3 ms·

The rules, as I understand them, mean that if Mozilla wishes, it can use its own engine with the browsers distributed in the EU -- and not that it must. Why wo

The rules, as I understand them, mean that if Mozilla wishes, it can use its own engine with the browsers distributed in the EU -- and not that it must. Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? Can't they just keep on using the current implementation?

w4rh4wk5 3y ago
The point is that Mozilla wants to use their own browser engine for Firefox on iOS for all users. While the change opens up the possibility to do this in the EU, it's only possible to do so in the EU. iOS users in the US cannot get this version. This means that Mozilla would have to maintain 2 versions, one for non-EU using webkit, the other for EU using their own, preferred browser engine.
- palata 3y ago
  Isn't the webkit one basically a marketing facade? Genuinely interested: wouldn't it make sense for Mozilla to just drop support for the webkit one and go with their own engine for the EU? That would reward the better legislation, and then the US could follow.
  - St0n3d 3y ago
    Yeah or people in the US just install something other than Firefox and call it a day when Mozilla decides to do that.
simion314 3y ago
>Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? it is obvious that Firefox users want the real Firefox and not a Safari skin, so Apple screws their customers that prefer Firefox. As I understand when you buy an Apple device they do not put on the box or the website a big banner that tells the user about their apps limitations, the Apple tax and that Apple forces developers not to inform them about better deals.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  No big banner, but a EULA on first boot that explains the limitations and an option to return the device if you don’t agree. No language on what the developer agreements terms are, because the E and the U in EULA stand for “End User”, so presumably it’s not deemed relevant to the end user.
  - simion314 3y ago
    So what do you think about the Apple rule that FORBIDS a developer to inform the user that there is a better deal on their website. IMO the above is disgusting, illegal, anti-user crap, they prevent that you the user get informed about something that could benefit you but might make Apple lose some money.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    EULA on first boot is likely illegal in EU, counts as a hidden contract term.
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      I am going to need a source for that. EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them. That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service. In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved. Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms. This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use. EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements. Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law. The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms. But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement. Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all. Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software. You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder. That license is granted via a license agreement. Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.

w4rh4wk5 3y ago

The point is that Mozilla wants to use their own browser engine for Firefox on iOS for all users. While the change opens up the possibility to do this in the EU, it's only possible to do so in the EU. iOS users in the US cannot get this version. This means that Mozilla would have to maintain 2 versions, one for non-EU using webkit, the other for EU using their own, preferred browser engine.

palata 3y ago
Isn't the webkit one basically a marketing facade? Genuinely interested: wouldn't it make sense for Mozilla to just drop support for the webkit one and go with their own engine for the EU? That would reward the better legislation, and then the US could follow.
- St0n3d 3y ago
  Yeah or people in the US just install something other than Firefox and call it a day when Mozilla decides to do that.

simion314 3y ago

>Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? it is obvious that Firefox users want the real Firefox and not a Safari skin, so Apple screws their customers that prefer Firefox. As I understand when you buy an Apple device they do not put on the box or the website a big banner that tells the user about their apps limitations, the Apple tax and that Apple forces developers not to inform them about better deals.

turquoisevar 3y ago
No big banner, but a EULA on first boot that explains the limitations and an option to return the device if you don’t agree. No language on what the developer agreements terms are, because the E and the U in EULA stand for “End User”, so presumably it’s not deemed relevant to the end user.
- simion314 3y ago
  So what do you think about the Apple rule that FORBIDS a developer to inform the user that there is a better deal on their website. IMO the above is disgusting, illegal, anti-user crap, they prevent that you the user get informed about something that could benefit you but might make Apple lose some money.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  EULA on first boot is likely illegal in EU, counts as a hidden contract term.
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    I am going to need a source for that. EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them. That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service. In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved. Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms. This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use. EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements. Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law. The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms. But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement. Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all. Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software. You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder. That license is granted via a license agreement. Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.