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

[thiscatisfat]

It's your take on it, and defence of a corporation over consumers. Your race track analogy response was to ban all motorcyclists, whereas H2SO4 essentially said there's Health and Safety rules from the government.

No one is forcing you to use chromes engine, or firefox's (both separate), which have much better compatibility than webkit. Heck the main reason I use firefox on my Mac is because half the stuff I need to use for my University course doesn't work properly, yet it does on chrome or firefox. I have to look at (legit) websites on behalf of my GF because they won't load properly on her iPhone (I have a pixel and a galaxy).

Maybe your racetrack response analogy was on the right lines, but it bans cars and motorbikes and only lets bicycles on the track. I say that as a cyclist who would love a bicycle only racetrack near me lol

Ahhh, there we go. So you're this anti big corpo kinda guy. Okay, that's fine.

No, my analogy was that the track wasn't suited for motorcyclists and that the owner therefore didn't allow it. Government shouldn't force the owner into refitting the track so that motorcyclists, who were never allowed on it to begin with, could come and race. Not to ban all motorcyclists, like did you even read what I said? If I open a dog park and don't allow large breeds into it, should the government force me into allowing them? Hell if horse people complain that they can't bring horses, should I be forced by some lobby into allowing horses into my dog park? Like...think man.

Then don't use a Mac? Or tell your GF to get a bloody Pixel? What's the big deal?

 

[H2SO4]

This isn’t about saving lives, it’s about governments pushing laws to force a company into providing third parties onto their platform on the their terms, not Apple’s. It’s more like the racetrack being for a certain type of cars that can safely use the track without issues, but the safetrack owner wouldn’t allow freaks on motorbikes on the track due to the track not being built for that and here comes your government and forces the owner to allow motorbikes and make sure it’s safe for motorbikes and of course on owner’s own cost. Do you get it or not?

Ok, let me make it about something less extreme.
Let's say a company is providing a service in X country. The government still need to watch that service to make sure it's being operated fairly, ethically and legally as they see it and that has a cost to the taxpayer.
Should the governemt impose a levy to cover that cost or is that telling them how to run their business?

Back to the racetrack for a sec, if the public are allowed on it they have obligations and yes I get it.

Now, do YOU get it or not?

 

[surferfb]

Ok, let me make it about something less extreme.
Let's say a company is providing a service in X country. The government still need to watch that service to make sure it's being operated fairly, ethically and legally as they see it and that has a cost to the taxpayer.
Should the governemt impose a levy to cover that cost or is that telling them how to run their business?

The government charges taxes on profit made in that country. If the taxes already charged don't cover whatever it is that the government is doing, the government is free to propose/pass new ones. Passing a tax is not "telling them how to run their business." Saying "you have to allow third party browser extensions even though you don't want to and we don't care there are legitimate security concerns with doing so" is telling them how to run their businesses.

Back to the racetrack for a sec, if the public are allowed on it they have obligations and yes I get it

Yes, I agree. The racetrack needs to operate safely for drivers and fans. That's a good use of government regulation. Saying "we know the racetrack has never allowed motorcycles, your racetrack isn't designed for motorcycles, allowing motorcycles increases safety risks to drivers and fans alike, the racetrack across the street does allow motorcycles, and many of your patrons choose to come to your racetrack because they like that there aren't motorcycles, but we're still going to make you allow motorcycles because we think it will increase competition" is not a good use of government regulation.

Now, do YOU get it or not?

I understand your argument but I disagree this is something the government should be concerning itself with, particularly when there is a market-leading alternative that allows what the government is requiring.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Ok, let me make it about something less extreme.
Let's say a company is providing a service in X country. The government still need to watch that service to make sure it's being operated fairly, ethically and legally as they see it and that has a cost to the taxpayer.
Should the governemt impose a levy to cover that cost or is that telling them how to run their business?

Back to the racetrack for a sec, if the public are allowed on it they have obligations and yes I get it.

Now, do YOU get it or not?

Within reasons. Forcing Apple to use USB-C was because using lightning was unethical or unfair? UK forcing Apple to introduce backdoor for the gov to spy on people was because…not having a backdoor for the gov for unethical or unfair? How is not allowing third party engines on their own platform unethical or unfair? You just don’t get it do you.

 

[jakey rolling]

No, my analogy was that the track wasn't suited for motorcyclists and that the owner therefore didn't allow it.

So... your analogy translated to the topic at hand is that Chrome and Firefox are not suited for browsing the web?

You realize that there is a bit of a hole in that logic, right?

 

[surferfb]

Not a single brain dead comment saying “Apple should leave Japan”. Yet every single time it’s the EU mandating Apple do something, the comments are rife with comments saying Apple should leave Europe. 🤔

While I don't think Apple should leave the EU over the DMA, it is a much more radical law. Japan isn't saying Apple has to give IP to competitors for free, for example.

 

[thiscatisfat]

Seriously. People buy something, then b***h about that it can’t do something they knew it can’t do before buying it, and now they moan to governments to force the company to implement whatever junk they want. And then they say Apple bad, people who defend common sense and logic bad, everyone bad, I want my freaking iPhone to do what Android does and if it doesn’t I’ll make sure to lobby gov to pass a law to force them into it. This is such a good South Park episode idea.

 

[thiscatisfat]

So... your analogy translated to the topic at hand is that Chrome and Firefox are not suited for browsing the web?

You realize that there is a bit of a hole in that logic, right?

No, it’s that the owner can’t guarantee you will have a good experience on his track with a motorcycle and if you come on a motorcycle and hurt yourself, he will be to blame for letting you in. And his reputation among other things will be hit. Capish?

 

[I7guy]

Can’t wait for the zero day vulnerabilities to start rolling in.

 

[I7guy]

Countdown to the first Mensa member advocating Apple pull out of the Japanese market.

