Japan Law Will Require Apple to Allow Non-WebKit Browsers on iPhone

[surferfb]

EULA aren't worth the toilet paper they are written on. The quicker that one-sided "take it or leave it" modifiable at a whim contacts are gone, the better. I respect gum on the bottom of my shoe than the concept of a EULA.

As for the rest, a duopoly isn't a choice, and you do have a choice, don't install what you don't want to install. You (and Apple) are restricting my choice with what I want to do, with hardware I own. I'm not leasing my phone, I own it. Apple doesn't own it, I do.

“A choice isn’t a choice”. Do you even read what you write? Just because you don’t like the options presented to you, or you want more/different choices, doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice. It just means you have to compromise.

You don’t own iOS. You’re free to jailbreak if you don’t want to use Android, and want to make your phone less secure.

As for Apple, if they don't like these rules, they are free to leave the Japanese market. That is their freedom, they are not a prisioner.

Agreed. They should follow the laws as written wherever the operate. Doesn’t prevent me from noting the law is stupid, unnecessary, harms users, and will ironically lead to more consolidation in the browser market by making chrome even more dominant.

 

[Radeon85]

Good, what's the bloody point in even running difference browsers currently on iOS when they are all forced to use the same engine. At least if I have a compatibility issue with a site, I would have the ability to use a different browser with a different engine.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

“A choice isn’t a choice”. Do you even read what you write? Just because you don’t like the options presented to you, or you want more/different choices, doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice. It just means you have to compromise.

You don’t own iOS. You’re free to jailbreak if you don’t want to use Android, and want to make your phone less secure.

Agreed. They should follow the laws as written wherever the operate. Doesn’t prevent me from noting the law is stupid, unnecessary, harms users, and will ironically lead to more consolidation in the browser market by making chrome even more dominant.

I just want to use Firefox on all my devices, with full extension support.

..additionally, if the US government get it's way, Chrome might not be owned by Google anymore.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Oh, really?
What does Apple get in return for allowing developers to use their development kits? What does Apple get in return when developers want to publish add-ons for money?
And how much does Apple save by indirectly forcing web developers to develop for Safari instead of complying with web standards themselves, thanks to their market share?

But it's good to know your point of view.
Because then Internet Explorer didn't have a monopoly either. Microsoft never made any money from it, right?

"Allowing" developers to use their dev kits? The same amount they make if the developer uses their dev kits to build a whole and complete browser - a pittance. Publishing add ons? I get those directly from the Chrome or Edge's stores, Apple gets nothing. Apple's market share is nowhere near enough to make the impact you're claiming. Internet Explorer was more than a browser engine... Apple's real advantage here is keeping the complexity of all apps on their phones to a minimum, it makes support easy. It makes the customer experience more smooth.

I'm 100% for letting others use their own engines, by the way, but the monetary argument for all of this is so stretched it just sounds dumb. I mean, you know you're just making all of this up right now, you have to realize that you're probably wrong at every turn right?

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

I just want to use Firefox on all my devices, with full extension support.

..additionally, if the US government get it's way, Chrome might not be owned by Google anymore.

Full maybe not, but iOS recently got an update that allows extensions to work with third party browsers so there's that

All I care about is getting rid of WebKit tbh, I'm sick of it

 

[robvalentine]

Calling this a monopoly is ridiculous - they aren't making money off the engine.

They are deliberately preventing the use of other engines, thus giving their own engine a monopoly.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Yes, at some point in the past. Today, what Japanese companies are currently producing hardware/OS’s?

Why would they? How dumb would it be to split your user base so that applications need to be made for phones only in your country? That's like taking things back to 2004 where every hardware vendor was incompatible with the next. Do we really have to learn this lesson all over again?

 

[Iconoclysm]

They are deliberately preventing the use of other engines, thus giving their own engine a monopoly.

That's not what the word monopoly implies. When an OS deliberately prevents the use of application engines other than those the OS was built around, are they giving something a monopoly?

