8 ms·

>you can only run Safari on iOS Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly, while WebKit itself has no chance of being a mo

>you can only run Safari on iOS Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly, while WebKit itself has no chance of being a monopoly in the forseeable future, so I doubt there's a good anti-competitive case to be made for forcing Apple to stop doing this. It would only accelerate the monopolisation of the browser market if this happened. It would be good for consumers in the short term to allow v8 on iOS but I deeply distrust Google. Breaking the App Store monopoly there is a much stronger case for. There is a security argument for the app store, which I would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware. Not to mention the expenses it imposes on developers, like requiring them to maintain a subscription and buy Apple hardware.

fredgrott 3y ago
clearly you forgot what Google Chrome uses as a code base....Safari....whoops and clearly Google Chrome is somewhat a monopoly on PC devices
HWR_14 3y ago
Just like Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8/Chromium from a total monopoly, the App Store monopoly is the only thing holding back "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp". And then Meta getting most companies to use their store because they'll take 10% and just the data.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Great, and then we can properly break up Facebook as well as Google. I see no downsides here.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Break them? More likely they'll continue their business as usual, with a slightly increased lobbying spending.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      And yet somehow Apple hasn't managed to lobby this away, despite having more cash on hand than either Facebook or Google.
      - shuckles 3y ago
        Apple spends very little money lobbying. For example, they don't appear in Open Secrets's top lobbying firms: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Apple has never been as big in lobbying as those are. Or as cooperative with various governments and state agencies. Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.
        kibwen 3y ago
        According to Statista, Google spent $10.92 million on lobbying in 2022, whereas Apple spent $9.36 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expenses-of-apple/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense... https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses... Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
        pb7 3y ago
        Okay? No one thinks they would. We're in a business transaction.
        shuckles 3y ago
        Maybe people are going to bat for their own interests and recognize they align with the interests of a company they happily buy products from. Who are you to deny their preferences?
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Why should we have to let things get worse. Break up Meta and Google and MS and then talk to me about how we don't need Apple's store anymore. Don't remove the solution and then tell me you'll fix the problem later.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      This same argument can be used to block any action, forever. We have to start somewhere, and here is good enough.
      - shuckles 3y ago
        So you do see downsides but you are personally willing to live with them?
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?
        shuckles 3y ago
        The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp" They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.
  - root_axis 3y ago
    I don't see what breaking up Google or Facebook accomplishes, it changes absolutely nothing for consumers.
    - esarbe 3y ago
      It changes at least one thing; now there is Google1 and Google2 and FB1 and FB2 and they offer the same services to different prices. Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.
    - matwood 3y ago
      Almost every item you buy online has some Google 'tax' baked in. That alone isn't a problem, but since Google controls almost the entire ad market, there isn't any competition pushing that tax down. Notice the similarity to the App Store arguments? If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    Yes, please, let's do this. And Amazon too. In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture. I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is good You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!
      - esarbe 3y ago
        I strive to learn. With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization. But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence. We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  I've never installed the Meta omni-permission store on my Android, but I've certainly installed Facebook's applications via the Play Store. I'm not sure why the situation would be any different with iOS. It seems to me that the app store would still utterly dominate even if it were exposed to competition.
  - Affric 3y ago
    If you're posting on Hacker News you're not likely the one most vulnerable to Meta's tactics.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Google's Play Store allows Meta apps more permissions than Apple's App Store currently does. Meta lost tens of billions in market value (and an estimated $10 billion a year in revenue) when the new Apple App Store privacy rules went into effect. That's a powerful incentive.
