On my 1+ 10 Pro I also cannot uninstall Chrome.
I can disable and lock it (I did).
Would not be a surprise that after picking over the Apple iOS Cow the focus turns to Google Android.
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.
Google Working on Browser for iOS That Would Break Apple's App Store Rules
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On my 1+ 10 Pro I also cannot uninstall Chrome.
I can disable and lock it (I did).
Would not be a surprise that after picking over the Apple iOS Cow the focus turns to Google Android.
My point was simply that your statements about things like Google dominating smartphones were not necessarily correct which is why I said IT DEPENDS. I then gave AN EXAMPLE of how one statement would not apply.
That's because the comments could largely be relevant to the discussion as well and I didn't feel like retyping everything.
Anyway, if this was just about going after Apple because it's Apple, they're wealthy or whatever then we'd likely also being seeing some going after their physical Apple Stores for not selling HP, Samsung, Dell, etc. products but we're not because Apple doesn't have near the dominance in the brick and mortar retail store market that they have in mobile OS in various markets.
It's Apple's dominance in mobile OS (in various markets) combined with their potentially anticompetitive behavior that is driving this.
Google has been the dominant in search and mobile for decades and nothing was done about it. Instead the scrutiny went for Apple. I doubt Google would be facing anything anytime soon.
It’s obvious. Covid has drained out the cash of many governments around the world. It is clear what they’re after.
Which is not necessarily relevant to "local" laws and regulations.
What regulation is requiring Apple to uninstall Safari from iOS but not seeking to have Google uninstall Chrome from Android? Besides, are there not versions of Android that don't require Chrome be pre-installed?
That depends on which country's scrutiny you are referring to. In the U.S., it’s Apple/iOS that has the larger share of mobile OS and therefore more scrutiny could be justified.
Chrome is required to be pre installed to have GMS certification (if you want to have Google Play Store on your device). So the only Android devices not having Chrome pre installed are China only phones (they don’t have Google Play Store) and Amazon devices (also no Google Play Store).
Now, knowing that, have you realized the sheer dominance and anti competitive nature of Google, forcing their own browser to be pre installed on majority of Android devices? Is Apple really the appropriate target actor for anti competitive behavior?
I am all for not being a nanny but that will not stop people from “exploring” those dangerous parts of the city either intentionally or unintentionally and then get a lawyer to fight some ridiculous ideology for their own questionable actions.
Which means there are versions of Android that don’t required Chrome to be pre-installed. That was my point.
Again, what regulations are seeking to prevent Apple from being able to pre-install Safari but aren’t doing similarly for Google/Android and Chrome?
Yes. Google/Android doesn't restrict alternative browser engines, app stores, sideloading, etc. like Apple/iOS does.
So me as a company is just throwing away money in the hope and presumption that my ads are being viewed but have no real statistics that it’s working or not, got it I might as well donate money in the hope that most of it gets to the cause being supported.
I see nothing wrong with Brave blocking ads or even trying to insert their own, I use to use Brave not any longer as I found a better replacement. What you have not addressed is that when people are desensitized to ads and it’s placements it’s a blur to them and all it’s causing is additional internet traffic and energy usage for what purpose.
Microsoft forces IE to be pre-installed on Windows, and the EU found them to be anti-competitive as Windows is the majority in PC marketshare, despite you being able to isntall other browsers. Android and Google Play Store are the majority dominant in mobile market share, and Google forces Chrome to be pre-installed if an OEM want to be certified to have GMS. Yet you don't think Google is anti competitive? 🤷♂️
Personally I think this misses the point.
This isn’t Safari vs Chrome.
On iOS/iPadOS you have to use WebKit. You have no choice. Safari comes preinstalled. You have no choice.
On Android you can have any browser. Many are based off of Chromium -0 not a requirement. Chrome (for certification) is preinstalled. You have no choice.
Didn't MS have a 90+% share for computers? Android is what, 60% WW? It's a different story.
You can install any browser on Windows, yet Microsoft got into trouble with IE. Google literally forces OEMs to pre-install Chrome if they want to have access to GMS certification.
If you still think that’s alright and Apple is the problem, well, no wonder the world is what it is today.
I thought the EU ruled similarly against Google regarding Chrome. Didn't they impose a record $4+ billion fine against Google for search and browser related violations?
Apple also pre-installs its browser. Are you suggesting they too should potentially be charged/fined in some markets like Google and Microsoft?
I didn't say that. My feeling is that any company determined to have a dominant position in a particular market who is engaging in anticompetitive behavior should face antitrust legal actions. How that is decided and ruled can vary by country, courts, etc.
In the case of Apple, it's their restrictions on sideloading, alternative app stores, browser engines, etc. that are being considered anticompetitive at least in some countries. If all of this was just about "money", we'd likely also being seeing some going after Apple's physical Apple Stores for not selling HP, Samsung, Dell, etc. products but we're not because Apple doesn't have near the dominance in the brick and mortar retail store market that they have in mobile OS in various markets.
You're wrong. First of all, most companies use CTR to measure the performance of their ads. Second, even pay per view can be measured. It's essentially like running a commercial on TV.
It doesn't matter if people are desensitized to ads. The point is that Brave is stealing from content creators, including Macrumors.com.
the fact you think that they are 'stealing' just means you lack common sense.
So what? That is how people learn. And it is high time to make people responsible for their own actions. You cannot fix stupid.
I did not state that. This issue is not browser specific rather it is the lock or wall aspect of the App Store.
On the browser aspect, the lockdown requirements on the iOS/iPadOS side are more stringent than on the Android side.
Cool tell that to the person who spilt a hot beverage on themself and sued the company for its hot beverage being too hot. Now all hot beverages have a warning that the contents in said container is hot. Go figure what if had a warm or cold beverage the label still applies.
That would not be stealing unless Macrumours is behind a paywall and Brave circumvented it. As access to the site is free with options of revenue from several prospects a browser placing its own ad/s on top of another does not pass the litmus test. The websites ads maybe playing in the background or not and a visitor may view, click or visit said ad or not it just means the potential May have existed but harm has to be proven and you are unable to do so because it’s speculation. Unless you have hard facts how much each site takes in revenue from various streams the overblown notion that it’s hurting the site even though it’s free defeats your arguments.
Explain to the people who purchase magazines and newspapers and see ads or the people who paid for cable and see ads why do you feel the viewer or purchaser must go through this abuse the relationship works both ways. When I pay for cable or a newsstand magazine or newspaper I did not pay to see ads, I paid for content. Don’t be frustrated that this is a cat and mouse situation.
@nt5672
That is an affect of the ridiculous civil legal process in the US.
You either have a nanny state device or a device that allows the user to explore.
On the Apple side, IMO, it has moved from “needed to ensure proper functionality” to “needed to ensure control”.
When you buy a magazine or subscribe to a cable service, you are paying for the content but are also receiving something additional of value (a discount/lower price) for allowing ads to be displayed. If you were to block or remove those ads, you would be taking something of value (the discount/lower price) without fulfilling your end of the bargain (allowing ads to be displayed).
Let's say there are two streaming service plans, one costs $9.99/month with ads and the other costs $14.99/month without ads. Someone hacks the $9.99/month plan so that ads won’t be displayed. By doing so, they are essentially stealing $5/month as that $5 discount/lower price/payment was to allow the service to display ads and the subscriber is preventing that from happening.
Last edited:
Maybe you've heard of a browser called "Firefox"? And real FF isn't even available on iOS.