Apple is free to do the same elsewhere. Apple can also keep on offering its "full package" but if that loses to Google's services even on its own platform then I guess the value was after all not that big.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Now Allowing Non-WebKit Engines in EU, Offering More Options for Changing Default Browser
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They certainly can do that. But that doesn't really address my point since it's not very likely.
Finally, now i can use browser that can change user agent fully without Apple telling what i can what i cannot. Secondary, TOR browser can become fully secure from now on using native engine.
Basically Chrome has become Internet Explorer circa 2005.
That’s desktop only. Read the stats you post more closely.
Not so sure about that. In terms of one reasonably objective measure—standards compliance—Chrome and Edge are the most standards compliant. Safari is the least. Safari has likely caught up in recent months/years but still lags. So, arguably Safari has become "has become Internet Explorer circa 2005" by virtue of how widely it is used (by force) on iOS devices (particularly the iPhone).
I’m not so sure about your comment either. Microsoft was pushing web developers to curate their websites to look “good” on IE regardless of standards. Google is using its influence (via 70+% market share) to make things it creates a “standard”.
Just look down the road at the Manifest V3 handling extensions, and tell me how that’s good for the consumer? Google is actively trying to make that part of the Chromium project (which means it will flow over to Edge). They’re just as bad as Microsoft was 20 years ago.
I'll look more closely into the one example you gave (Manifest V3 handling extensions). Do you have other examples?
P.S. I don't disagree that Google is as bad as MS from 20 years ago. But I'd argue so is Apple. So now we have multiple, overlapping Microsofts. Maybe that's better than just one. I'd rather have none. Any company (including Apple) developing too much dominance is going to lead to bad things.
Manifest V3 will basically cripple ad-blockers, among other things. uBlock Origin would be incompatible with V3.
The cynics view is products like uBlock prevent Google from revenue for their advertising business, so capping it will restore revenue to Google.
I think potentially the worst thing that could come from this, and the part that makes me the angriest with the EU mandating this...is that now that iOS has been forced open...the genie is out of the bottle. And when problems inevitably arise...that genie can't go back in. Personally...I left Android because it was a buggy and fragmented mess. And now the EU has mandated that Apple basically become the same. Probably can't post the middle finger emoji here, but the EU would definitely be deserving of it!
And this will create more competition again if people don't like it and look for other tech.
With the advent of VPNs and prepaid cards, I feel like people in the US are going to find a way to use this - which means that the feature is really only blocked for people who are honest, poor, and/or technologically challenged.
Why can’t they just make it available everywhere? They could have it turned off by default and require a huge “Use at your own risk” warning, but blocking it entirely seems almost silly at this point.
Why can’t they just make it available everywhere? They could have it turned off by default and require a huge “Use at your own risk” warning, but blocking it entirely seems almost silly at this point.
It’ll have to be via EU anti-monopoly regulations, unless you can create another Google in your garage.
People forget the problems that were rife on PCs. Mobile platforms, and especially iOS, allowed more people to use computers and the internet with confidence. In large part by limiting the harm users can do to themselves.
It wasn't entirely uncommon to visit your parents and find their browser looking something like this:
There is not one definition of "better", and even if there were only two (better-for-the-user and better-for-data-harvesters) it's not clear that better-for-the-user is the criteria that will win.
None of which detracts from my point: one better browser winning is a monopoly. Clearly the only thing preventing Chrome from already holding that monopoly is iOS. That's getting undercut, Chrome is it.
Government picked a winner and kneecapped the only viable competitor.
Scary, scary...
In reality, there won't be two versions of iOS, it will be one codebase that gets configured via flags, much like most of the code-base is the same between iPadOS and iOS, they just get features switched on and off.
If the EU ruling just allows devs more freedom, how is it going to be a worse user experience if they optimize for the rest of the world? Worst case, EU users have the same interface as others.
This is how it will happen. Surely Apple is preparing for the possibility of needed to support this in other jurisdictions—perhaps even in the U.S. eventually. It will be some additional complexity but pretty minor.
Safari never was a viable competitor, never. Apple tried on Windows and failed miserably. They didn't even try on Android.
Fact is that Safari is lacking quite some language features that web devs want, and therefore is holding back web development for all. While I am not happy that Chrome is now winning, Apple brought this onto their own head by systematically neglecting some modern features in the hope of stalling Chrome, just because they held their users ransom.
Now things might change and Apple might have to actively develop Safari again. Horrible, I know.
If - as many here constantly claim - Safari on iOS is the fastest and most energy-conserving browser, nothing is going to happen. Users will be happy that Apple gives them the best option and will not install any dirty 3rd party software. After a couple of years, the EU back pedals and relaxes the rules so Apple can lock up iOS again.
On the other hand, everyone who has a bit of a tech mind knows that Google is running laps around everyone else when it comes to optimizing browsers.
It will be a very funny moment when benchmarks crop up that show that Chrome is actually using less power/be faster than Safari.
It’s certainly viable enough that web developers have to test on it. Hopefully, we don’t get to the point that developers only need to test on Chrome.
I suppose it depends a bit on how you define "viability". What you're really seeing is the widespread deployment of Safari on iOS—mostly iPhone. This is required by Apple. So it's happening because Apple makes it happen.
It's still a 737 Max to the A320s. It is a known fact that Apple is insanely slow to adopt new web technologies. You can look up any of those on MDN and most just show how late Apple is or that they haven't even adopted it yet.
It's on them that the reputation of browser (in)compatibility exists.