    - abirch 3y ago
      Yes, Apple is pretty good about privacy. That'll be one reason for Meta and others to create their own stores.
      - maxwell 3y ago
        Valve, Epic Games, and Nintendo seem better about privacy but are barred from iOS.
        superb_dev 3y ago
        Valve and Nintendo are barred from iOS in what way? I have the Steam Link app on my iPad, and there are several Nintendo games in the App Store.
        captn3m0 3y ago
        Steam cannot distribute apps on ios.
- blackoil 3y ago
  Permissions can be baked into OS. No matter how the app is installed you'll get same popups confirming them. Though it should be also applicable to Apple apps.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    It not “can be”, it is baked into ios, almost everything runs in a proper sandbox, including apple’s own apps. (iMessage doesn’t have complete isolation though, due to it being special regarding SMS - that’s why many attacks target it specifically).
- Guvante 3y ago
  Why wouldn't the OS still have privacy controls? Why hasn't Meta had any luck doing that on Android?
- Yizahi 3y ago
  That would be amazing, because people will finally leave these apps for good. See videogame case about corpos leaving Steam for their own inferior walled gardens and failing spectacularly.
emodendroket 3y ago
> I would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware. I think malware on your phone could easily cost you much more than 43% of all your mobile app purchases.
Someone 3y ago
> were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware Paid applications on iOS are dirt cheap, so I think the argument that that isn’t paid for by end users but by developers has at least some merit. I also think it’s more like 18% for the majority of paid applications nowadays (Apple’s cut is 15% for less well selling apps nowadays, and I think there are many, many of those), but that’s a bit of nitpicking.
xdennis 3y ago
> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly No, V8 has almost total monopoly because countries are ignoring anti-competitive practices. The EU is doing something about Apple in this case, and it should look at Google too.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It does look at Google too. Google is constantly being fined for transgressions and they are also a gatekeeper under this law just as Apple is.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 3y ago
> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly, You say that as if Apple was a powerless victim with no money and no lawyers. I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open (basically forcing regulation) would be a better outcome than letting them take iOS users in hostage forever.
- troupo 3y ago
  > I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open Apple has never been big on the web. Google has the world's most popular web properties which it has used to both push Chrome and sabotage competition.
  - koito17 3y ago
    > Apple has never been big on the web. That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps that connect to third-party services.[1][2] It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1nwLilQy64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1nwLilQy64 [2] https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
    - troupo 3y ago
      > That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps That was 2007. Can you show me how exactly Apple was big on the web in 2007? > It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web They never de-prioritised the web. Implementing Chrome-only non-standards isn't what being big on the web means. Open a list of most-visited websites and show me Apple properties on it.
  - 3y ago
Keyframe 3y ago
You're advocating against v8 monopoly, where no one is forcing it down on anyone, by holding a candle to the actual enforced monopoly of WebKit? Where's consumer choice in this and how about having an actual choice dictate what is used and what isn't? Let me quote from a familiar case: "Antitrust laws ensure one company doesn't control the market, deplete consumer choice, and inflate prices. Microsoft was accused of trying to create a monopoly that led to the collapse of rival Netscape by giving its browser software for free."
- wyre 3y ago
  Years of propaganda and throttled data from Google to use Chrome doesn’t give a lot of real consumer choice. Even now there’s programmers only product testing in Chrome that makes some web services not work in anything but Chrome.
  - ElFitz 3y ago
    Some even display a pop up telling you to please go install Chrome if you want to use their B2B SaaS service your company just purchased.
    - earthnail 3y ago
      To be fair, in some niche cases that’s the only thing that works. Complex WebAudio applications, for example.
      - ElFitz 3y ago
        I was thinking of something along the lines of "payroll management". But otherwise yes, there probably are some special, advanced, use cases.
- whizzter 3y ago
  Consumers chooses iPhones (and indirectly Safari), yes the bundling has some bad effects. But in the bigger picture it's currently really the only thing keeping developers somewhat true to making cross-browser sites working for Firefox users, since the Firefox devs has a larger chance of keeping up with what works on ChromeEdge+Safari rather than keeping up with the ChromeEdge pace alone, do you really trust Google (and MS) not to abuse things if FF and Safari became irrelevant?
