Apple Argued Safari Is Three Different Browsers to Avoid Regulation

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

The claim came as part of a response to the European Union in August, just before the European Commission designated many of Apple's iOS, App Store, and Safari as gatekeeper platforms. This classification means that Apple now has to ensure that these platforms fall in line with the Digital Markets Act's requirements, such as allowing browser engines other than WebKit and the installation of third-party app stores.

It has now emerged that after being informed that Safari was likely to fall under the DMA's regulations, Apple filed formal a response to the European Union claiming that Safari is, in fact, "three distinct web browsers." The company's claim is based on the argument that Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are entirely different and serve different purposes.

Remember when Microsoft made the same excuse during United States of America vs Microsoft? Good times

But hey it's okay when Apple does it

 

[eropko]

Remember when Microsoft made the same excuse during United States of America vs Microsoft?

It wasn't the same excuse and Microsoft was a full-on monopoly in OS market. And it technically won the case in the end, got some sanctions, but they were pathetic.

And this one is just a political push to cripple Apple ecosystem, lobbied by Google (which is close to actual internet monopoly), without a court and trial.

Imagine Google sh*tting on your iPhone as much as it does on MacOS, installing some shady keystone app to run at startup, that you can't disable (it will reappear), adding their stupid Google Docs apps links to your Applications whenever it wants.
Useful read:

Chrome is Bad

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

It wasn't the same excuse and Microsoft was a full-on monopoly in OS market. And it technically won the case in the end, got some sanctions, but they were pathetic.

Microsoft was still forced to open up and allow other web engines on Windows. If it wasn't for the case, Firefox and Chrome never would've been a thing

And this one is just a political push to cripple Apple ecosystem, lobbied by Google (which is close to actual internet monopoly), without a court and trial.

Adding the choice of other web engines is "crippling the Apple ecosystem?"

Imagine Google sh*tting on your iPhone as much as it does on MacOS, installing some shady keystone app to run at startup, that you can't disable (it will reappear), adding their stupid Google Docs apps links to your Applications whenever it wants.
Useful read:

Chrome is Bad

Wouldn't know because I don't use Chrome I use Firefox, and the moment other web engines are available on iOS I'd move from Safari to Firefox.

 

[webkit]

Yup, my point is the EU regulation on private companies business when it comes to end user expierence. is garbage and shouldn't be doing it....literally what I'm saying. Just because it's "law" doesn't mean it's right. Regulating pollution or things like that is a different story.

And just because you or others may feel a law/regulation is not "right" doesn’t mean it isn’t right or Apple should be allowed to violate it. Apple can choose to follow the law/regulation, try to fight it (as they are at this point), or leave the market where it exists.

If I feel that a 55 mph speed limit on a particular road is too low, that doesn't mean the law isn't right or that I have a legal right to go 80 mph on that road.

As far as this particular situation is concerned, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Apple has a dominant position (as part of a duopoly with Android) in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets and their restrictions on browser engines (among other things) is anticompetitive behavior. It's up to the EU to enforce their antitrust laws.

 

[amartinez1660]

The fact that we users of devices in the Apple ecosystem simply do not care about whether or not we can run the Safari browser on Android should tell you everything you need to know.

This I can relate, me personally I’m not heading daily to what an “AndroidRumors” equivalent would be, demanding for them to -change, install, swap, introduce, remove- a feature, port, app or technology on a device I don’t really use and won’t probably buy anytime soon.

Some changes might be nice, yeah, USB-C is ok, why not, although definitely rushed due to pressure… (pretty sure USB-C was coming anyways, probably in full thunderbolt form at some point).

But ultimately, I don’t really care much for what it’s done and enjoyed there barring the times MacRumors highlights a legit nice feature.

Then there’s all the iOS users that actually want an Android phone but for some reason or another are stuck in iOS and would like a bit of both worlds… don’t have a free solution for that.

 

[eropko]

Microsoft was still forced to open up and allow other web engines on Windows. If i

Different browsers were always allowed, the reason was IE going in Windows distribution.

Adding the choice of other web engines is "crippling the Apple ecosystem?"

Yes, controlling browser on a mobile platform allows you to control battery usage and security.

Wouldn't know because I don't use Chrome I use Firefox

It's not a secret Mozilla is funded by Google, of course not to pretend there is competition. In 2021 Google payments were 83% of Mozilla funds (half a billion USD), according to Bloomberg, and kept rising despite userbase was plummeting (which is funny because officially those are payments to use Google as main search engine). They simply make a browser always bit inferior to Chrome. And use Google Analytics. And this is the topic that gets you insta-banned on firefox subreddit.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Yes, controlling browser on a mobile platform allows you to control battery usage and security.

Again: you have the choice not to use other browsers and just use Safari. You control the buttons you press.

It's not a secret Mozilla is funded by Google, of course not to pretend there is competition. In 2021 Google payments were 83% of Mozilla funds (half a billion USD), according to Bloomberg, and kept rising despite userbase was plummeting (which is funny because officially those are payments to use Google as main search engine). They simply make a browser always bit inferior to Chrome. And use Google Analytics. And this is the topic that gets you insta-banned on firefox subreddit.