Some one had to say this first I suppose. But I suspect said Mensa member realizes this doesn’t rise to the level of the DMA.

 

[jakey rolling]

Can’t wait for the zero day vulnerabilities to start rolling in.

Why wait?

 

[UliBaer]

At least if an imaginary zero day vulnerability arises, you'll only have to update the browser and not the complete operating system as usual... 🤦‍♂️

 

[I7guy]

Why wait?

Right but now one update fixes all. It’s going to be a free for all in the future.

 

[jakey rolling]

Right but now one update fixes all. It’s going to be a free for all in the future.

"Free for all" in this context meaning "addressed with software updates just like every other piece of software out there."

Got it.

 

[I7guy]

"Free for all" in this context meaning "addressed with software updates just like every other piece of software out there."

Got it.

Not the same thing in this context.

 

[jakey rolling]

Seriously. People buy something, then b***h about that it can’t do something they knew it can’t do before buying it, and now they moan to governments to force the company to implement whatever junk they want.

It's almost like the whole "you knew what you were buying before you bought it" line is marketing bs. It also ignores the fact that there a lot of people who "bought into it" years ago and feel that can't switch because they are too invested in "the ecosystem." Which, of course, is exactly what Apple are banking on and why Apple fights so hard against these kind of changes.

It isn't about user experience. It isn't about security. It isn't about technical limitations. It is about Trumpy Tim wanting to continue to keep captive customers captive.

 

[jakey rolling]

Not the same thing in this context.

No, you're right. It isn't. Because for it to be the same thing, you would have to ignore that this is a solved problem literally everywhere else in the world.

 

[I7guy]

No, you're right. It isn't. Because for it to be the same thing, you would have to ignore that this is a solved problem literally everywhere else in the world.

No. Because each browser in the world going into a new world order will have its own sets of vulnerabilities and thus will bring another potential attack vector.

 

[surferfb]

It isn't about user experience. It isn't about security. It isn't about technical limitations. It is about Trumpy Tim wanting to continue to keep captive customers captive.

It's absolutely about user experience and security. If it wasn't, Apple would just open it up when required, not make them meet strict privacy and security standards before granting the entitlement to allow it.

I understand that you don't think the security issues exist, but just because you hand wave them away doesn't mean they're not there. It's possible that Apple actually has a different opinion on this than you and it isn't some mass conspiracy to lock people into using their products.

I swear so many peopler here would be happier if they just switched to a platform that better meet their needs. Instead they want to make all Apple's users less safe and secure because they think they know better than Apple and the vast majority of customers who want Apple to take care of this sort of stuff for them.

And none of this changes the fact that this is absolutely not something the government should be concerning itself with.

 

[jakey rolling]

No, it’s that the owner can’t guarantee you will have a good experience on his track with a motorcycle and if you come on a motorcycle and hurt yourself, he will be to blame for letting you in. And his reputation among other things will be hit. Capish?

Except that the only reason for this limitation is that the track owner designed the track so that only a certain type of tire sticks to the pavement properly, and it happens to be that the only provider of said tire is the track owner. Those same tires don't work on the one other track that exists in the entire country, and both tracks are the only ones certified for people to use for driver's training. As a result, the government is mandating that both tracks be redesigned to support most commonly used tires.

You see, the biggest problem with all these useless analogies that they gloss over the fact that this is a two-player market with very expensive switching costs and with a large segment of the populating requiring the use of those products or services for every day life to happen. These disingenuous analogies people like you throw around only seem to work because you keep using products that are either a) competitive markets, or b) are generally luxury / discretionary products and services. Smartphones are neither of these.

 

[jakey rolling]

No. Because each browser in the world going into a new world order will have its own sets of vulnerabilities and thus will bring another potential attack vector.

So don't use "each browser in the world." Use the one that works best for you and only deal with the security issues that come up from that one browser. You know, like it works everywhere else.

 

[robvalentine]

Ahhh, there we go. So you're this anti big corpo kinda guy. Okay, that's fine.

No, my analogy was that the track wasn't suited for motorcyclists and that the owner therefore didn't allow it. Government shouldn't force the owner into refitting the track so that motorcyclists, who were never allowed on it to begin with, could come and race. Not to ban all motorcyclists, like did you even read what I said? If I open a dog park and don't allow large breeds into it, should the government force me into allowing them? Hell if horse people complain that they can't bring horses, should I be forced by some lobby into allowing horses into my dog park? Like...think man.

Then don't use a Mac? Or tell your GF to get a bloody Pixel? What's the big deal?

I'm not anti corporate, I'm pro consumer.

I really don't get why you are so anti choice. Your racetrack analogy still doesn't add up. You are acting like anything non apple sanctioned is a virus 😂

 

[jakey rolling]

[Apple corporate marketing fluff clipped]

And none of this changes the fact that this is absolutely not something the government should be concerning itself with.

Non-competitive markets for critical infrastructure are absolutely something governments should be concerned with. The US government wants to abdicate its responsibility (like it has been doing since at least the 90's with the Microsoft case) that's for you Americans to worry about. The rest of the world has its own citizens to worry about.

 

[I7guy]

So don't use "each browser in the world." Use the one that works best for you and only deal with the security issues that come up from that one browser. You know, like it works everywhere else.

I personally don’t plan on using each browser in the world, but the reality is that now the iPhone will have a larger surface area for attack.

 

[thiscatisfat]

I'm not anti corporate, I'm pro consumer.

I really don't get why you are so anti choice. Your racetrack analogy still doesn't add up. You are acting like anything non apple sanctioned is a virus 😂

No no, that's not my point. I swear. My problem is with the government forcing Apple into doing this. It could be any other company for that matter, I would still be against it. If you want third party junk on your phone, go with Android.