5 ms·

> We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-

> We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says. “The effect of this would be to force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations — a burden Apple themselves will not have to bear.” I guess they were hoping that the EU's rules apply everywhere?

albert180 3y ago
Well if the EU manages to hold a hard line against Apple, other big markets will surely follow.
- nickthegreek 3y ago
  I feel like ‘surely follow’ will be measured in many years. The idea of not allowing competing browser engines on iOS has struck me one of Apples more egregious sins. Ideally I could be running Firefox prior to 2030 in the US, but I don’t trust our government’s pace to bet on it.
  - albert180 3y ago
    Well if Safari wouldn't intentionally suck, more people would choose to use Progressive WebApps instead of going through all the hassle of creating a dedicated iOS App
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      You mean like all of the people who choose to use PWAs for Android? I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
      - albert180 3y ago
        App Development for Android is much easier. No Bullshit recurring Fees, no need to buy specific Google Hardware etc...
        scarface_74 3y ago
        How many different Android devices does a serious developer need to buy to ensure their app works well across the spectrum from the top end Android phones to the sub $100 Blu R1 phones? How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers? But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
        albert180 3y ago
        None, there is a decent emulator included with Android Studio
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And you think the emulator actually takes the place of real live hardware, the quirks , the performance, etc?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        depends on the complexity of the app. An app that can reasonably be a PWA (e.g. it is more or less a webpage wrapped in an APK) can probably be tested well enough on a dozen emulator pofiles and a few physical devices you have lying around.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And those are the very apps that are going to run worse on low end devices with poor rendering performance…
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Progressive Web Apps have been around for nearly a decade. Every year there is some excuse (usually missing API X) why they aren't a success.
      - blueelephanttea 3y ago
        Also I have been testing out PWAs in various different browsers (non-Safari) this last month and...ahem...I have been unimpressed. I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
    - Terretta 3y ago
      I do Xbox Cloud Gaming in a PWA on iPad with my Xbox controller. What does your app do that's so special it needs more than a console game?
  - Terretta 3y ago
    You say "browser engine" Apple says "surveillance engine". Only one of these definitions just cost Google $5 billion settlement for tracking Chrome incognito mode users.
  - albert180 3y ago
    South Korea already forced Apple to allow other payment processors, I guess China will follow surely suit if the EU is successful. If that happens, it doesn't matter that much anymore if the US follows or not
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Many years would be an understatement. From investigation to enforcement to adjudication all the way to the ECJ you’ll be looking at roughly 10 years. Once all of that has played out, maybe some other jurisdiction might then decide to copy some parts. We haven’t even entered the pre-investigation phase in which the EU will wag their fingers.
- yreg 3y ago
  That won't help with the inconvenience of having to maintain two apps.
- staplers 3y ago
  California in particular could quickly force their hand on this.
rideontime 3y ago
EU's mandate of USB-C on phones is resulting in benefits for the rest of the world too, it's understandable to hope for the same in this case. Apple must have a lot to gain from keeping the other markets locked down if they're willing to invest the necessary time & money to maintain different guidelines like this.
- hellotomyrars 3y ago
  The impact to Apple’s bottom line is very different. Maintaining regional SKUs for hardware would be much more expensive for Apple than just acquiescing to the mandate. Software doesn’t have nearly the same issues as physical goods when it comes to splitting feature by region, especially considering the goal will be to keep things more advantageous for apple in as many regions as possible for as long as possible. They can always flip the switch if/when they have to.
  - kdwikzncba 3y ago
    [dead]
  - alphabettsy 3y ago
    They already have different SKUs. US iPhones lost the SIM tray a year or two ago while it still exists in Europe.
- burnte 3y ago
  The cost of maintaining the restrictions in the EU are minimal, while it's trivial to buy phones in the EU and ship them out, and each additional hardware SKU is expensive. It's effectively "if location = EU then (features) else (lolgtfo)".
numbsafari 3y ago
Doesn’t Apple have to bear the burden of dealing with different laws in different jurisdictions just like everyone else? Agree or disagree with the changes, but this is a non-sensical line to take. If you want to play on the world stage, this is how it goes.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Yeah. It feels kind of petty and weak to be like, “we were hoping they’d just apply these regulations internationally!” It’s up to Apple to decide how it complies with the rules of each market it does business in.
- viraptor 3y ago
  Yes, they have to deal with laws of different countries that apply the same to everyone. In this case Apple creates their own rules that do not apply the same to everyone, and are purely for malicious compliance.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Regulation is OK at prohibiting things. Its very bad at willing things someone’s preferred version of the world into exist.
dmz73 3y ago
Since anyone could travel to EU at any time and then the EU rules apply, either Apple must allow all their phones to follow the EU rules if user says they are in EU jurisdiction, or Apple should get a fine for non compliance.
- St0n3d 3y ago
  That’s not how international laws and customs work. Besides, be careful what you wish for since if they’d follow that line of thought you’re in for a 20-25% tax plus an import fee for importing electronic devices from a different jurisdiction. (Also, the non-compliancy would be your doing as importer; not Apple’s.)
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  The current word on the street is iOS has a daemon that checks Wi-Fi, cell carrier, and GPS data to determine if the user's in the EEA or not, specifically so they can gate these profit-diminishing features to the minimum possible jurisdiction. Ergo, if you fly to the EU, you can install all this shit, and presumably it disables itself the moment you fly back to the US.
bloppe 3y ago
The regulatory process is focused on outcomes. Here, the desired outcome is fair browser engine competition. If Apple's rules appear unfair to the EU (as they probably will, since they probably will not create robust competition), then the directive will adapt to make that shortcoming clearly prohibited. Apple can kick the can down the road a couple times, but this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair.
- darklion 3y ago
  > this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair. But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur. Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
  - floydnoel 3y ago
    > lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying. do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      It’s mainly on purpose. The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court. That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price. The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court. At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws. Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested. The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.

