UK Revives Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Browser and Cloud Gaming Restrictions

[webkit]

How can those both be simultaneously true? iOS is propping it up but if you remove the prop the numbers won't fall?

Huh? I never said numbers won’t fall. I said I didn’t feel that allowing alternative browser engines on iOS will practically mean the end of Safari/WebKit. I simply don't think the impact will be nearly as dire for Safari/WebKit as some here seem to believe.

I'd have thought a user named "webkit" would know this, but:
Webkit is already open source.
The Windows port of Webkit is maintained.

Chrome is built on a version of Webkit that Google forked so they could make it more amenable to Google's purposes.

Apple does not package and distribute a version of Safari for Windows any more, but why should they have to? And won't this then just raise the regulatory risk on Safari if it's now gaining dominance in the market?

I greatly appreciate Apple's products and ecosystem, and willingly come to Apple to enjoy that experience. I don't see why they need to pay the cost of supporting that experience on other platforms with no revenue to justify it, and I don't see why they need to undermine that ecosystem because someone covets their 20% browser share.

All of these arguments keep coming back to what Apple should do to compete-- they're competing just fine. If you want people to leave iOS, create an ecosystem with a better user experience and entice me to go. Give me a reason to want to move to a new ecosystem, don't just destroy what I love about the ecosystem I'm in and say "there's nothing left for you here, you may as well try something else."

I am aware of these things but they don't change my opinion/comments here. I never said Apple should "have to" make Safari available on Android, Windows, etc. I said I thought they should as it would help usage levels.

 

[Analog Kid]

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow users of a major mobile OS (iOS) to "vote with their $$$" by allowing them to use browser engines other than WebKit and/or app stores other than the App Store and/or sideload.

Yeah, I was just in a shop the other day and noticed that on the other side of the wall from the 5 Apple phones was what looked like a countless number of other phone looking things, but as soon as I wandered over to see what they were Apple's thugs materialized out of nowhere, picked me up by the armpits, dumped on the sidewalk outside, and threatened my family if I ever considered leaving the ecosystem again.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Because that's where the natural market state is. If developers could, they would save themselves the time and trouble of developing for multiple platforms, and they would choose the platform that let them extract the most value from their users. Everything else means less money for devs.

Just like Google created Android to protect its search business on mobile, they've created Chrome to provide a browser conducive to their business-- they are data merchants.

At the moment, developers aren't willing to sacrifice the lucrative market of iOS customers, so they ensure compatibility. It's one thing to tell customers to install a different browser to use their site, but it's another to tell them to use a different phone.

At the moment Safari marketshare is half on the desktop what it is on mobile.

Chrome uses the same standards as the rest of the internet.

Not a single website is developing multiple versions to support multiple browsers, they implement standards, and today we already have websites not working on safari because it misses essential standard features.

Safari isn't protecting the web, it's killing it

There's been a lot of discussion recently about how "Safari is the new IE" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I don't want to rehash the basics of that, but I…

httptoolkit.com

Why can't EU let us have retro game emulators in the App Store? When I was a kid that's what I would put on all my devices. It's basically the only thing I really want that the App Store doesn't have. I do it with dev account now but it's a bit of a headache, and if emulators could go mainstream then they would get a lot more updates and features. Some of the best ones wouldn't even charge money for it, they'd do it for the love of retro games.

Well… they are in a few months

I agree that iOS browser engine restrictions are "propping up" Safari share numbers but don't feel that allowing alternative browser engines will practically mean the end of Safari/WebKit. Even though alternative browser engines are available on Macs, Safari still appears to maintain mid-60s percentage browser share on macOS. Why shouldn't Safari/WebKit be able to maintain at least that much on iOS after alternative browser engines are available?

I also think Apple should make Safari/WebKit available on other major operating systems like Android and Windows. That would help with usage levels as well.

Exactly, I was kind of bummed when safari effectively was killed on windows, so I use Firefox primarily and edge

 

[cyb3rdud3]

It’s going to be a mixed bag across the globe and I know this will go in circles but here goes. Apple should be allowed to have a closed ecosystem and people should vote with their $$$.

