8 ms·

But, Chrome on iOS will still be a "second class citizen" the way Opera mini and the other browsers on the AppStore. If you want to open a link in Chrome, you

But, Chrome on iOS will still be a "second class citizen" the way Opera mini and the other browsers on the AppStore. If you want to open a link in Chrome, you will need to copy/paste the URL, no "Open in Chrome" functionality like Safari has. For better or for worse, Apple has not opened up system-wide integration of third party apps, and I don't seem them allowing you to change your default browser anytime soon.

bgarbiak 14y ago
That shouldn't be that much of a problem as most of the pages on iOS are displayed in an in-app web views (in apps like: Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Ok, "bookmark-icons" will open in Safari - doubt it's a very popular feature though.
mistercow 14y ago
What's pretty nauseating about it is that it's exactly the kind of anti-competitive crap that Microsoft pulled in the first browser war, only more so.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  And while Mozilla made really loud noises with threats of complaints and legal action about Windows RT and Microsoft, they completely ignored Apple and made Firefox Sync which just syncs bookmarks etc.
  - Zirro 14y ago
    "they completely ignored Apple and made Firefox Sync which just syncs bookmarks etc." There was plenty of sounds from them at the time when they wanted to release a Firefox for iOS, but that was a few years ago by now and it didn't get picked up in the media like the Windows-complaints.
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      >There was plenty of sounds from them at the time when they wanted to release a Firefox for iOS Really? Care to link to some of them?
      - mbrubeck 14y ago
        Here's one that I was personally involved in: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-... Honestly, we are just as upset about Apple's restrictions on iOS, but we the Windows 8 case may prove different because of Microsoft past agreements with the US DOJ. If the courts decide that agreement should apply to Windows desktop on ARM then that provides very different leverage than anyone has against Apple.
        cooldeal 14y ago
        You're comparing a reply made to a Quora question by a Mozilla developer(sounds more like personal opinion) to a blog post about Windows RT on Mozilla's official site penned by their General Counsel? I don't see how they're remotely comparable.
        mbrubeck 14y ago
        Note: I am that Mozilla developer, which is why I remembered that press coverage in particular. For a less personal example, see comments to the press in 2009 by John Lilly (then CEO of Mozilla Corporation): "Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us." ... The danger of a gatekeeper like Apple on the iPhone is that innovation is stifled, Lilly argued. "These vertical silos don't enable innovation," he said. [1] Our general counsel gets involved where there is a legal case to be made or legal questions to be answered. There's no current legal case against Apple; I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if a legal complaint would make sense. But in the meantime, we have no real ability to change Apple's actions. I think we would complain more loudly or frequently in the press if we thought it would get picked up and have some positive outcome. My personal experience is that, after four years with no change in the situation, people either agree with us already or they think we're just whining. And Apple itself has never really cared when third parties complain about this policy. I'll add that there's not total agreement within Mozilla about this. Some people think we should stay aggressive in these political battles regardless of outcome; others think it's better not to "go negative" and that we should focus more energy and attention on the platforms where we are able to carry out our mission. [1]: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128119/Mozilla_backs_move_to_decriminalize_iPhone_jailbreaking?taxonomyId=144&pageNumber=2 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128119/Mozilla_backs... (That story was mainly about Mozilla/EFF testimony in 2009 in favor of the DMCA jailbreaking exemption, which Apple lobbied against. These exemptions must be renewed every 3 years, so Mozilla mobile developer Brad Lassey just presented at the Library of Congress last month in favor of renewal -- but the press did not even report on this year's hearings, which perhaps shows how people lose interest once something is "old news.")
  - bilinqal 14y ago
    Well, they are google strawman and only complain when it benefits google.
- cema 14y ago
  More so. But Apple tends to get good grades on the perception front, which is no less important for the general public than the technical front.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- brian_cloutier 14y ago
  Why do people keep bringing this up? The situations are completely different. Microsoft bundled IE with Windows at a time where the internet was still painfully slow and it was difficult to download a different browser. They also allegedly put IE-specific APIs into Windows, giving it an unfair advantage. However, neither of these would have been enough to convict, if Microsoft hadn't also had a monopoly over the PC. Back in those days, Windows was _the_ operating system. Linux was still new and unknown, and Macintosh wasn't a threat by any means. Bill Gates was sometimes compared to the president in terms of power and influence. Bundling Windows and IE was an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market, in a successful attempt to take over the browser market. Apple has no such monopoly. Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products. When you say they're being anti-competitive, you're implying that iOS and OSX are massive ecosystems which include meaningful competition in sub-markets that Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage in. No such sub-market exists.
  - jbp 14y ago
    I keep reading, there is no tablet market except for ipad. Why is that not considered monopoly?
    - dailyrorschach 14y ago
      Let me preface this with IANAL, just a very interested person. It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed. What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store. In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion. The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.
thechut 14y ago
What a bunch of walled-garden bullshit. It's not even clear that having a full featured Chrome would hurt Apple in anyway
- stcredzero 14y ago
  They want to keep the threat of making Bing the default search engine.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >It's not even clear that having a full featured Chrome would hurt Apple in anyway Perhaps this is how Apple sees it: The browser might create a SDK that makes web apps work more like native apps thus resulting in reducing Apple's control over apps. Also, look at things like NaCl and how plugins like Flash might be enabled by browsers with rendering engines.
  - AlexandrB 14y ago
    > The browser might create a SDK that makes web apps work more like native apps thus resulting in reducing Apple's control over apps. This claim come up occasionally. It always seems silly because web apps were the ONLY apps in the original iOS. Native apps came later and only with pressure from the development community.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      >It always seems silly because web apps were the ONLY apps in the original iOS I don't know why it seems silly to reckon that Apple's priorities on web apps has changed now that they have their own app store and control over it. You mean Apple's opinion on web apps has to be unchanged from the original iPhone? When was this page last updated? http://www.apple.com/webapps/ http://www.apple.com/webapps/ Also, even after Jobs' Flash post more than two years blasting Flash and promising HTML5 improvements to replace it, we still haven't seen much improvement in HTML5 in iOS, with things like audio still suffering. If there were no App store, Apple would've easily devoted more resources to this.
    - 14y ago
mtgx 14y ago
Exactly what the users should be requesting from Apple. You're lucky Apple at least tries to be competitive on the browser front, but if they didn't do that, iOS users and developers would be in big trouble by now.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

