monopoly." Or maybe that's too immoral, so start funding the other(s) to prop them up? Microsoft propped up Apple to ensure there were other consumer OS makers with Apple being the most viable* competitor. *viable is doing a lot of heavy lifting as they did need that propping up
    - notriddle 4y ago
      > At 50%, do you start fudging numbers to ensure you go no higher? I get why you wouldn't want to trust Apple's self-reported numbers, but why would Wikimedia [1] also report Android as being more popular than iOS? What do they get out of it? [1]: https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-os https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sit...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

supernovae 4y ago

1990s was a long time ago.. why would Microsoft do something like this? They're all in on Chromium and choice. When you change your default browser, its actually changing the default browser, not the skin with the forced widget inside.

therealmarv 4y ago
yes it is a long time ago. And there was a big debate about Microsoft (including discussions of splitting up Microsoft because of bundling the browser). And Apple is doing things way beyond that for many years and nobody blinks an eye nowadays.
- shagie 4y ago
  The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and not include 3rd party browsers. Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party browsers. If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be an issue. The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its software to 3rd parties. On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM partners to include software, then Google would likely be facing various government bodies that have issue with this process and possibly facing fines.
  - supernovae 4y ago
    Apple has NO OEM. You can only buy completely integrated products period. The new M1s are SOCs, so there isn't even a 3rd party market unless you restrict that to USB and fashion accessories. Microsoft does make its own hardware. The Surface line of products are pretty amazing. They didn't break any OEM 3rd party market nor dictate anything. In fact, they have a "signature system" policy for their first party hardware that it won't be full of bloatware like 3rd party OEMs used to do. Google has slowly been destroying its 3rd parties and 3rd parties playing in its ecosystem have been moving towards forking for a while which is why there is always the complaint of unsupported devices after a single cycle there. (and so many community roms/hacks/installers floating around to address this)

Nextgrid 4y ago

While I agree with them about the blanket ban on alternative browser engines on iOS, when it comes to desktop, Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that. Their secret at the time? Making an actually good browser that offered features the incumbent didn't have, something Mozilla has absolutely given up on in pursuit of making a Chrome lookalike, up to the point of removing certain features (that power users - their only marketshare at this point - very much miss) and even implementing arbitrary restrictions on the add-ons you can install on Android (you have to use a complex workaround to install unapproved ones). The thing is, people who want Chrome will just use the real thing and have no reason to use a slower lookalike with poor compatibility. Here's an easy idea to sell Firefox on the desktop to the masses: built-in uBlock Origin, out of the box. Nobody I know that has tried an ad blocker ever switched back, and if they do fall for a dark pattern and switch back to an alternative browser, ads will be a persistent reminder telling them to go back to Firefox. Actually give non-technical users a real, tangible reason to use Firefox.

admax88qqq 4y ago
Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it. Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built. The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform. Both companies deserve DOJ slaps. If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.

opportune 4y ago

I understand why they don’t want to allow just any browser implementation from a security/user trust perspective. Even if technically it does nothing to make their device more secure, it really reduces their security surface area to only expose higher level primitives they control. It’s not clear what they gain from allowing other engines because probably nobody is eschewing iOS/iPhone because of having to use webkit. Apple could still easily introduce a very rigorous review process for browsers that would likely result in Chromium and maybe “actual” Firefox being approved. But, until a court forces them to, they don’t have any reason to create that headache for themselves. They probably never expected to be able to get away with this for as long as they have.

afavour 4y ago
> It’s not clear what they gain from allowing other engines Apple gain nothing. That precisely why they don't do it. However, we all suffer from a web platform that gets held back by there being zero competition on iOS.
- hkt 4y ago
  I'd wonder if EU antitrust laws could give them something to gain: namely, not being fined. There's a concept of market fairness in EU antitrust law that isn't present in the equivalent US rules, such that price is not the only consideration. I'd be surprised if this couldn't be turned towards pushing for greater user choice as it was when MS was bundling internet explorer for years. If memory serves, it was competition law which was used to undo that.
- opportune 4y ago
  I guess what I’m saying is that unless legislation or a court make Apple support other browsers, expect nothing. Apple won’t acquiesce just because technical users and developers don’t like having to use WebKit. Despite it being a terrible decision, I don’t think it affects Apple’s bottom line positively at all to support other browser engines: they won’t make any money off it, will create headaches for themselves since they need to expand their security surface and do some technical work to support it, and cede control to competitors. Approximately nobody (weighted by financial impact to Apple - whether Firefox uses WebKit or not is, as far as I can tell, completely irrelevant to Apple’s bottom line) is deciding not to release on iOS because of WebKit.