Sure and they can as long as they comply with the law and consumer rights It a good thing.

 

[Analog Kid]

Huh? I never said numbers won’t fall. I said I didn’t feel that allowing alternative browser engines on iOS will practically mean the end of Safari/WebKit. I simply don't think the impact will be nearly as dire for Safari/WebKit as some here seem to believe.

Pick a number-- where do you think it will fall to?

I am aware of these things but they don't change my opinion/comments here. I never said Apple should "have to" make Safari available on Android, Windows, etc. I said I thought they should as it would help usage levels.

Giving a pony to every little girl that downloads Numbers would promote usage as well, but that doesn't make it a good use of resources. Apple opened up their browser engine, and then focused on their customers.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Chrome uses the same standards as the rest of the internet.

Not a single website is developing multiple versions to support multiple browsers, they implement standards, and today we already have websites not working on safari because it misses essential standard features.

Safari isn't protecting the web, it's killing it

There's been a lot of discussion recently about how "Safari is the new IE" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I don't want to rehash the basics of that, but I…

httptoolkit.com

Well… they are in a few months

Exactly, I was kind of bummed when safari effectively was killed on windows, so I use Firefox primarily and edge
View attachment 2319790

Seems rather outdated, that first link is two years old Safari is pretty damn good privacy wise etc. But it’s WebKit itself this is really about. The features around differ a lot.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

How can those both be simultaneously true? iOS is propping it up but if you remove the prop the numbers won't fall?

Simple. If safari is competitive and the best then user share won’t be impacted, just how Google search being optional yet maintaines the same market share, while whe IE became optional it quickly lost market share because it was a horrible browser propped up by Microsoft.

Apple does not package and distribute a version of Safari for Windows any more, but why should they have to? And won't this then just raise the regulatory risk on Safari if it's now gaining dominance in the market?

Nope it will have zero impact on safaris regulatory risk as their potential market share isn’t that important.

But it’s a comment on safari being an absurd last line of defense toward blink dominance, when they aren’t even available on other platforms to be relevant. Especially when they left for failing to compete.

I greatly appreciate Apple's products and ecosystem, and willingly come to Apple to enjoy that experience. I don't see why they need to pay the cost of supporting that experience on other platforms with no revenue to justify it, and I don't see why they need to undermine that ecosystem because someone covets their 20% browser share.

All of these arguments keep coming back to what Apple should do to compete-- they're competing just fine. If you want people to leave iOS, create an ecosystem with a better user experience and entice me to go. Give me a reason to want to move to a new ecosystem, don't just destroy what I love about the ecosystem I'm in and say "there's nothing left for you here, you may as well try something else."

Apple doesn’t need to, but they have themselves to blame if they aren’t competitive and have a minimal market share only by preventing competition in the browser business.

Nobody is arguing for enticing users to leave apples ecosystem.

If users want to use the same browser across their devices, and apple prevents this by not being available. This forces users to use a competing solution to have a complete experience.

 

[Analog Kid]

Chrome uses the same standards as the rest of the internet.

*then attaches chart showing differences between Chrome and other browsers*

Not a single website is developing multiple versions to support multiple browsers, they implement standards

How to Create Browser Specific CSS Code | BrowserStack

Learn how to create browser specific CSS code to ensure cross browser compatibility for websites. Check out the CSS code for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, IE & Safari.

www.browserstack.com

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Seems rather outdated, that first link is two years old Safari is pretty damn good privacy wise etc. But it’s WebKit itself this is really about. The features around differ a lot.

Well the picture is current and you can see the difference between safari on Mac and safari on iOS. And even the article is actually still relevant sadly

And well the WebKit features in the open source version isn’t available in the WebKit version Apple uses.

Here you can compare them. These are security related

 

[KevinN206]

If by proper protection, you mean reducing the scope of choice by undermining the minority platforms...

The only reason websites are made to cross-platform standards is because they need to be compatible with Safari for iPhone. If this succeeds, Chrome and all its many holes and flaws will be the only option we have.

View attachment 2319302

Safari isn't a cross-platform if it's only for Apple devices.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

*then attaches chart showing differences between Chrome and other browsers*

… yes comparing safari and chrome.. in who supports standards.

