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.
Should Apple Continue to Ban Rival Browser Engines on iOS?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be okay IF the standards Apple is leaving out or slooooowly implementing had to do with security and/or privacy.
But they don't.
There is no benchmark because Jobs was an egotistical asshat that would say whatever is needed at the time to make Apple money. You're either consistent in what you claim or you're a liar.
So you admit that Apple's claims in 1997 have no bearing on the current situation on iOS. Great. We agree.
Yes and no. I have low expectations for corporations, but I'll use their words against them if need be. Apple deserves the criticisms if they're going to ever say they believe in choice. Like I said; be consistent or just admit to lying.
Anyway, too many people cheerlead for Apple as if the company is their best friend. It's pathetic.
They’re exactly the same. IE, starting with 4.0 (before Windows 98), was increasingly embedded in system components and third-party apps. And the same is true of WebKit in iOS.
I hear what you're saying, but using Apple's words from 1997 against them is a bit much. Companies (and people) can change their opinions, and Apple was in desperate straits then. I don't think them saying one thing 20 years ago in vastly different circumstances, and not living up to that now means they were lying then. If you could find examples of Apple advocating for browser choice more recently I'd be more sympathetic to that argument.
Last edited:
They are not remotely the same. IE launched as an add-on pack for Windows 95. (https://www.britannica.com/technology/Internet-Explorer) WebKit/Safari was touted as one of the three main selling points of iPhone OS 1.0. If Microsoft had launched IE in Windows 1.0, you think there would be an antitrust case against them? The problem was that they launched it waaay after (and pressured OEMs not to install Netscape). iPhone has had WebKit since literally day one. Surely the difference is obvious.
Whether Apple should allow other browser engines will be moot in 6 months when Apple is forced to allow other app stores, as chrome and other browsers will just go to those app stores allowing chromium browsers
Probably referring to either the EUs Digital Markets Act or the USAs Open App Markets Act.
Both these bills require gatekeepers of mass market consumer operating systems to allow third parties to offer software unrestricted to consumers subject to security/privacy/law protections. Importantly the gatekeeper must prove that any restriction is actually needed for security/privacy/law with convincing evidence.
The UKs Competition and Markets Authority state in their report that they believe that there are two main possible motivations for Apple's Webkit Restriction.
1. Protect their $15 billion a year search deal with Google by preventing other browsers being able to compete with iOS Safari
2. Protect their $72.3 billion a year App Store revenue but not allowing the Web to effectively compete with Native Apps by both banning other Browsers and by not supporting key Web App features.
Since the safari browsing experience got so bad on iOS - yes please!!! See below Safari rendering a page with a cookie banner …. OMG ??♂️??♂️??♂️
But the worst thing is that Safari constantly fails loading a webpage and only killing and restarting the app solves the problem.
10 years after Jobs sadly passed away ….
But the worst thing is that Safari constantly fails loading a webpage and only killing and restarting the app solves the problem.
10 years after Jobs sadly passed away ….
I don’t see how it’s helpful to bring sex into it
Is browser engine related aggression a problem that men need to address?
If someone crashes into my safely parked car, is it helpful to focus on the fact it was a woman? Sure maybe it’s true, but does it serve to unite or divide the spectators?
Why polarise along these lines? It’s not helpful. It’s just divisive.
Yes IPADOS is not great (especially for a hardware that is laptop grade).
But at least its better than tablet Android !
Yes it is harder. But would website developers bother to test properly if it was available? Many of them didn't bother when Firefox still had >10% marketshare as it was still work. Would they bother to do it for Safari if they can force users to an alternative browser?
Steve was a product guy - Tim only cares about money. Does this seem like a valid reason why Apple diesn‘t fix bugs to you?
And it is well known that Apple doesn‘t fix bugs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygr...security-engineer-to-apple-fix-your-sh-t/amp/
I would rather use Firefox on iOS as I do on macOS but I can live with Brave on iPad and iPhones. I would switch to Firefox if iPadOS and iOS allowed the PC version.
I wouldn't necessarily say Safari is in far better shape today. In 2012, Safari had 6.62% worldwide desktop/laptop share versus 9.84% today. A somewhat modest increase given that Apple's desktop/laptop (OS X/macOS) share more than doubled.
However, I think mobile (and tablet) is where the greater potential is today as that's where a lot of the growth has been in browser traffic in the last 10-15 years. If Apple could tap into the Android space with Safari, it could be meaningful. How meaningful may depend on Google's reaction/response.
Apple's main argument is one of security. They say that various web APIs used by other browsers are a risk to privacy.
A key difference is that Microsoft (falsely) claimed that Internet Explorer was an integral part of the operating system that could not be removed. That was demonstrated to be a massive porky pie, and MS were forced to decouple IE from their OS installation.
Apple do not claim that Safari is a key part of the operating system. Rather, it is the underlying library used by Safari (Webkit) that is. Anyone is able to provide an alternative to Safari, providing that it makes use of Webkit.
So the question then really becomes: why can't a vendor provide their own implementation of Webkit? Apple's answer would probably be that user's privacy could be put at risk if that were permitted, since Webkit is used all over the place in iOS and macOS. And any bugs in this key part of the OS can be squished quickly for all users if Webkit is focused in one place.
Android L is actually a great Big Screen OS. But the app support is still terrible because of lack of a large enough userbase.
1) who says that will happen?
2) allowing other app stores doesn’t necessarily mean the apps sold in those app stores won’t have to follow Apple’s rules. We already see the precedent for that in the logic followed by Judge Gonzalez-Rogers.