5 ms·

Isn't having the 5 top choices always be the same kind of the same violation? It entrenches the big guys.

zarathustreal 3y ago
The idea that any of this is or ever was a problem to the end user is laughable honestly, this is political theater. End users want to be able to browse the web, that’s the point of a web browser. Most of them are based on the same underlying technology and implementations. Throwing around political power to force OS teams to spend engineering resources on the illusion of choice is actively harmful for basically zero benefit to the end user.
- Hasu 3y ago
  It's not a problem for the end user to be unable to pick which browser they want to use? Speak for yourself, I would consider being forced into a single browser choice a huge problem, to the point that I will not buy a device that does it.
  - Ajedi32 3y ago
    The fact that alternate browser engines were banned on iOS was indeed a huge problem, but I think the current legislation goes too far. As the GP said, many users won't care. I think trying to force them to care by presenting a randomized list of a dozen different options at setup time is misguided. I don't see the issue with merely having a default so long as there's an easy way to change it and Apple isn't applying any rules or restrictions to competing browsers that they don't apply to their own.
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  Indeed, outside Hackernews hardly any user cares about the browser. However it becomes relevant once a dominating vendor uses the monopoly to limit the capabilities of the browser to benefit their app store etc. and that is hard to notice. For good competition the EU tries to limit that early.
  - thejohnconway 3y ago
    Yeah, and what they’ve done here will result in a Chrome monopoly everywhere. They needed to break Chrome before going after Safari and Apple.
    - talldayo 3y ago
      Apple really shouldn't have used a monopoly strategy to block another, more theoretical monopoly from happening.
      - thejohnconway 3y ago
        I agree, I’m not on Apples side in this stuff, and actually think the App Store strategy tax is killing Apple as a worthwhile company. I wish they’d just dump the whole thing. But the monopoly of Chrome is getting to be as bad as the IE6 days, and is worth prioritising in my opinion, because it affects everyone, not just those who buy into Apple products.
      - neodymiumphish 3y ago
        Except that Apple monopolistic behavior would have stayed limited to iOS devices, which they make and maintain. If users were staunchly opposed to this “monopoly,” they had the option to switch to any of a huge selection of highly comparable choices. Google wins in this situation, because now their dominance expands to far more devices.
        talldayo 3y ago
        > they had the option to switch Let's not mince words; the "option" you are referring to is to throw away your iPhone and buy a different device. The fact that this is the only path of recourse is the obvious reason why Apple is being investigated multinationally. Users don't have to be opposed to a monopoly for one to exist. Customers loved Bell telephone's monopoly, because Bell gave their users free long-distance calling. That love did nothing to stop what the government did next.
jsnell 3y ago
I can see that some people would think that, but it's a design that was converged on after several iterations and seems to have worked for both the regulators and the companies. I think both of the previous examples actually started with just enough entries for a single screen, and were later expanded to include more entries in a second tier. From the user's perspective, having to make a choice from an unsorted list of hundreds or thousands of items would not work. That's why the regulators seem to accept the idea that not every product has the right to be on those choice lists, and not every listed product needs to be equally prominent. What's important is that the criteria are objective and don't give an unfair advantage to the platform owner.
zamadatix 3y ago
When Microsoft was made to do a browser choice screen for the EU in 2010 they had a two tier system and it seemed to go well with the EU. On one hand, sure - it is an advantage for the popular browsers. On the other hand the goal is more that the manufacturer not be using their position to force the browser so heavily not necessarily to put every Joe Schmoe Browser in front of the same number of eyes. From a practicality perspective it solves the main problem without becoming a complication in itself.

The idea that any of this is or ever was a problem to the end user is laughable honestly, this is political theater. End users want to be able to browse the web, that’s the point of a web browser. Most of them are based on the same underlying technology and implementations. Throwing around political power to force OS teams to spend engineering resources on the illusion of choice is actively harmful for basically zero benefit to the end user.

Hasu 3y ago
It's not a problem for the end user to be unable to pick which browser they want to use? Speak for yourself, I would consider being forced into a single browser choice a huge problem, to the point that I will not buy a device that does it.
- Ajedi32 3y ago
  The fact that alternate browser engines were banned on iOS was indeed a huge problem, but I think the current legislation goes too far. As the GP said, many users won't care. I think trying to force them to care by presenting a randomized list of a dozen different options at setup time is misguided. I don't see the issue with merely having a default so long as there's an easy way to change it and Apple isn't applying any rules or restrictions to competing browsers that they don't apply to their own.
johannes1234321 3y ago
Indeed, outside Hackernews hardly any user cares about the browser. However it becomes relevant once a dominating vendor uses the monopoly to limit the capabilities of the browser to benefit their app store etc. and that is hard to notice. For good competition the EU tries to limit that early.
- thejohnconway 3y ago
  Yeah, and what they’ve done here will result in a Chrome monopoly everywhere. They needed to break Chrome before going after Safari and Apple.
  - talldayo 3y ago
    Apple really shouldn't have used a monopoly strategy to block another, more theoretical monopoly from happening.
    - thejohnconway 3y ago
      I agree, I’m not on Apples side in this stuff, and actually think the App Store strategy tax is killing Apple as a worthwhile company. I wish they’d just dump the whole thing. But the monopoly of Chrome is getting to be as bad as the IE6 days, and is worth prioritising in my opinion, because it affects everyone, not just those who buy into Apple products.
    - neodymiumphish 3y ago
      Except that Apple monopolistic behavior would have stayed limited to iOS devices, which they make and maintain. If users were staunchly opposed to this “monopoly,” they had the option to switch to any of a huge selection of highly comparable choices. Google wins in this situation, because now their dominance expands to far more devices.
      - talldayo 3y ago
        > they had the option to switch Let's not mince words; the "option" you are referring to is to throw away your iPhone and buy a different device. The fact that this is the only path of recourse is the obvious reason why Apple is being investigated multinationally. Users don't have to be opposed to a monopoly for one to exist. Customers loved Bell telephone's monopoly, because Bell gave their users free long-distance calling. That love did nothing to stop what the government did next.

jsnell 3y ago

I can see that some people would think that, but it's a design that was converged on after several iterations and seems to have worked for both the regulators and the companies. I think both of the previous examples actually started with just enough entries for a single screen, and were later expanded to include more entries in a second tier. From the user's perspective, having to make a choice from an unsorted list of hundreds or thousands of items would not work. That's why the regulators seem to accept the idea that not every product has the right to be on those choice lists, and not every listed product needs to be equally prominent. What's important is that the criteria are objective and don't give an unfair advantage to the platform owner.

zamadatix 3y ago

When Microsoft was made to do a browser choice screen for the EU in 2010 they had a two tier system and it seemed to go well with the EU. On one hand, sure - it is an advantage for the popular browsers. On the other hand the goal is more that the manufacturer not be using their position to force the browser so heavily not necessarily to put every Joe Schmoe Browser in front of the same number of eyes. From a practicality perspective it solves the main problem without becoming a complication in itself.