8 ms·

Isn't this just the same as what Apple does? Why is there outrage about one but not the other? (genuine question)

supriyo-biswas 3y ago
The only instance of Apple doing that I’m aware of is the “Search for (term)” in the terminal’s right click menu always defaulting to Safari. In every other instance, they’ve respected the defaults. Microsoft on the other hands seems to have no boundaries, going as far as injecting ads on Chrome’s homepage[1] promoting their browser. [1] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > The only instance of Apple doing that I’m aware of is Not allowing alternative browsers on their most successful platform: iOS also: - EU forced Apple to use USB-C like everybody else - EU is forcing Apple to allow side loading of apps Apple is one of the worst offenders ever when it's about vendor lock in
  - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
    You might be a few years out of date https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT211336 https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT211336
    - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
      that's not what you think it is. Alternative browser engines are still disallowed. They are a skin on Apple's Webkit see: https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/07/mozilla_google_apple_webkit/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/07/mozilla_google_apple_...
      - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
        I replied in topic, your reply is off topic. GP was talking about how Apple does not force you to open links with Safari except in one case. The situation with webkit is a different thing.
        peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > I replied in topic, your reply is off topic. It's always Safari. In a different skin, but it's Safari nonetheless. Do Firefox or Chrome on iOS support web apis that Apple does not support? No, they don't, because it's Safari. Sorry if I skipped a few steps and went straight to the conclusion, that's why it probably looked off topic to you.
      - jamil7 3y ago
        For the purposes of this discussion I don’t think the underlying engine really matters (I’m not supporting Apple’s rule here). 99% of users are going to be downloading Chrome or FF to have a consistent UX and sync their bookmarks, history and passwords. iOS respects the default browser and mail client in this case.
        peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > I don’t think the underlying engine really matters It is what makes all the difference here. Many features that are a Web Standard are unsupported on iOS precisely because Apple refuses to allow alternative engines because they don't want those features on their platform (mostly to favor native apps under the pretext of security, like if Google is not capable of making a secure browser, at least as secure as Safari). Chrome and Firefox on iOS are not the same Chrome and iOS that run on all the other platforms, they are basically Safari. It does matters.
        throwaheyy 3y ago
        99% of users don’t care that it’s the same engine. They probably don’t even know. Looks the same, works the same, what does it matter? They just want to pick the browser name they trust, log in to its account and have all their favorites/bookmarks there. Whichever engine the browser happens to use is the least of their concerns.
  - supriyo-biswas 3y ago
    Because one is a clearly declared policy that anyone can look up (even though you, or regulators of a certain country, disagree with it). I’m sure there’d be a lot less outrage if it was Microsoft’s policy that other rendering engines (or browsers) were disallowed, instead of being sneaky and trying to fake error messages, degrading user experiences, and the like. Further, it could be argued that dynamic code execution, whether through an app downloading additional modules on the file system with the executable bit set, or in memory, with the mmap(PROT_EXEC) syscall opens up potential avenues for abuse, and alternative browsers are an unfortunate collateral damage in such a policy. Regardless, no action can be justified because another entity is also doing it; it only serves to cheapen the discourse.