albert180 3y ago

Well if the EU manages to hold a hard line against Apple, other big markets will surely follow.

nickthegreek 3y ago
I feel like ‘surely follow’ will be measured in many years. The idea of not allowing competing browser engines on iOS has struck me one of Apples more egregious sins. Ideally I could be running Firefox prior to 2030 in the US, but I don’t trust our government’s pace to bet on it.
- albert180 3y ago
  Well if Safari wouldn't intentionally suck, more people would choose to use Progressive WebApps instead of going through all the hassle of creating a dedicated iOS App
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    You mean like all of the people who choose to use PWAs for Android? I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
    - albert180 3y ago
      App Development for Android is much easier. No Bullshit recurring Fees, no need to buy specific Google Hardware etc...
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        How many different Android devices does a serious developer need to buy to ensure their app works well across the spectrum from the top end Android phones to the sub $100 Blu R1 phones? How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers? But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
        albert180 3y ago
        None, there is a decent emulator included with Android Studio
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And you think the emulator actually takes the place of real live hardware, the quirks , the performance, etc?
        johnnyanmac 3y ago
        depends on the complexity of the app. An app that can reasonably be a PWA (e.g. it is more or less a webpage wrapped in an APK) can probably be tested well enough on a dozen emulator pofiles and a few physical devices you have lying around.
        scarface_74 3y ago
        And those are the very apps that are going to run worse on low end devices with poor rendering performance…
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Progressive Web Apps have been around for nearly a decade. Every year there is some excuse (usually missing API X) why they aren't a success.
    - blueelephanttea 3y ago
      Also I have been testing out PWAs in various different browsers (non-Safari) this last month and...ahem...I have been unimpressed. I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    I do Xbox Cloud Gaming in a PWA on iPad with my Xbox controller. What does your app do that's so special it needs more than a console game?
- Terretta 3y ago
  You say "browser engine" Apple says "surveillance engine". Only one of these definitions just cost Google $5 billion settlement for tracking Chrome incognito mode users.
- albert180 3y ago
  South Korea already forced Apple to allow other payment processors, I guess China will follow surely suit if the EU is successful. If that happens, it doesn't matter that much anymore if the US follows or not
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  Many years would be an understatement. From investigation to enforcement to adjudication all the way to the ECJ you’ll be looking at roughly 10 years. Once all of that has played out, maybe some other jurisdiction might then decide to copy some parts. We haven’t even entered the pre-investigation phase in which the EU will wag their fingers.
yreg 3y ago
That won't help with the inconvenience of having to maintain two apps.
staplers 3y ago
California in particular could quickly force their hand on this.