brailsafe 3y ago
I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this, but V8 is just a JavaScript engine, not a Web Browser or web rendering engine. Blink is the name for the broader web rendering engine behind Chromium and a number of other browsers. So WebKit, Blink/Chromium, and Gecko are the main ones to my knowledge.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Webkit has a shared history with Blink, so even the two alone would result in the most portable tech having only a single, forked implementation.
pmontra 3y ago
> WebKit itself has no chance of being a monopoly in the forseeable future Of course it won't, because Apple restricts it to run only on devices built by Apple. They had a Safari for Windows many years ago, then killed it.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
  Safari != WebKit. WebKit itself runs on Windows fine, Mac and Linux. Both Mac and Linux have browsers supported by the WebKit project (Safari and GNOME Web).
  - pmontra 3y ago
    GNOME web is a curiosity at best. It's probably in some corner of my SSD. tt's there "WebKitGTK 2.40.5"! However the only Webkit based browser that matters is Safari and the only company pushing it is Apple and only on their hardware.
noirscape 3y ago
If Blink becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome. Especially when combined with the fact the big G can't keep directly funding Firefox to create a fake competition anymore under the new rules from the digital markets act. Google should've been hit with an antitrust case on Chrome years ago and their recent shenanigans with the topics api only make that more relevant, where now Google is playing gatekeeper to an already technically dubious system meant to put the spying on users directly into the browser (all because they couldn't solve the fact that the topics api still makes fingerprinting rather easy). Eliminating the "competition" that Google has artificially made needs to be done though because otherwise it's just not obviously visible.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > If V8 becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome V8 isn't a monopoly in the antitrust sense, at all. Google gives away the source code to most of Chrome that allows other people to make browsers with it, and they do. Something being popular doesn't indicate a monopoly. Microsoft could choose to make a browser engine, but they don't, and it's not because V8 is a monopoly.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    I think this isn't the case. There were alternatives to Internet Explorer, yet Microsoft was hit with antitrust measures for defaulting to IE. I believe that something being sufficiently popular does make it a monopoly in the antitrust sense - there's language around "market dominance" in there [0]. I'm just an MBA not a lawyer, though. 0: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
    - sime2009 3y ago
      Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using a monopoly as power in another market is. Microsoft got hit because they used their monopoly in desktop operating systems to freeze out competition in the browser market and jam IE down people's throats. The browser market being a different market than the desktop operating system market.
oblio 3y ago
> holding v8 back from a total monopoly Next up in EU land: EU tells Google to open everything web related to its rivals :-D
ben_w 3y ago
> There is a security argument for the app store, which I would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware. IIRC most of the revenue is games, and most of game revenue is microtransactions. In this context, 43% (or whatever the lower number is that they announced a while back to reduce the heat) is just sending the same money to a greater evil. As for "worse"… we already have cryptocurrency miners (leading to app store rules saying no to this because of the battery drain), and encryption-ransomware locking away all your data; financial fraud is only protected to the extent that it can be unwound, which means fraudsters in that domain look for things that can't be reversed. If we do end up with a laissez-faire free-for-all — which is a possible scenario, but not a necessary one, it depends on the details of how alt-stores are done in practice — then you have to worry not just about your own device being malwared but also those of anyone nearby, because a hot mic in someone else's pocket can clone your voice, and there's already more than one demonstration of how wifi can be repurposed to function as a wall-penetrating radar.
ojosilva 3y ago
> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly Or this could read as: Apple mandating WebKit is the thing preventing Firefox (and others) from properly competing against v8.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Firefox can't compete against v8 on any other platform (it's what, 2% of browsers now?), so there's no real indication that it being allowed on iOS would do much. But Chrome certainly would make huge inroads.
tambourine_man 3y ago
Bun is using JavaScriptCore voluntarily because it’s better than V8 for their needs. I think both WebKit and JSC have merits of their own and are installed by default, so I don’t think they are in existencial danger. That said, since iOS is not a monopoly, I think Apple has the right to do whatever it wants with its platform and the security, privacy and battery life concerns are valid.