bgarbiak 14y ago

That shouldn't be that much of a problem as most of the pages on iOS are displayed in an in-app web views (in apps like: Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Ok, "bookmark-icons" will open in Safari - doubt it's a very popular feature though.

mistercow 14y ago

What's pretty nauseating about it is that it's exactly the kind of anti-competitive crap that Microsoft pulled in the first browser war, only more so.

cooldeal 14y ago
And while Mozilla made really loud noises with threats of complaints and legal action about Windows RT and Microsoft, they completely ignored Apple and made Firefox Sync which just syncs bookmarks etc.
- Zirro 14y ago
  "they completely ignored Apple and made Firefox Sync which just syncs bookmarks etc." There was plenty of sounds from them at the time when they wanted to release a Firefox for iOS, but that was a few years ago by now and it didn't get picked up in the media like the Windows-complaints.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    >There was plenty of sounds from them at the time when they wanted to release a Firefox for iOS Really? Care to link to some of them?
    - mbrubeck 14y ago
      Here's one that I was personally involved in: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-... Honestly, we are just as upset about Apple's restrictions on iOS, but we the Windows 8 case may prove different because of Microsoft past agreements with the US DOJ. If the courts decide that agreement should apply to Windows desktop on ARM then that provides very different leverage than anyone has against Apple.
      - cooldeal 14y ago
        You're comparing a reply made to a Quora question by a Mozilla developer(sounds more like personal opinion) to a blog post about Windows RT on Mozilla's official site penned by their General Counsel? I don't see how they're remotely comparable.
        mbrubeck 14y ago
        Note: I am that Mozilla developer, which is why I remembered that press coverage in particular. For a less personal example, see comments to the press in 2009 by John Lilly (then CEO of Mozilla Corporation): "Given the choice, would we work on a platform where the sole company controlling it makes us unwelcome, or would we work on a platform, like Linux, where we are welcome? The answer is going to be easy for us." ... The danger of a gatekeeper like Apple on the iPhone is that innovation is stifled, Lilly argued. "These vertical silos don't enable innovation," he said. [1] Our general counsel gets involved where there is a legal case to be made or legal questions to be answered. There's no current legal case against Apple; I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if a legal complaint would make sense. But in the meantime, we have no real ability to change Apple's actions. I think we would complain more loudly or frequently in the press if we thought it would get picked up and have some positive outcome. My personal experience is that, after four years with no change in the situation, people either agree with us already or they think we're just whining. And Apple itself has never really cared when third parties complain about this policy. I'll add that there's not total agreement within Mozilla about this. Some people think we should stay aggressive in these political battles regardless of outcome; others think it's better not to "go negative" and that we should focus more energy and attention on the platforms where we are able to carry out our mission. [1]: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128119/Mozilla_backs_move_to_decriminalize_iPhone_jailbreaking?taxonomyId=144&pageNumber=2 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9128119/Mozilla_backs... (That story was mainly about Mozilla/EFF testimony in 2009 in favor of the DMCA jailbreaking exemption, which Apple lobbied against. These exemptions must be renewed every 3 years, so Mozilla mobile developer Brad Lassey just presented at the Library of Congress last month in favor of renewal -- but the press did not even report on this year's hearings, which perhaps shows how people lose interest once something is "old news.")
- bilinqal 14y ago
  Well, they are google strawman and only complain when it benefits google.
cema 14y ago
More so. But Apple tends to get good grades on the perception front, which is no less important for the general public than the technical front.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
brian_cloutier 14y ago