Yes Mozilla is funded by Google...to make Google the default web browser, a deal they also struck with Apple.

Guess what, Mozilla is funded by other companies as well. And despite that the browser is still on a free and open source license. A lot of FOSS are funded by companies since said companies use the FOSS as well, like how Valve helps fund the development of Wine and CrossOver since they use them for Steam Proton.

This ain't the "got ya" you think it is.

 

[eropko]

you have the choice not to use other browsers and just use Safari

As reality shows aggressive Chrome marketing and engineering will not leave the choice for less tech-savvy.

Guess what, Mozilla is funded by other companies as well

Guess you kind of had a blind spot for "83% and growing despite plummeting user base" part. Okay.

 

[fenderbass146]

And just because you or others may feel a law/regulation is not "right" doesn’t mean it isn’t right or Apple should be allowed to violate it. Apple can choose to follow the law/regulation, try to fight it (as they are at this point), or leave the market where it exists.

If I feel that a 55 mph speed limit on a particular road is too low, that doesn't mean the law isn't right or that I have a legal right to go 80 mph on that road.

As far as this particular situation is concerned, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Apple has a dominant position (as part of a duopoly with Android) in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets and their restrictions on browser engines (among other things) is anticompetitive behavior. It's up to the EU to enforce their antitrust laws.

yup...im not suggesting they break the law, im suggesting the law is stupid and apple should fight it or leave. I'm sick of big government overregulating ****. There very few reasons Government should be involved in the private sector.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

As reality shows aggressive Chrome marketing and engineering will not leave the choice for less tech-savvy.

But that is people's choice. You can't block people from making that choice because you don't like it.

Guess you kind of had a blind spot for "83% and growing despite plummeting user base" part. Okay.

I think you just have a fanboyism for Safari and hate the thought of anyone using anything other than it.

yup...im not suggesting they break the law, im suggesting the law is stupid and apple should fight it or leave. I'm sick of big government overregulating ****. There very few reasons Government should be involved in the private sector.

Ah yes because we all know regulation is bad and we should let big corporations do whatever they want. Look at all the things regulation has done that has made the iPhone worse, like adding USB-C and more repairability to our phones. So horrible!

 

[eropko]

But that is people's choice.

Forced choices leading to danger of forming a monopoly are bad choices.

I think you just have a fanboyism for any web browser that isn't Safari and hate the thought of anyone using anything other than it.

And again a blind spot for "83% and growing despite plummeting user base" and unrelated comment.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Forced choices leading to danger of forming a monopoly are bad choices.

It's not a forced choice. Again, you can choose not to Chrome and just stay on Safari, just like on Mac, just like how on Windows you have the choice to stay on Edge and not download anything else. Google ain't making you do anything.

You control the buttons you press.

 

[webkit]

Different browsers were always allowed, the reason was IE going in Windows distribution.

Different browsers were always allowed on Windows, at least by the end users, but an issue in that case was the restrictions Microsoft put on computer makers regarding what competitor browsers could come pre-installed.

In this situation with iOS and iPadOS, Apple not only doesn't allow third party retailers (AT&T, Best Buy, Vodafone, etc.) to install alternative browser engines but doesn’t even allow end users to do so.

Yes, controlling browser on a mobile platform allows you to control battery usage and security.

Users will still be able to choose Safari/WebKit. If people choose a different browser/browser engine, it will be up to Apple to try to make Safari a better, more appealing product for users through improvements, better marketing or whatever instead of relying so much on an artificial bubble to block out competition.

 

[eropko]

It's not a forced choice. Again, you can choose not to Chrome and just stay on Safari, just like on Mac, just like how on Windows you have the choice to stay on Edge and not download anything else. Google ain't making you do anything.

You control the buttons you press.

It is a forced choice, any Google website or site using AdSense will throw Chrome in your face as better and faster, paid articles will tell you how Safari isn't supporting yet another web standard you've never needed, lazy developers will test their websites only in Chrome etc. etc.

It's like a card magic, you THINK you pick random card, but it's forced.

 

[eropko]

Different browsers were always allowed on Windows, at least by the end users, but an issue in that case was the restrictions Microsoft put on computer makers regarding what competitor browsers could come pre-installed.

In this situation with iOS and iPadOS, Apple not only doesn't allow third party retailers (AT&T, Best Buy, Vodafone, etc.) to install alternative browser engines but doesn’t even allow end users to do so.

You conveniently skipped the fact that Microsoft was an OS monopolist (close to full monopoly) at the time and iOS is a minority. Also Microsoft had its trial and won in the end, and this is just a political push without trial.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

It is a forced choice, any Google website or site using AdSense will throw Chrome in your face as better and faster, paid articles will tell you how Safari isn't supporting yet another web standard you've never needed, lazy developers will test their websites only in Chrome etc. etc.

It's like a card magic, you THINK you pick random card, but it's forced.