_0w8t 4y ago

Apple only forbids alternative rendering engines, one can still use own networking stack. This alone allows to differentiate a browser a lot especially regarding ad blocking.

babypuncher 4y ago
The vast majority of what makes a browser is the HTML/CSS rendering and JavaScript interpreter. Everything else is pretty much just glue to make it all work.
- _0w8t 4y ago
  From an end-user point of view rendering engines are mostly indistinguishable. On the other hand the whole UI and speed of loading of pages are very much noticeable and this a developer can directly control. Note I agree that what Apple does is bad, but claiming that it prevents differentiation where it matters is simply not true.

btilly 4y ago

If iOS allowed other browsers, then parental controls as described in https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 will obviously not work. Which eliminates a feature that many parents like. Yes, yes. I'm well aware that there are many workarounds. Kids get around it. But, like the lock on your front door, its purpose is to give you a feeling of safety. And not to actually be safe.

smoldesu 4y ago
The XNU kernel has great network filtering capabilities, and any modern OS can filter traffic on the kernel level. Apple could force all third-party browsers to use an entitlement that simply designates them as a browsing application, and then extend the firewall/screen time rules to those apps. It's not rocket science, content blockers have been doing this since the early 2000s.
jaywalk 4y ago
iOS Parental Controls already allow restricting app installs. Apple could easily add an additional option to restrict installing third-party web browsers while allowing other types of apps to be installed. I'm not willing to give Apple a pass on this major issue just because they'd have to slightly rework their Parental Controls.

coldtea 4y ago

If Apple allowed other browsers there would be even less competition overall in browsers - as Chrome would also dominate there too (and third parties force its use to be compatible with them). At the monent, iOS being Safari/Webkit only is what keeps us having two engines with both having any real market share.

jeroenhd 4y ago
What competition is "this brand of smartphone is stuck with Safari"? It's not competition if there are no advantages to be gained from the choices you make. If Safari were better than the competition, Apple wouldn't be so afraid of opening up the ecosystem. Safari would still be big on iOS because it has some very useful features and integrations that the competition doesn't offer. Apple's pseudo-TOR and lockdown mode are just two examples from the top of my head of things the competition isn't putting too much effort into. Microsoft has super-duper secure mode, but I don't think Edge users really care.
- diegof79 4y ago
  I have a contrarian point of view regarding Safari and app installation in iOS. It will be cool if Apple opens the browser and app installation options allowing PWAs to run like iOS Apps (and all the people working with web apps will be happy). My biggest concern with PWAs is that only ads are a viable business model for small utility apps. The App Store rules are terrible (and give Apple too much power). But, it allows selling small utilities. In a world of PWAs, your monetization options are subscription, donation, or ads. A subscription for a small tool doesn't make sense. Donations don't scale. Hence, the most probable option will be ads. I agree with you. Having Safari as the only option for iOS is anti-competitive. But, honestly, the competition (Google) will love to have a world of apps relying on their ads infra. The first thing I'll do if I were Google is to add all the missing APIs to Chrome PWAs, so devs don't have a good reason to continue using the App Store. I don't love the idea of having ads and tracking in every little app.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago

wlindley 4y ago

Can anyone explain why any technically aware person, especially free software advocates, would willingly use, much less pay for, a computer (even one disguised as a "telephone" which it is not) that someone else controls? It beggars belief.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pedro2 4y ago
Same way a farmer can’t use the techniques from a thousand years ago if he wants to stay in business?
daxelrod 4y ago
See Cory Doctorow's article about the feudalism of digital platforms (an expansion of Bruce Schneier's idea). The gist is that digital security and compatibility is difficult enough to keep up with that most people conclude serfdom to a platform warlord is worth it. https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/ https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-...
bombcar 4y ago
Because it works better than the other alternatives and people can’t be arsed otherwise. This occurs time and time again.

xcrunner529 4y ago

I mean Mozilla refuses to implement WebSerial just like Apple. They’re both holding back functions just because “they” feel they get to define what we should do instead of us.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

> on the phone or tablet YOU are supposed to own. I also own my car, but not surprisingly Tesla won’t have anything to do with me if I replace the batteries with ones from a different producer, because even though I own it, they get the bad PR when it blows up. But of cause I have the legal right to do so, just like you have the legal right to jailbreak your iPhone. Just don’t expect the original company to be of any help to you.

dTal 4y ago
Tesla's a funny example to pick; if they detect that you've tampered with it, the company doesn't stop at "not having anything to do with you" - they actively kneecap your car. Not for liability reasons, but because it undermines their ability to market segment. You don't really "own" a Tesla the way you own most other cars. https://electrek.co/2020/08/22/tesla-fights-back-against-owners-hacking-unlock-performance-boost/ https://electrek.co/2020/08/22/tesla-fights-back-against-own...