How to Create Browser Specific CSS Code | BrowserStack

Learn how to create browser specific CSS code to ensure cross browser compatibility for websites. Check out the CSS code for Chrome, Firefox, Edge, IE & Safari.

www.browserstack.com

Notice this is still using standards…

While detecting the browser is not a good practice because it can hinder browsers to access the website as other browsers do and relies on the browser user–agent. However, you might still use it sometimes to offer a consistent user experience by doing a workaround, especially when certain CSS Features and Properties are not fully supported by the browsers.

 

[I7guy]

Sure and they can as long as they comply with the law and consumer rights It a good thing.

That’s the point, competition by government regulation by making apples ip a public utility is lousy regulation. But apple will follow the law and this doesn’t make the legislation good. Hence my comment.

 

[I7guy]

Unfortunately, Apple doesn't allow users of a major mobile OS (iOS) to "vote with their $$$" by allowing them to use browser engines other than WebKit and/or app stores other than the App Store and/or sideload.

with a closed ecosystem you get to decide if you like and want to buy the complete package that’s the point.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That’s the point, competition by government regulation by making apples ip a public utility is lousy regulation. But apple will follow the law and this doesn’t make the legislation good. Hence my comment.

Well Apple doesn’t need to compete if they don’t want to, they can continue as normal if they believe it’s the best option. And business and users will vote with their choices.

with a closed ecosystem you get to decide if you like and want to buy the complete package that’s the point.

What a shame, seems UK thinks Apple is in the way for businesses.

Apples freedom seems to interfere with other businesses freedoms.

 

[Analog Kid]

… yes comparing safari and chrome.. in who supports standards.

Notice this is still using standards…

...which no browser fully supports, as your chart clearly showed.

You're shifting position here-- you said no-one is writing multiple versions to support multiple browsers. They do. As long as there are differences between independently developed products, there will be a need to accommodate those differences.

 

[Analog Kid]

Apples freedom seems to interfere with other businesses freedoms.

Is it the businesses we should be worried about? I mean, poor Google that they can't get Chrome on iPhone, but happy people seem better than happy companies.

Well Apple doesn’t need to compete if they don’t want to, they can continue as normal if they believe it’s the best option. And business and users will vote with their choices.

No, they cannot. That's the whole point here-- people can't vote with their choices because those choices are being taken away. I've voted for Apple products, now those product are being changed not because I've voted for them to, or because businesses have voted for them to, but because some bureaucrat thinks they're smarter than the invisible hand.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

...which no browser fully supports, as your chart clearly showed.

Irrelevant as it’s just comparing who is more in compliance chrome or safari.

You're shifting position here-- you said no-one is writing multiple versions to support multiple browsers. They do. As long as there are differences between independently developed products, there will be a need to accommodate those differences.

Fair point, as developers are forced to develop for specific browsers because they don’t comply. And safari is a great example of not complying with standard.l because they use more proprietary solutions and less compatibility

 

[ss2cire]

Amazing that you know what Steve Jobs would do.

View attachment 2319291

How do you know they're not referring to the Woz?

 

[I7guy]

Well Apple doesn’t need to compete if they don’t want to, they can continue as normal if they believe it’s the best option. And business and users will vote with their choices.

What a shame, seems UK thinks Apple is in the way for businesses.

Apples freedom seems to interfere with other businesses freedoms.

Not sure of the word…”sad” maybe that for our across the pond associates, instead of vote with your $$$, it’s rah, rah rah bring on lousy regulation.

 

[Analog Kid]

Irrelevant as it’s just comparing who is more in compliance chrome or safari.

Standards aren't laws. There's no requirement for "compliance" and checklists are foolish ways to judge because often the features not being implemented by one or the other are either irrelevant or strategic and the checklist doesn't indicate which.

I'm all for standards compliance, but you're missing how standards and extensions to standards can be weaponized.

Fair point, as developers are forced to develop for specific browsers because they don’t comply. And safari is a great example of not complying with standard.l because they use more proprietary solutions and less compatibility

Apple has made their iWork suite work just fine on Safari, why can't Google make Docs work there as well? Maybe they should be forced to.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Is it the businesses we should be worried about? I mean, poor Google that they can't get Chrome on iPhone, but happy people seem better than happy companies.