Webkit is open source. Virtually every browser engine out there today has some fork back to its origin.

 

[robvalentine]

Have you studied Apple’s BrowserEngineKit implementation in detail so that you can say that?

What specifically in it is badly / maliciously implemented which prevents anyone from implementing their own engine?

Also, are you aware that Google’s engine is, in practice, the only other engine in existence? This decision will cement Google’s dominance of web technology and future direction.

New engines will not magically appear, even when Apple eventually allows alternative engines globally on iOS. Implementing a modern engine is so huge undertaking that nobody will probably ever do it again.

Even Microsoft gave up and adopted Google’s engine.

I use firefox which uses a different engine.

And yes I have studied it, and articles, and when you look at the hoops you have to jump through, and even then only if Tim says ok, can you fully utilise a web browser that isn't safari.

Your final points miss the point entirely, on Android Chrome and firefox use different engines, and firefox can use their own without penalty from Google. That is not the case with iOS, you have to use Webkit.

No one is calling for a brand new engine, just the ability to use preexisting ones.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Good, what's the bloody point in even running difference browsers currently on iOS when they are all forced to use the same engine. At least if I have a compatibility issue with a site, I would have the ability to use a different browser with a different engine.

The point is that there is more to this than a rendering engine. I use Edge because of its hooks into everything Microsoft offers, Chrome for Google services. I'd like a choice in engines but I prefer not to use Safari because I don't use it on any other platform including Mac.

 

[robvalentine]

That's not what the word monopoly implies. When an OS deliberately prevents the use of application engines other than those the OS was built around, are they giving something a monopoly?

Webkit is open source. Virtually every browser engine out there today has some fork back to its origin.

Can you use an engine other than webkit as easily as firefox can use their own engine on Android? Nope. Thus monopoly, regardless of any previous forks. The fact that you have to use the apple fork, makes it a monopoly.

monopoly
/məˈnɒpəli/


noun
noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: Monopoly

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
   "the state's monopoly of radio and television broadcasting"
   • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
     "passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies"
   • a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
     "electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies"
   • the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.
     "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love"

 

[now i see it]

webkit is an intentionally built time bomb integrated into iOS.
The first app to start misbehaving on an older iPhone is always (the worlds worst browser) Safari.
And Apple won't update it anymore on older devices - so you've got to buckle up and buy a new iPhone because the other iOS browsers experience the same exact problems - cuz they're using webkit too.

 

[surferfb]

I use firefox which uses a different engine.

And yes I have studied it, and articles, and when you look at the hoops you have to jump through, and even then only if Tim says ok, can you fully utilise a web browser that isn't safari.

Your final points miss the point entirely, on Android Chrome and firefox use different engines, and firefox can use their own without penalty from Google. That is not the case with iOS, you have to use Webkit.

No one is calling for a brand new engine, just the ability to use preexisting ones.

There are legitimate security and user experience issues with alternate browser engines. Just because you don't agree that the issues are worth blocking alternate engines over doesn't mean the government should come in and force Apple to unblock them.

 

[WarmWinterHat]

There are legitimate security and user experience issues with alternate browser engines. Just because you don't agree that the issues are worth blocking alternate engines over doesn't mean the government should come in and force Apple to unblock them.

Said risk should be up to the user to decide. Not Apple, not Google, or another company.

Why is the user's freedom never part of the discussion?

 

[ProbablyDylan]

There are legitimate security and user experience issues with alternate browser engines. Just because you don't agree that the issues are worth blocking alternate engines over doesn't mean the government should come in and force Apple to unblock them.

Should the user not be allowed to choose an inferior experience if they are inclined to do so?