fredgrott 3y ago

clearly you forgot what Google Chrome uses as a code base....Safari....whoops and clearly Google Chrome is somewhat a monopoly on PC devices

HWR_14 3y ago

Just like Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8/Chromium from a total monopoly, the App Store monopoly is the only thing holding back "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp". And then Meta getting most companies to use their store because they'll take 10% and just the data.

kibwen 3y ago
Great, and then we can properly break up Facebook as well as Google. I see no downsides here.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Break them? More likely they'll continue their business as usual, with a slightly increased lobbying spending.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    And yet somehow Apple hasn't managed to lobby this away, despite having more cash on hand than either Facebook or Google.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      Apple spends very little money lobbying. For example, they don't appear in Open Secrets's top lobbying firms: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cycle=2022 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders?cy...
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Apple has never been as big in lobbying as those are. Or as cooperative with various governments and state agencies. Plus, they have those angles covered by token "open" BS like Android allowing sideloading, despite having total dominance on far more crucial for consumers and the economy in general areas that their OS, leaving Apple to be targeted.
      - kibwen 3y ago
        According to Statista, Google spent $10.92 million on lobbying in 2022, whereas Apple spent $9.36 million. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expenses-of-apple/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1043061/lobbying-expense... https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/277063/lobbying-expenses... Please free yourself from going to bat for a company that wouldn't care if you lived or died.
        pb7 3y ago
        Okay? No one thinks they would. We're in a business transaction.
        shuckles 3y ago
        Maybe people are going to bat for their own interests and recognize they align with the interests of a company they happily buy products from. Who are you to deny their preferences?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Why should we have to let things get worse. Break up Meta and Google and MS and then talk to me about how we don't need Apple's store anymore. Don't remove the solution and then tell me you'll fix the problem later.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    This same argument can be used to block any action, forever. We have to start somewhere, and here is good enough.
    - shuckles 3y ago
      So you do see downsides but you are personally willing to live with them?
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        It’s hard to believe this question was asked in good faith. What did they write that makes you think they admitted to there being downsides?
        shuckles 3y ago
        The commenter started by saying they didn't see any downsides. Someone replied referring to specific downsides which impacted them (""use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp"). Then the commenter said downsides don't matter because they can be used to argue against any change. That's a different argument than where they started.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > "use Meta omni-permission store or get cut off from FB/IG/WhatsApp" They replied to the comment which said this and wrote, "I see no downsides." I don’t see where they admitted to the downsides.
- root_axis 3y ago
  I don't see what breaking up Google or Facebook accomplishes, it changes absolutely nothing for consumers.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    It changes at least one thing; now there is Google1 and Google2 and FB1 and FB2 and they offer the same services to different prices. Now the consumer can chose between more competitors.
  - matwood 3y ago
    Almost every item you buy online has some Google 'tax' baked in. That alone isn't a problem, but since Google controls almost the entire ad market, there isn't any competition pushing that tax down. Notice the similarity to the App Store arguments? If Google and YouTube were split up, I could see a future where both start competing for text and video search against each other. This competition would drive down ad rates across both platforms. It would also allow space for other competitors to come in.
- esarbe 3y ago
  Yes, please, let's do this. And Amazon too. In general; let's take that whole monopoly thing serious again, together with regulatory capture. I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is *good* and we should have more competition between these huge companies that basically make a living from extracting rent.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > I'm no free market liberal, quite the contrary. But competition is good You sound at least a little bit as though you understand markets, though!
    - esarbe 3y ago
      I strive to learn. With markets I see it similarly as with democracy; it's the best of all the bad options we have. Given the challenges ahead (demographic crisis, climate crisis, environmental crisis) we must have a dynamic and flexible system to accommodate the to be expected strains, if we want to continue existing as a global civilization. But markets also have flaws, such as externalization of costs and oligopolies that skew the market through their influence. We've seen this with Google, that has started as a brilliant search engine, providing a valuable service. Nowadays it attempts to make more and more money through rent taking instead. Instead of creating value, these oligopolies capture value, sometimes even through illegal means (see; no-poaching agreements).
faeriechangling 3y ago
I've never installed the Meta omni-permission store on my Android, but I've certainly installed Facebook's applications via the Play Store. I'm not sure why the situation would be any different with iOS. It seems to me that the app store would still utterly dominate even if it were exposed to competition.
- Affric 3y ago
  If you're posting on Hacker News you're not likely the one most vulnerable to Meta's tactics.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Google's Play Store allows Meta apps more permissions than Apple's App Store currently does. Meta lost tens of billions in market value (and an estimated $10 billion a year in revenue) when the new Apple App Store privacy rules went into effect. That's a powerful incentive.
  - abirch 3y ago
    Yes, Apple is pretty good about privacy. That'll be one reason for Meta and others to create their own stores.
    - maxwell 3y ago
      Valve, Epic Games, and Nintendo seem better about privacy but are barred from iOS.
      - superb_dev 3y ago
        Valve and Nintendo are barred from iOS in what way? I have the Steam Link app on my iPad, and there are several Nintendo games in the App Store.
        captn3m0 3y ago
        Steam cannot distribute apps on ios.
blackoil 3y ago
Permissions can be baked into OS. No matter how the app is installed you'll get same popups confirming them. Though it should be also applicable to Apple apps.
- kaba0 3y ago
  It not “can be”, it is baked into ios, almost everything runs in a proper sandbox, including apple’s own apps. (iMessage doesn’t have complete isolation though, due to it being special regarding SMS - that’s why many attacks target it specifically).
Guvante 3y ago
Why wouldn't the OS still have privacy controls? Why hasn't Meta had any luck doing that on Android?
Yizahi 3y ago
That would be amazing, because people will finally leave these apps for good. See videogame case about corpos leaving Steam for their own inferior walled gardens and failing spectacularly.

