iOS 18.2 to Allow Third-Party Browser Web Apps With Custom Engines in EU

[BaldiMac]

Prove it.

I think you are being disengenuous here, but okay.

Google Tracks 39 Types of Private Data, the Highest Among Big Tech Companies - StockApps

stockapps.com

You're the one making the extraordinary claim here. I think most people understand that the largest advertising platform in the world collects more user information than Apple for use in profiling.

It boggles my mind that people are so brainwashed by Apple's (great) marketing that they think they're not collecting truckloads of data and using it to make money.

Sure, but you're ignoring any nuance here. How and why it's collected matters. How much matters. Tracking my purchases in their own store to serve me ads with and an easy option to disable is far different than tracking me across thousands of websites.

 

[chucker23n1]

It boggles my mind that people are so brainwashed by Apple's (great) marketing that they think they're not collecting truckloads of data and using it to make money.

Apple does collect data, but there's a big difference in their respective revenue models. Alphabet makes money always exclusively by collecting data and targeting ads. Apple makes money largely by selling hardware, and secondarily by selling services; selling ads is a very minor business for them. As a consequence, the amount of data being collected, and the purposes for its uses, aren't really comparable.

 

[MobiusStrip]

If "Chrome", and by Chrome I assume you mean Chromium/Blink, does "take over" then it will be because iPhone users chose it; instead of being prevented from doing so.

Yes, Captain Obvious. If the incompetent medical-billing Web site that their doctor uses tells them they have to use Chrome (instead of fixing their site), that's what they're going to do. The vast majority of the public is not a tech dweeb in this forum, and doesn't know squat about browsers or the implications of monopoly thereof.

So saying they "chose" it is really just playing dumb.

 

[webkit]

Yes, Captain Obvious. If the incompetent medical-billing Web site that their doctor uses tells them they have to use Chrome (instead of fixing their site), that's what they're going to do. The vast majority of the public is not a tech dweeb in this forum, and doesn't know squat about browsers or the implications of monopoly thereof.

So saying they "chose" it is really just playing dumb.

Nonsense. iPhone now allowing non-WebKit engines is not likely going to suddenly have much impact on what a medical-billing website requires. If Apple truly wanted Safari (and WebKit) to compete in the browser market, they would offer it for Android, ChromeOS, Windows, etc.

 

[chucker23n1]

Famously, when Windows dominated the OS market in the 1990s, it’s because people liked it the most.

 

[MobiusStrip]

Nonsense. iPhone now allowing non-WebKit engines is not likely going to suddenly have much impact on what a medical-billing website requires. If Apple truly wanted Safari (and WebKit) to compete in the browser market, they would offer it for Android, ChromeOS, Windows, etc.

Are you intentionally "misunderstanding" here? Both of those comments reflect a backward viewpoint. Mom and pop are not going to shun Chrome and demand that sites work with other browsers; they're going to do what "tech support" tells them and switch to Chrome. Then we're increasingly subjected to a Web based on proprietary or misimplemented bullshìt (see IE 6), and broken across the board.

And it's not about what Apple wants, either. It's about what's best for Web users, which has historically been held to be open standards that don't lock anyone into one vendor's product.

 

[webkit]

Are you intentionally "misunderstanding" here? Both of those comments reflect a backward viewpoint. Mom and pop are not going to shun Chrome and demand that sites work with other browsers; they're going to do what "tech support" tells them and switch to Chrome. Then we're increasingly subjected to a Web based on proprietary or misimplemented bullshìt (see IE 6), and broken across the board.

And it's not about what Apple wants, either. It's about what's best for Web users, which has historically been held to be open standards that don't lock anyone into one vendor's product.

Of course there's always been a segment of the population that pick software based on what "tech support" suggests/requires but that doesn't mean what you describe will impact a significant portion of the market or web landscape. At this early stage, Safari's share of the browser market in Europe (not just the EU) appears to be little changed even with the new default browser select screen launched in March.

 

[chucker23n1]

Almost everyone picks their browser based on

• whatever happens to come with their device (this is what the EU has a beef with), i.e. they do not pick a browser at all, and may not even know what the hell a "browser" is
• whatever they see an ad for
• whatever their tech aficionado friend or some tech review website recommends

Virtually nobody compares multiple browsers. I understand the EU's goal, but it belies a very naïve view of consumer behavior.

 

[MobiusStrip]

Of course there's always been a segment of the population that pick software based on what "tech support" suggests/requires but that doesn't mean what you describe will impact a significant portion of the market or web landscape.

Talk about naíve. These are lay people who are not even tangential to this site or any other tech-centric one. When you combine "works best with Chrome" with word of mouth with bogus "tech support" with preinstallation on any device made by a manufacturer Google can pay off (not to mention their own)... it's done. It's close enough to done already.

Wake up.

 

[webkit]

Talk about naíve. These are lay people who are not even tangential to this site or any other tech-centric one. When you combine "works best with Chrome" with word of mouth with bogus "tech support" with preinstallation on any device made by a manufacturer Google can pay off (not to mention their own)... it's done. It's close enough to done already.

Wake up.

You seem to be naive and/or are living too much in the past. Oh well.

 

[MobiusStrip]

Discussing an impending change is the opposite of "living in the past," but whatever.

Should you decide to come up for air, monitor these charts.

 

[webkit]

Discussing an impending change is the opposite of "living in the past," but whatever.