 

[Iconoclysm]

Can you use an engine other than webkit as easily as firefox can use their own engine on Android? Nope. Thus monopoly, regardless of any previous forks. The fact that you have to use the apple fork, makes it a monopoly.

monopoly
/məˈnɒpəli/


noun
noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: Monopoly

1. 1.
   the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
   "the state's monopoly ofradio and television broadcasting"
   • a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
     "passenger services were largely in the hands of state-owned monopolies"
   • a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company or group.
     "electricity, gas, and water were considered to be natural monopolies"
   • the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something.
     "men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love"

Your definition there doesn't fly, the service is rendering engines - and iOS isn't even the predominant OS out there. By your definition, every proprietary anything is a monopoly...

 

[surferfb]

Should the user not be allowed to choose an inferior experience if they are inclined to do so?

In this case, no. I believe the platform owner should have the right to enforce technical and security standards on its devices to ensure its users safety, security, and privacy are protected. There are absolutely pros and cons of each approach, I don't deny that, but the fact that there are pros and cons are further reason the government shouldn't be forcing the issue.

To ask your question back at you with a new spin, should a user be allowed to install a buggy, vulnerable browser that could compromise their device, data, or other apps on the system? Or do you think platform owners have a responsibility to safeguard the broader ecosystem, especially on devices like phones where sandboxing, privacy controls, and energy efficiency are tightly integrated with the OS?

I'll fall back to my usual "government intervention should require a very high bar." Not simply the fact that users might want something different, but that the current restrictions demonstrably harm competition or consumers in a way that outweighs the security and integration benefits. I don't think the government has come close to meeting that bar here.

 

[robvalentine]

There are legitimate security and user experience issues with alternate browser engines. Just because you don't agree that the issues are worth blocking alternate engines over doesn't mean the government should come in and force Apple to unblock them.

Sorry but that explanation is a non-starter. Pegasus spyware gets installed with a missed phonecall/sms text, browser pop up, so should we just block all communication/apps that isn't Apple?

I really don;t understand why somepeople don't want choice, and superior (IMO) products. No wonder Apple is lagging behind everyone else AI wise if they think they can get away with not trying.

 

[MNWildFan]

Thank GOD YES!

I want this, SO BADLY, in the US...

My only hope is that enough pressure around the world makes it easier for them to relent on it everywhere perhaps.

It was the EU that made the USB-C change happen for the iPhone starting with the 15, so perhaps this happening in Japan will eventually make it happen here

Perhaps same thing with the EU allowing 3rd party app stores as well (but then again, given the whole Apple vs Epic case and how it panned out, I'm not holding my breath on that)

 

[surferfb]

Sorry but that explanation is a non-starter. Pegasus spyware gets installed with a missed phonecall/sms text, browser pop up, so should we just block all communication/apps that isn't Apple?

I really don;t understand why somepeople don't want choice, and superior (IMO) products. No wonder Apple is lagging behind everyone else AI wise if they think they can get away with not trying.

"Other bugs exist so we shouldn't worry about security at all." Banning third-party engines reduces the surface area of attacks, and I'd argue is a pretty good "bang for the buck" security win. 99.9% of users don't care what engine their browser uses and browser engines are a particularly easy vector for attacks. Again, you can think that allowing them is worth the risk, but I think that should be Apple's choice to make, not the government's.

We saw with Crowdstrike what happens when regulators start messing around security in the name of promoting competition. They don't think about unintended consequences.

But lucky for you, governments don't care what Apple or I think. They're going to interfere in the free market because they're regulators and that's what they love to do. They don't understand the security damage they're doing and will blame Apple when said damage occurs, just like the EU did when they gave us the Crowdstrike outage.

 

[ToothBlueth]

Full maybe not, but iOS recently got an update that allows extensions to work with third party browsers so there's that

That sounds interesting! Do you have a link to instructions how I can check if it already is working, or how to turn it on?

 

[robvalentine]

"Other bugs exist so we shouldn't worry about security at all." Banning third-party engines reduces the surface area of attacks, and I'd argue is a pretty good "bang for the buck" security win. 99.9% of users don't care what engine their browser uses and browser engines are a particularly easy vector for attacks. Again, you can think that allowing them is worth the risk, but I think that should be Apple's choice to make, not the government's.