rideontime 3y ago

EU's mandate of USB-C on phones is resulting in benefits for the rest of the world too, it's understandable to hope for the same in this case. Apple must have a lot to gain from keeping the other markets locked down if they're willing to invest the necessary time & money to maintain different guidelines like this.

hellotomyrars 3y ago
The impact to Apple’s bottom line is very different. Maintaining regional SKUs for hardware would be much more expensive for Apple than just acquiescing to the mandate. Software doesn’t have nearly the same issues as physical goods when it comes to splitting feature by region, especially considering the goal will be to keep things more advantageous for apple in as many regions as possible for as long as possible. They can always flip the switch if/when they have to.
- kdwikzncba 3y ago
  [dead]
- alphabettsy 3y ago
  They already have different SKUs. US iPhones lost the SIM tray a year or two ago while it still exists in Europe.
burnte 3y ago
The cost of maintaining the restrictions in the EU are minimal, while it's trivial to buy phones in the EU and ship them out, and each additional hardware SKU is expensive. It's effectively "if location = EU then (features) else (lolgtfo)".

numbsafari 3y ago

Doesn’t Apple have to bear the burden of dealing with different laws in different jurisdictions just like everyone else? Agree or disagree with the changes, but this is a non-sensical line to take. If you want to play on the world stage, this is how it goes.

Waterluvian 3y ago
Yeah. It feels kind of petty and weak to be like, “we were hoping they’d just apply these regulations internationally!” It’s up to Apple to decide how it complies with the rules of each market it does business in.
viraptor 3y ago
Yes, they have to deal with laws of different countries that apply the same to everyone. In this case Apple creates their own rules that do not apply the same to everyone, and are purely for malicious compliance.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Regulation is OK at prohibiting things. Its very bad at willing things someone’s preferred version of the world into exist.

dmz73 3y ago

Since anyone could travel to EU at any time and then the EU rules apply, either Apple must allow all their phones to follow the EU rules if user says they are in EU jurisdiction, or Apple should get a fine for non compliance.

St0n3d 3y ago
That’s not how international laws and customs work. Besides, be careful what you wish for since if they’d follow that line of thought you’re in for a 20-25% tax plus an import fee for importing electronic devices from a different jurisdiction. (Also, the non-compliancy would be your doing as importer; not Apple’s.)
kmeisthax 3y ago
The current word on the street is iOS has a daemon that checks Wi-Fi, cell carrier, and GPS data to determine if the user's in the EEA or not, specifically so they can gate these profit-diminishing features to the minimum possible jurisdiction. Ergo, if you fly to the EU, you can install all this shit, and presumably it disables itself the moment you fly back to the US.

bloppe 3y ago

The regulatory process is focused on outcomes. Here, the desired outcome is fair browser engine competition. If Apple's rules appear unfair to the EU (as they probably will, since they probably will not create robust competition), then the directive will adapt to make that shortcoming clearly prohibited. Apple can kick the can down the road a couple times, but this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair.

darklion 3y ago
> this process is not finished until browser competition on iOS is deemed fair. But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur. Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
- floydnoel 3y ago
  > lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying. do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    It’s mainly on purpose. The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court. That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price. The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court. At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws. Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested. The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.