    - tssva 3y ago
      > Because one is a clearly declared policy that anyone can look up (even though you, or regulators of a certain country, disagree with it). Microsoft has now clearly declared this policy. The basis of the article is the message sent to IT admins clearly declaring it.
      - lozenge 3y ago
        Sure, but one week it's a first run screen recommending Edge, the next it's pop ups when visiting Firefox download page from Edge, the next it's a notification icon about "Microsoft recommended" settings, then it's a notice before running the installer, etc. There is no rhyme or reason besides their business interest and no timeline besides "let's boil this frog"
  - jamespo 3y ago
    Levered "most successful platform" in there as the most comparable OS, macOS doesn't do this of course.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    > Not allowing alternative browsers on their most successful platform: iOS The huge difference is that this is the blanket application of a rule which has reasonable justifications. You can certainly criticise Apple for being a control-freak company, but that's not exactly a new trait. And it's not Apple leveraging one monopoly (they don't have) into trying to take over an other domain as a new entrant. iOS started from the position of being completely locked down. Quite different from the events of, say, US v. Microsoft Corp, which Microsoft seem to assume is not relevant anymore. > - EU forced Apple to use USB-C like everybody else Which was almost certainly on Apple's timeline anyway, though we'll never know for sure. > - EU is forcing Apple to allow side loading of apps See (1).
    - eertami 3y ago
      > Which was almost certainly on Apple's timeline anyway, though we'll never know for sure. They released USB-C macbooks in 2015, 8 years ago. Clearly they had no intention of moving to USB-C on iPhones, prior to the EU ruling. The extra few years selling cables so that you can plug your brand new Apple laptop in to your brand new Apple phone was probably a fun little profit exercise, if not comically anti-consumer/anti-environment.
      - masklinn 3y ago
        > They released USB-C macbooks in 2015, 8 years ago. Clearly they had no intention of moving to USB-C on iPhones, prior to the EU ruling. Utter nonsense, which completely ignores the historical and third-party background: the replacement of the dock connector by Lightning was a huge shift as it was very common for devices to have built-in dock connectors which became useless pins overnight (there were literally cars with dock connectors). As necessary as the transition was in the long run, it basically made apple swear to keep lightning alive for at least as long as the DC was. And there is a clear counter-example: they've been slowly inching support in from the devices least likely to use hard-set connectors: first the 3rd gen ipad pro in 2018, then the 10th gen ipad in 2020, 6th gen mini in 2021, 5th gen Air in 2022. > The extra few years selling cables so that you can plug your brand new Apple laptop in to your brand new Apple phone was probably a fun little profit exercise More nonsense, apple literally doesn't want you to plug one into the other, they've been stripping wired phone-related features from macos as fast as they could be bothered to, moving them to either wireless (airdrop) or cloud. > if not comically anti-consumer/anti-environment. Yes indeed, the anti-consumer and anti-environment move of letting users upgrading from one iphone to the next not have to replace all their cables.
AraceliHarker 3y ago
When it comes to macOS, because Apple is not pushing their product as much as Microsoft is currently doing with Windows 11.