Ads are making you download Chrome? Ads aren't making you do anything lmao

Besides, wouldn't know since on Firefox I have something called UBlock Origin so I don't even see those ads. That would be something I'd have on iOS too if Apple allowed other web engines.

 

[eropko]

Users will still be able to choose Safari/WebKit. If people choose a different browser/browser engine, it will be up to Apple to try to make Safari a better, more appealing product for users through improvements, better marketing or whatever instead of relying so much on an artificial bubble to block out competition.

Such a naive POV. It will simply make Apple put more money in just to explain you something, instead of actually developing product.

 

[eropko]

Ads are making you download Chrome? Ads aren't making you do anything lmao

Ask non-tech-savvy people why they've downloaded Chrome - you'll be surprised.

Besides, wouldn't know since on Firefox I have something called UBlock Origin so I don't even see those ads. That would be something I'd have on iOS too if Apple allowed other web engines.

iOS safari has ad blockers too.

 

[webkit]

There very few reasons Government should be involved in the private sector.

There are many reasons governments should be and are involved in the private sector form labor laws, health and safety laws, tax laws, antitrust laws, banking/lending laws, intellectual property laws, etc. Things could be much worse for consumers, businesses, etc. without government involvement in the private sector.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

Ask non-tech-savvy people why they've downloaded Chrome - you'll be surprised.

Congratulations on learning what free market capitalism is.

Never did I think I'd see someone on this forum complain about a company being smarter with advertising. 😂

iOS safari has ad blockers too.

Bad ad blockers that are 1. Paid, and 2. Don't work completely compared to UBlock Origin. UBlock Origin is the gold standard of adblockers as they block pretty much everything, including video embed ads on Youtube.

 

[eropko]

Bad ad blockers that are 1. Paid, and 2. Don't work completely compared to UBlock Origin. UBlock Origin is the gold standard of adblockers as they block pretty much everything, including video embed ads on Youtube.

And, unsurprisingly, both wrong, I have youtube ads blocked on iPad, for free.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

And, unsurprisingly, both wrong, I have youtube ads blocked on iPad, for free.

Yeah I seriously doubt that as I tried every adblocker on my iPhone and they all didn't work. Youtube ads were still playing.

I'll stick with UBlock Origin thank you.

 

[webkit]

You conveniently skipped the fact that Microsoft was an OS monopolist (close to full monopoly) at the time and iOS is a minority. Also Microsoft had its trial and won in the end, and this is just a political push without trial.

I didn't skip anything. It's obvious that a reason behind the DOJ case was Microsoft's dominance in desktop OS just as it's obvious that a reason behind EU/Apple situation is Apple's dominance in the mobile OS and tablet OS markets. Antitrust laws don't just apply to monopolies.

Such a naive POV. It will simply make Apple put more money in just to explain you something, instead of actually developing product.

Competition will push Apple to improve on and/or better market Safari. it's naive to think otherwise or that an artificial bubble blocking out competition is good.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I've actually understood there's nothing to talk to you about when you started whining one can't give accelerometer permission. Accelerometers are a security hole

Two massive flaws with that argument:

1. App store apps are allowed to use accelerometer data.
2. Websites are required to get permission to use accelerometer data, meaning the API is more, not less, secure than with apps, which don't require permission. I'm already anticipating your response, to which I'd counter with - then why do apps need to ask for permissions for so many other APIs?

It's just easier to develop for one browser. Developers simply push market to Chrome monopoly, that's it. Being different doesn't make Safari bad.

Actually, Firefox is by far the easiest one to develop for, because Mozilla's documentation is hundreds of times more comprehensive than that of any other browser engine, so don't presume that I want a Chrome monopoly. Having said that, Chrome does a much better job of following standards than WebKit, so once I have my website working well on Firefox, it generally works just as well on Chrome. Safari is the weird browser that simply doesn't work. And because Apple refuses to document it, it's a massive PITA to make it work. Ironically, the best documentation for WebKit is Mozilla's - their pages often have notes when WebKit has wildly misimplemented a standard (they have similar notes for Chrome, but you'll run into them less often, since as I said above, Chrome generally follows the standards better than WebKit. And once again - Apple is on these standards committees. They wrote them. They agreed to them. And then they just plain ignore them. This is exactly Microsoft's behavior from the 90s with Internet Explorer.)

 

[redheeler]

Idk,

WebGLPerformanceText

test.looc.io

runs at 60FPS capped for me both in Firefox 118 and Safari 17.1, with Safari using 1.2-1.7W less power (measured using Stats app)

It's possible that on newer Macs the optimization in Safari is better. The Mac I was using to test is a bit older at this point and doesn't reach 60 FPS in this example for either browser.

A game that uses a 2D context instead of WebGL is giving me the opposite result, better framerate in Safari than Firefox. So maybe the WebGL framerate is a bad example.

There are weird Safari-specific CSS bugs I've run into though. One of them was styling the path element of an embedded SVG using CSS – worked properly in every browser except for Safari.