We saw with Crowdstrike what happens when regulators start messing around security in the name of promoting competition. They don't think about unintended consequences.

But lucky for you, governments don't care what Apple or I think. They're going to interfere in the free market because they're regulators and that's what they love to do. They don't understand the security damage they're doing and will blame Apple when said damage occurs, just like the EU did when they gave us the Crowdstrike outage.

It's not a free market if you can't compete due to a gatekeeper (Apple).

Crowdstrike could easily have been Apple messing up.

Fun Fact, you could keep using Safari, no one is forcing you to use a different browser engine. Thats the joy of choice, which you don't have at the moment with iOS. Another issue, is that you can't use browser extensions such as adblock with third party browsers like you can with Safari.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Oh, so you admit that everyone knew Apple restricted the software freedoms of iOS.

Can you tell me the following:
First, where has Apple admitted this to date?
Second, why do you think it's right for the company to dictate how you use the products you buy?
Third, why is macOS treated differently?

And by the third question at the latest, it becomes clear how you are constantly lying to yourself.
Because Apple doesn't do it with macOS, because then no one would buy it anymore.
Because macOS is so insignificant that the company can't afford it. They don't have a monopoly to prevent users from choosing.

But there's only a choice between iOS and Android. A duopoly.

And you celebrate a company for taking away your freedoms. You even defend it by saying that it was everyone's free choice.
Just because Apple didn't force to buy an iPhone with a gun doesn't make it a free choice.
Or is it your free choice to die if a hospital monopoly won't treat you until you agree to a bill that you couldn't pay even if you had three lives?
That's the freedom Apple offers.

And you celebrate it. You defend the company as if it were your friend. As if it were a member of your family.
Newsflash: The company doesn't give a damn about you.

Take a breath.

1. T&C of iOS - a software Apple licensed to you when you decided to buy your iPhone, fully aware what it can and can’t do
2. You bought the product fully aware it’s limited to licensed OS developed by the same company, you accepted the limitations and paid. I as a consumer am happy that Apple keeps junk off the iOS platform, that’s why I bought into it. I’m happy with the default browser and with the selection I have in AppStore. That’s why I stick with iPhone, I like that iOS isn’t like Android.
3. OS X predates app stores, so the question/argument makes no sense. You can compare the two, but they are two separate platforms and it’s more like comparing apples to oranges

You buy Apple products and you are aware of their limitations. You don’t buy a Mercedes and moan that they won’t let you install VW engine in it. Buy something else if you don’t like what you get, it’s that simple. Apple has been restrictive and protective of iOS from the start, and that’s a good thing. I don’t defend Apple, I defend common sense. Apple should have the ultimate power over the platform they develop/invest in.

Regarding duopoly - buddy, why don’t you create your own product and your own platform and make it as successful or even more successful than Apple or Google? Losers always whine when they can’t outrun the winners. Always. Make a better product, do what you want with it, and then we’ll see how you like governments sticking their nose into it. Go on pal, good luck.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

iOS and Android have so much market power, that choosing not to publish on these platforms can cost a company its business. While Apple does not 'force' them Apple is well aware many developers have no other option.

Their restrictive platform requirements, then, prohibit businesses like Mozilla and Alphabet to compete with browser engines. This is obviously a conflict of interest.

Ok, as long as we’re in agreement that Apple doesn’t ‘force’ anyone to develop for their platform. If a company doesn’t touch any Apple products, Apple has no say into how they run their business.

Both Mozilla AND Alphabet can deliver their content to the market leader, Android. 70%+ marketshare worldwide and that dominance is not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Good, what's the bloody point in even running difference browsers currently on iOS when they are all forced to use the same engine. At least if I have a compatibility issue with a site, I would have the ability to use a different browser with a different engine.

If an Apple user has a compatibility issue with a site, the site is telling the Apple user that their tiny marketshare isn’t enough for them to cater to. It lets folks know who wants their business and who doesn’t.