The only instance of Apple doing that I’m aware of is the “Search for (term)” in the terminal’s right click menu always defaulting to Safari. In every other instance, they’ve respected the defaults. Microsoft on the other hands seems to have no boundaries, going as far as injecting ads on Chrome’s homepage[1] promoting their browser. [1] https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-size-ads-on-chrome-website-to-make-you-stay-on-edge/ https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-is-now-injecting-full-...

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> The only instance of Apple doing that I’m aware of is Not allowing alternative browsers on their most successful platform: iOS also: - EU forced Apple to use USB-C like everybody else - EU is forcing Apple to allow side loading of apps Apple is one of the worst offenders ever when it's about vendor lock in
- CrampusDestrus 3y ago
  You might be a few years out of date https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT211336 https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT211336
  - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
    that's not what you think it is. Alternative browser engines are still disallowed. They are a skin on Apple's Webkit see: https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/07/mozilla_google_apple_webkit/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/07/mozilla_google_apple_...
    - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
      I replied in topic, your reply is off topic. GP was talking about how Apple does not force you to open links with Safari except in one case. The situation with webkit is a different thing.
      - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > I replied in topic, your reply is off topic. It's always Safari. In a different skin, but it's Safari nonetheless. Do Firefox or Chrome on iOS support web apis that Apple does not support? No, they don't, because it's Safari. Sorry if I skipped a few steps and went straight to the conclusion, that's why it probably looked off topic to you.
    - jamil7 3y ago
      For the purposes of this discussion I don’t think the underlying engine really matters (I’m not supporting Apple’s rule here). 99% of users are going to be downloading Chrome or FF to have a consistent UX and sync their bookmarks, history and passwords. iOS respects the default browser and mail client in this case.
      - peoplefromibiza 3y ago
        > I don’t think the underlying engine really matters It is what makes all the difference here. Many features that are a Web Standard are unsupported on iOS precisely because Apple refuses to allow alternative engines because they don't want those features on their platform (mostly to favor native apps under the pretext of security, like if Google is not capable of making a secure browser, at least as secure as Safari). Chrome and Firefox on iOS are not the same Chrome and iOS that run on all the other platforms, they are basically Safari. It does matters.
        throwaheyy 3y ago
        99% of users don’t care that it’s the same engine. They probably don’t even know. Looks the same, works the same, what does it matter? They just want to pick the browser name they trust, log in to its account and have all their favorites/bookmarks there. Whichever engine the browser happens to use is the least of their concerns.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  Because one is a clearly declared policy that anyone can look up (even though you, or regulators of a certain country, disagree with it). I’m sure there’d be a lot less outrage if it was Microsoft’s policy that other rendering engines (or browsers) were disallowed, instead of being sneaky and trying to fake error messages, degrading user experiences, and the like. Further, it could be argued that dynamic code execution, whether through an app downloading additional modules on the file system with the executable bit set, or in memory, with the mmap(PROT_EXEC) syscall opens up potential avenues for abuse, and alternative browsers are an unfortunate collateral damage in such a policy. Regardless, no action can be justified because another entity is also doing it; it only serves to cheapen the discourse.
  - tssva 3y ago
    > Because one is a clearly declared policy that anyone can look up (even though you, or regulators of a certain country, disagree with it). Microsoft has now clearly declared this policy. The basis of the article is the message sent to IT admins clearly declaring it.
    - lozenge 3y ago
      Sure, but one week it's a first run screen recommending Edge, the next it's pop ups when visiting Firefox download page from Edge, the next it's a notification icon about "Microsoft recommended" settings, then it's a notice before running the installer, etc. There is no rhyme or reason besides their business interest and no timeline besides "let's boil this frog"
- jamespo 3y ago
  Levered "most successful platform" in there as the most comparable OS, macOS doesn't do this of course.
- masklinn 3y ago
  > Not allowing alternative browsers on their most successful platform: iOS The huge difference is that this is the blanket application of a rule which has reasonable justifications. You can certainly criticise Apple for being a control-freak company, but that's not exactly a new trait. And it's not Apple leveraging one monopoly (they don't have) into trying to take over an other domain as a new entrant. iOS started from the position of being completely locked down. Quite different from the events of, say, US v. Microsoft Corp, which Microsoft seem to assume is not relevant anymore. > - EU forced Apple to use USB-C like everybody else Which was almost certainly on Apple's timeline anyway, though we'll never know for sure. > - EU is forcing Apple to allow side loading of apps See (1).
  - eertami 3y ago
    > Which was almost certainly on Apple's timeline anyway, though we'll never know for sure. They released USB-C macbooks in 2015, 8 years ago. Clearly they had no intention of moving to USB-C on iPhones, prior to the EU ruling. The extra few years selling cables so that you can plug your brand new Apple laptop in to your brand new Apple phone was probably a fun little profit exercise, if not comically anti-consumer/anti-environment.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      > They released USB-C macbooks in 2015, 8 years ago. Clearly they had no intention of moving to USB-C on iPhones, prior to the EU ruling. Utter nonsense, which completely ignores the historical and third-party background: the replacement of the dock connector by Lightning was a huge shift as it was very common for devices to have built-in dock connectors which became useless pins overnight (there were literally cars with dock connectors). As necessary as the transition was in the long run, it basically made apple swear to keep lightning alive for at least as long as the DC was. And there is a clear counter-example: they've been slowly inching support in from the devices least likely to use hard-set connectors: first the 3rd gen ipad pro in 2018, then the 10th gen ipad in 2020, 6th gen mini in 2021, 5th gen Air in 2022. > The extra few years selling cables so that you can plug your brand new Apple laptop in to your brand new Apple phone was probably a fun little profit exercise More nonsense, apple literally doesn't want you to plug one into the other, they've been stripping wired phone-related features from macos as fast as they could be bothered to, moving them to either wireless (airdrop) or cloud. > if not comically anti-consumer/anti-environment. Yes indeed, the anti-consumer and anti-environment move of letting users upgrading from one iphone to the next not have to replace all their cables.

AraceliHarker 3y ago

When it comes to macOS, because Apple is not pushing their product as much as Microsoft is currently doing with Windows 11.