emodendroket 3y ago

> I would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware. I think malware on your phone could easily cost you much more than 43% of all your mobile app purchases.

Someone 3y ago

> were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware Paid applications on iOS are dirt cheap, so I think the argument that that isn’t paid for by end users but by developers has at least some merit. I also think it’s more like 18% for the majority of paid applications nowadays (Apple’s cut is 15% for less well selling apps nowadays, and I think there are many, many of those), but that’s a bit of nitpicking.

xdennis 3y ago

> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly No, V8 has almost total monopoly because countries are ignoring anti-competitive practices. The EU is doing something about Apple in this case, and it should look at Google too.

wkat4242 3y ago
It does look at Google too. Google is constantly being fined for transgressions and they are also a gatekeeper under this law just as Apple is.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

makeitdouble 3y ago

> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly, You say that as if Apple was a powerless victim with no money and no lawyers. I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open (basically forcing regulation) would be a better outcome than letting them take iOS users in hostage forever.

troupo 3y ago
> I'd argue Apple having to straight face Google's domination and doing something about it on the open Apple has never been big on the web. Google has the world's most popular web properties which it has used to both push Chrome and sabotage competition.
- koito17 3y ago
  > Apple has never been big on the web. That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps that connect to third-party services.[1][2] It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1nwLilQy64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1nwLilQy64 [2] https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-iphone-no-third-party-native-apps/ https://9to5mac.com/2011/10/21/jobs-original-vision-for-the-...
  - troupo 3y ago
    > That may be true today, but I don't think it was true during the early days of the iPhone, where Steve Jobs wanted no third-party native code running on the iPhone, only web apps That was 2007. Can you show me how exactly Apple was big on the web in 2007? > It wasn't until lots of developer backlash and subsequent success of the App Store that they decided to de-prioritize the web They never de-prioritised the web. Implementing Chrome-only non-standards isn't what being big on the web means. Open a list of most-visited websites and show me Apple properties on it.
- 3y ago

Keyframe 3y ago

You're advocating against v8 monopoly, where no one is forcing it down on anyone, by holding a candle to the actual enforced monopoly of WebKit? Where's consumer choice in this and how about having an actual choice dictate what is used and what isn't? Let me quote from a familiar case: "Antitrust laws ensure one company doesn't control the market, deplete consumer choice, and inflate prices. Microsoft was accused of trying to create a monopoly that led to the collapse of rival Netscape by giving its browser software for free."

wyre 3y ago
Years of propaganda and throttled data from Google to use Chrome doesn’t give a lot of real consumer choice. Even now there’s programmers only product testing in Chrome that makes some web services not work in anything but Chrome.
- ElFitz 3y ago
  Some even display a pop up telling you to please go install Chrome if you want to use their B2B SaaS service your company just purchased.
  - earthnail 3y ago
    To be fair, in some niche cases that’s the only thing that works. Complex WebAudio applications, for example.
    - ElFitz 3y ago
      I was thinking of something along the lines of "payroll management". But otherwise yes, there probably are some special, advanced, use cases.
whizzter 3y ago
Consumers chooses iPhones (and indirectly Safari), yes the bundling has some bad effects. But in the bigger picture it's currently really the only thing keeping developers somewhat true to making cross-browser sites working for Firefox users, since the Firefox devs has a larger chance of keeping up with what works on ChromeEdge+Safari rather than keeping up with the ChromeEdge pace alone, do you really trust Google (and MS) not to abuse things if FF and Safari became irrelevant?

brailsafe 3y ago

I'm surprised nobody else mentioned this, but V8 is just a JavaScript engine, not a Web Browser or web rendering engine. Blink is the name for the broader web rendering engine behind Chromium and a number of other browsers. So WebKit, Blink/Chromium, and Gecko are the main ones to my knowledge.

kaba0 3y ago
Webkit has a shared history with Blink, so even the two alone would result in the most portable tech having only a single, forked implementation.

pmontra 3y ago

> WebKit itself has no chance of being a monopoly in the forseeable future Of course it won't, because Apple restricts it to run only on devices built by Apple. They had a Safari for Windows many years ago, then killed it.