You're the one who had posted that "we'll be right back to 'This site works best with...' ******** of 20 years ago” so yes, living in the past in your thinking.

Should you decide to come up for air, monitor these charts.

And Safari's mobile share in Europe is currently about where it was (slightly higher even) compared to March when the default browser choice screen was implemented. Safari's browser share goes up and down quite a bit anyway but the implementation of the default browser choice screen and alternative engines does not have to mean a "Chrome takeover will be complete" (as you put it).

 

[chucker23n1]

You're the one who had posted that "we'll be right back to 'This site works best with...' ******** of 20 years ago” so yes, living in the past in your thinking.

Web apps that only work with Chromium are already a thing. Not the past at all.

 

[webkit]

Web apps that only work with Chromium are already a thing. Not the past at all.

Suggesting these regulations will take us right back to what was going on 20 years ago is living in the past as times have changed. Implementation of the default browser choice screen and alternative engines does not have to mean a "Chrome takeover will be complete" to the degree it may have decades ago.

As far as web apps, most modern web apps are cross-browser compatible and designed to work on major browsers/engines like Safari/WebKit, Chrome/Blink, Firefox/Gecko and other variations.

 

[chucker23n1]

As far as web apps, most modern web apps are cross-browser compatible and designed to work on major browsers/engines like Safari/WebKit, Chrome/Blink, Firefox/Gecko and other variations.

Because they have to be. Once WebKit share goes down, more developers will target Blink.

 

[webkit]

Because they have to be. Once WebKit share goes down, more developers will target Blink.

it appears that a significant portion of iPhone users use Safari. These regulations are not likely going to meaningfully change that, not enough such that major developers will abandon WebKit and only focus on Blink.

The ruling against Google in the DOJ case regarding default search agreements could end up having a much bigger impact on the browser/engine market, at least in the U.S., depending on how it plays out.

 

[MobiusStrip]

You're the one who had posted that "we'll be right back to 'This site works best with...' ******** of 20 years ago” so yes, living in the past in your thinking.

What an absurd claim. Learning from the past is not living in it. You already see "this site works best with Chrome" today, which is retrograde thinking that has made a comeback. You think it's going to be mitigated by reducing Safari's market share, even by an iota? That's not living in the past, present, or future; it's not reality.

 

[webkit]

What an absurd claim. Learning from the past is not living in it. You already see "this site works best with Chrome" today, which is retrograde thinking that has made a comeback.

No. My point was, obviously, that If you think that these regulations are going bring us back to what was going on 20 years then you are living in the past because you think that the platform/browser/tech world then is the same as it is today and would react to these regulations the same. It isn't and if you think it is, you haven't learned much.

You think it's going to be mitigated by reducing Safari's market share, even by an iota? That's not living in the past, present, or future; it's not reality.

Safari has significant share of the iPhone browser market and will likely continue to maintain significant share. As such, these regulations wouldn't impact too much of that market/share and therefore wouldn't mean the "Chrome takeover will be complete" (as you put it) and bring us right back to "This site works best with...******** of 20 years ago" (as you put it).

 

[chucker23n1]

you think that the platform/browser/tech world then is the same as it is today and would react to these regulations the same.

The mechanics are absolutely the same. For example, the same reason everyone in the 1990s made software only for Windows and Mac OS apply in the 2020s: everyone makes mobile software only for Android and iOS. Windows Phone, BlackberryOS, Sailfish and whathaveyou have zero chance of survival because nobody targets them.

Gecko has the benefit of being similar enough to WebKit and Blink, but if you ask ten web developers, several of them will complain that they "have to support" Gecko, and some of them even about WebKit.

 

[webkit]

The mechanics are absolutely the same. For example, the same reason everyone in the 1990s made software only for Windows and Mac OS apply in the 2020s: everyone makes mobile software only for Android and iOS. Windows Phone, BlackberryOS, Sailfish and whathaveyou have zero chance of survival because nobody targets them.

Gecko has the benefit of being similar enough to WebKit and Blink, but if you ask ten web developers, several of them will complain that they "have to support" Gecko, and some of them even about WebKit.

I was never trying to suggest that absolutely everything has changed. My point was that it's highly unlikely that these regulations are going to result in the "completion of the Chrome takeover" or bring us right back to the "this site works best with..." nonsense of 20+ years ago. There has been a notable evolution of web standards, cross-browser capability, user and device usage habits, etc. over the decades such that we are much less likely these days to see results as were being described.

 

[chucker23n1]

I was never trying to suggest that absolutely everything has changed. My point was that it's highly unlikely that these regulations are going to result in the "completion of the Chrome takeover" or bring us right back to the "this site works best with..." nonsense of 20+ years ago.

The fact is that Chromium already dominates the web development process these days. The fewer people don't use Chromium-based browsers, the easier it is for development teams to ask themselves: why bother testing against a different engine?

 

[webkit]

The fact is that Chromium already dominates the web development process these days. The fewer people don't use Chromium-based browsers, the easier it is for development teams to ask themselves: why bother testing against a different engine?

And Safari dominates iPhone browser usage and will likely continue to do so but as I stated, there has been a notable evolution of web standards, cross-browser capability, user and device usage habits, etc. over the decades such that we are much less likely these days to see results as were being described. Browsers/engines today are much more "standardized" and "compatible" than they were 20+ years ago. Also, how people access and interact with "web content" has changed compared to decades ago. These regulations are not going to bring us right back to the "this site works best with..." nonsense of that time.