Shouldn’t we? There’s more businesses than google. Multiple chrome forks such as bing, brave, Vivaldi and opera. Or Firefox.

No, they cannot. That's the whole point here-- people can't vote with their choices because those choices are being taken away. I've voted for Apple products, now those product are being changed not because I've voted for them to, or because businesses have voted for them to, but because some bureaucrat thinks they're smarter than the invisible hand.

Well nothing is changed, you are free to use the exact same software. Now if businesses and users stop using safari, then that’s their choice to make.

You can’t force developers to stay if they don’t want to use something they don’t like.

Consumers and businesses have voted for the change because Apple seems to be stifling the invisible and of The market and allow open opportunity to compete on merits.

Not sure of the word…”sad” maybe that for our across the pond associates, instead of vote with your $$$, it’s rah, rah rah bring on lousy regulation.

🤷‍♂️ well you value freedom from government interference.

We value freedom from corporate interference and government interference.

Voting works both with money and the ballot. If you don’t like it you can always tell Apple to have provide a normal locked down version to the U.S. market.

 

[Shirasaki]

Which is another way of saying: Apple has put together an ecosystem that works well within itself and promotes the privacy and security of its users. They have no aspirations outside their walled garden and don't intend or desire to become a monopolistic power in the market.

The European regulations are systematically trying to cut system level innovation off at the knees and reduce everything to the lowest common denominator.

Yeah, because their browser is protected by Apple‘s walled garden, no matter how bad it is, iOS users must use it. Even to this day, I encounter more website issues when using Safari than using Firefox, let alone chrome. By voluntarily giving up every other platform, not only their browser is extremely limited in exposure, but also limited in terms of performance and compatibility compared to Chrome. It’s a vicious cycle that only heavy fist keeps Safari relevant.

I don’t care how Apple thinks today. Safari needs to be available anywhere and everywhere to truly compete with chrome and create a healthier competitive environment. Also keeps Chrome dominance in check. I hope UK this time gives Apple a wakeup call to rethink their Safari product strategy. But of course, Apple has the choice to keep Safari as-is. Then UK ruling will have ripple effect across the globe, beyond what Apple can control.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Standards aren't laws. There's no requirement for "compliance" and checklists are foolish ways to judge because often the features not being implemented by one or the other are either irrelevant or strategic and the checklist doesn't indicate which.

If not Checklists of the same standards Apple is part of
(W3C is the best known web standards body, but there are others such as the WHATWG, ECMA, Khronos)
and developing, then what do you want to use? You are able to check any of them and their purpose are.

Multiple security standards aren’t supported on iOS, but in rival browsers or ways to precent context more safely.

I'm all for standards compliance, but you're missing how standards and extensions to standards can be weaponized.

I’m well aware, but so far Apple isn’t doing anything better ether as they also weaponizes their implementation of standards

Apple has made their iWork suite work just fine on Safari, why can't Google make Docs work there as well? Maybe they should be forced to.

Isn’t it already compatible? What’s not working on iOS?
And native apps already exist for iWork and Google docs, and seems to be superior such as working offline.

 

[Analog Kid]

Well nothing is changed, you are free to use the exact same software. Now if businesses and users stop using safari, then that’s their choice to make.

You can’t force developers to stay if they don’t want to use something they don’t like.

Exactly, you can't force developers (or users) to stay if they don't like something. That seems like a good reason for government to just go on and **** off.

Consumers and businesses have voted for the change

No they didn't. If you look at the long prioritized list of reasons UK citizens voted for their MPs, where do you think regulating Safari sits?

🤷‍♂️ well you value freedom from government interference.

We value freedom from corporate interference and government interference.

But you just a couple paragraphs ago said that government should be protecting corporate interests-- so you have corporations leveraging the power of government to interfere in the market. Worst of all worlds.

Voting works both with money and the ballot.

It should, but Europe is moving toward eliminating one of those voices.

 

[Analog Kid]

they also weaponizes their implementation of standards

How?