Why do people keep bringing this up? The situations are completely different. Microsoft bundled IE with Windows at a time where the internet was still painfully slow and it was difficult to download a different browser. They also allegedly put IE-specific APIs into Windows, giving it an unfair advantage. However, neither of these would have been enough to convict, if Microsoft hadn't also had a monopoly over the PC. Back in those days, Windows was _the_ operating system. Linux was still new and unknown, and Macintosh wasn't a threat by any means. Bill Gates was sometimes compared to the president in terms of power and influence. Bundling Windows and IE was an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market, in a successful attempt to take over the browser market. Apple has no such monopoly. Like many others have said here before, if you don't like what they do with their platform you can choose not to buy apple products. When you say they're being anti-competitive, you're implying that iOS and OSX are massive ecosystems which include meaningful competition in sub-markets that Apple is giving itself an unfair advantage in. No such sub-market exists.
- jbp 14y ago
  I keep reading, there is no tablet market except for ipad. Why is that not considered monopoly?
  - dailyrorschach 14y ago
    Let me preface this with IANAL, just a very interested person. It may very well be, but having a monopoly alone isn't not a crime. A crime in this case would be abusive practices of the monopoly. What makes United States v. Microsoft different is a number of factors but the main factor was its restrictive licensing agreements with other OEMs. You could buy a computer from a variety of makers, but no matter what, this IE/Microsoft abusive relationship allegedly existed. What this means is if you were an OEM, not only did you carry Windows as the operating system but that agreement forced you, the OEM, to package and include Internet Explorer. As others have pointed out at this time, downloading and installing alternative web-browsers was also a slow proposition or required someone visiting a store. In particular it was ruled that Microsoft violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act Apple does not have a monopoly over the dominant operating system for all tablets, only its own. Yes right now it is the dominant product in the space, but alternatives readily exist with the same availability as the iPad. You may argue that the Samsung case is an abuse of monopoly, I don't believe it is, abuse of IP law, perhaps - but that's a different discussion. The way the situation would be analogous is if the majority of all tablet makers, all used iOS, and were forced by Apple to configure their installations in a way that benefited Apple products while hampering others. And even then it might not be the same, depending on how courts view the iPad as a device.

thechut 14y ago

What a bunch of walled-garden bullshit. It's not even clear that having a full featured Chrome would hurt Apple in anyway

stcredzero 14y ago
They want to keep the threat of making Bing the default search engine.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>It's not even clear that having a full featured Chrome would hurt Apple in anyway Perhaps this is how Apple sees it: The browser might create a SDK that makes web apps work more like native apps thus resulting in reducing Apple's control over apps. Also, look at things like NaCl and how plugins like Flash might be enabled by browsers with rendering engines.
- AlexandrB 14y ago
  > The browser might create a SDK that makes web apps work more like native apps thus resulting in reducing Apple's control over apps. This claim come up occasionally. It always seems silly because web apps were the ONLY apps in the original iOS. Native apps came later and only with pressure from the development community.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    >It always seems silly because web apps were the ONLY apps in the original iOS I don't know why it seems silly to reckon that Apple's priorities on web apps has changed now that they have their own app store and control over it. You mean Apple's opinion on web apps has to be unchanged from the original iPhone? When was this page last updated? http://www.apple.com/webapps/ http://www.apple.com/webapps/ Also, even after Jobs' Flash post more than two years blasting Flash and promising HTML5 improvements to replace it, we still haven't seen much improvement in HTML5 in iOS, with things like audio still suffering. If there were no App store, Apple would've easily devoted more resources to this.
  - 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

Exactly what the users should be requesting from Apple. You're lucky Apple at least tries to be competitive on the browser front, but if they didn't do that, iOS users and developers would be in big trouble by now.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]