PlutoIsAPlanet 3y ago
Safari != WebKit. WebKit itself runs on Windows fine, Mac and Linux. Both Mac and Linux have browsers supported by the WebKit project (Safari and GNOME Web).
- pmontra 3y ago
  GNOME web is a curiosity at best. It's probably in some corner of my SSD. tt's there "WebKitGTK 2.40.5"! However the only Webkit based browser that matters is Safari and the only company pushing it is Apple and only on their hardware.

noirscape 3y ago

If Blink becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome. Especially when combined with the fact the big G can't keep directly funding Firefox to create a fake competition anymore under the new rules from the digital markets act. Google should've been hit with an antitrust case on Chrome years ago and their recent shenanigans with the topics api only make that more relevant, where now Google is playing gatekeeper to an already technically dubious system meant to put the spying on users directly into the browser (all because they couldn't solve the fact that the topics api still makes fingerprinting rather easy). Eliminating the "competition" that Google has artificially made needs to be done though because otherwise it's just not obviously visible.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> If V8 becomes a monopoly, and with it chromium, then Google can finally be "properly" hit with an antitrust case over Chrome V8 isn't a monopoly in the antitrust sense, at all. Google gives away the source code to most of Chrome that allows other people to make browsers with it, and they do. Something being popular doesn't indicate a monopoly. Microsoft could choose to make a browser engine, but they don't, and it's not because V8 is a monopoly.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  I think this isn't the case. There were alternatives to Internet Explorer, yet Microsoft was hit with antitrust measures for defaulting to IE. I believe that something being sufficiently popular does make it a monopoly in the antitrust sense - there's language around "market dominance" in there [0]. I'm just an MBA not a lawyer, though. 0: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
  - sime2009 3y ago
    Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using a monopoly as power in another market is. Microsoft got hit because they used their monopoly in desktop operating systems to freeze out competition in the browser market and jam IE down people's throats. The browser market being a different market than the desktop operating system market.

oblio 3y ago

> holding v8 back from a total monopoly Next up in EU land: EU tells Google to open everything web related to its rivals :-D

ben_w 3y ago

> There is a security argument for the app store, which I would accept were it not for Apple adding 43% to the purchase price of most paid applications, which is much worse for the end user than the average piece of malware. IIRC most of the revenue is games, and most of game revenue is microtransactions. In this context, 43% (or whatever the lower number is that they announced a while back to reduce the heat) is just sending the same money to a greater evil. As for "worse"… we already have cryptocurrency miners (leading to app store rules saying no to this because of the battery drain), and encryption-ransomware locking away all your data; financial fraud is only protected to the extent that it can be unwound, which means fraudsters in that domain look for things that can't be reversed. If we do end up with a laissez-faire free-for-all — which is a possible scenario, but not a necessary one, it depends on the details of how alt-stores are done in practice — then you have to worry not just about your own device being malwared but also those of anyone nearby, because a hot mic in someone else's pocket can clone your voice, and there's already more than one demonstration of how wifi can be repurposed to function as a wall-penetrating radar.

ojosilva 3y ago

> Apple mandating WebKit is the only thing holding v8 back from a total monopoly Or this could read as: Apple mandating WebKit is the thing preventing Firefox (and others) from properly competing against v8.

bombcar 3y ago
Firefox can't compete against v8 on any other platform (it's what, 2% of browsers now?), so there's no real indication that it being allowed on iOS would do much. But Chrome certainly would make huge inroads.

tambourine_man 3y ago

Bun is using JavaScriptCore voluntarily because it’s better than V8 for their needs. I think both WebKit and JSC have merits of their own and are installed by default, so I don’t think they are in existencial danger. That said, since iOS is not a monopoly, I think Apple has the right to do whatever it wants with its platform and the security, privacy and battery life concerns are valid.