UK Looks to Trigger Regulation Process to Target Apple's Cloud Gaming and Browser Engine Restrictions

[jlc1978]

Yes we might first see uncompetitive nag screens, and Apple will see 8-10% of their worldwide turnover going down the road.

Apple can simply do it like they do on the Mac - require permission to access things. Hardly uncompetitive; more like ensuring users are aware of security risks.

Regarding wireless, thats not a solution, wireless is still wired, that 1-2mm gap won’t allow them to escape the law.

The directive only applies to wired chargers, wireless is exempt.

Per the Verge:

The proposals only cover devices using wired, not wireless, chargers, EU commissioner Thierry Breton said in a press conference, adding that “there is plenty of room for innovation on wireless.” A spokesperson for the Commission subsequently confirmed to The Verge that a USB-C port is only mandatory for devices that charge using a cable. But, if a device charges exclusively via wireless, like Apple’s rumored portless iPhone, there’d be no requirement for a USB-C charging port.

Interestingly, a device that charges wirelessly could have what ever data port it wants, or none, as long as it does not charge.

 

[hagar]

It can depend on the type or level of control in question. Do you think it was unfair for the DOJ to sue Microsoft in the 1990s? MS was essentially being sued for trying to "control" their platform (Windows).

Sure. But the issue then was that MS got control over the internet as Windows was the dominant way to access it. IE did not follow internet standards so there was a real threat MS would get total domination over the entire web.

Apple only allowing WebKit on iOS is an important buffer to avoid that Chromium takes full control.

And cloud gaming: while I don’t agree with Apple, it’s their choice to make their platform less appealing by offering less choice.

 

[hagar]

There is no "ban". Cloud gaming runs through the browser on iOS and the people that use those browser services always seem to claim that they work well enough. That's the Catch 22 to all the complaints: if you say the browser version sucks then it calls into question whether the technology is really ready for prime time, but if you say the browser version is good...then it calls into question the complaints about it not being in the App Store.

All the better. Then what is the fuss about?

 

[I7guy]

It's so cute that you think this like it has never been something the government has done (and has had to do) for several centuries now.

What’s cute is the Robin Hood principle government operates under.

 

[gnipgnop]

All the better. Then what is the fuss about?

The fuss is mostly about generating PR and press coverage that helps with Microsoft/Epic lobbying legislators.

 

[hagar]

It is not the governments job regulate the free market where new comers are favored.

Of course it’s the governments rule to regulate the free market to level the playing field. Who do you think regulates that a new company follows environmental laws, working conditions, safety regulations, etc. Otherwise, a new company could come in, dump its trash in the Hudson River, exploit workers and rip off consumers to make a quick profit. It’s laughable to think a regulating body is unnecessary.

 

[webkit]

It matters because it's different than the MS situation in the 90s. MS was trying to control a 3rd party hardware market, similar to how Google is trying to control a 3rd party hardware market with Android. Apple is only trying to control 1st party hardware...which is the console model. That's why companies like Epic have twisted themselves into a pretzel trying to claim that the console model is somehow anticompetitive if the hardware makes a profit and has general computing applications. That, of course, ignores the fact that consoles do make a profit in many cases and certainly could support general computing applications IF the company making them allowed it.

While not exactly the same, I feel it was more similar than different even though motives may have varied.

Microsoft was trying to control first-party OS (Windows) by requiring IE to be installed and they were even less controlling/restrictive than Apple as Windows end users could still install and use Netscape Navigator or other browsers if they wanted to.

Apple is trying to control first-party OS (iOS) too and don't even allow end users to do things like install non-Webkit browsers.

Personally, I think the App Store is a bigger issue than Webkit but that's a separate discussion.

 

[gnipgnop]

The proposals only cover devices using wired, not wireless, chargers, EU commissioner Thierry Breton said in a press conference, adding that “there is plenty of room for innovation on wireless.” A spokesperson for the Commission subsequently confirmed to The Verge that a USB-C port is only mandatory for devices that charge using a cable. But, if a device charges exclusively via wireless, like Apple’s rumored portless iPhone, there’d be no requirement for a USB-C charging port.

Nonsensical. They're treating a proprietary wireless technology as innovative while also treating a proprietary wired technology as stifling innovation.

 

[webkit]

Sure. But the issue then was that MS got control over the internet as Windows was the dominant way to access it. IE did not follow internet standards so there was a real threat MS would get total domination over the entire web.

Apple only allowing WebKit on iOS is an important buffer to avoid that Chromium takes full control.

Microsoft didn't restrict end users from installing and accessing the internet through other browsers like Netscape Navigator.

if Apple is that concerned about Google dominance then perhaps they should stop making Google the default search on Safari.

 

[gnipgnop]

Microsoft was trying to control first-party OS (Windows) by requiring IE to be installed and they were even less controlling/restrictive than Apple as Windows end users could still install and use Netscape Navigator or other browsers if they wanted to.

iOS users can install other browsers.

 

[jakey rolling]

iOS users can install other browsers.

How to disqualify yourself from a conversation in one easy step.

 

[webkit]

iOS users can install other browsers.

The specific complaint being discussed here is about the browser engine restrictions and Apple doesn't allow other browser engines to be installed on iOS.

 

[gnipgnop]

How to disqualify yourself from a conversation in one easy step.

LOL..."end users could still install and use Netscape Navigator or other browsers if they wanted to"...that's what I was responding to. iOS users can install Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Brave etc.

 

[ponzicoinbro]

Will these hypocrite bribed regulators:

- Force Microsoft to install PlayStation Store and PlayStation cloud streaming on Xbox? They have almost the same hardware.

- Force Sony to install Xbox Store and Xbox cloud streaming on PlayStation? They have almost the same hardware.

- Force side loading on consoles??? Welcome to malware and ransomware kids. Hope your parents can pay the ransoms.

And who is bribing these regulators and some conservative politicians to ban encrypted messaging and encrypted computers? Same people who made spyware like Pegasus and Palintir?

Investigations need to be done on these people.

 

[Sciomar]

Are other nations' companies so incapable of developing their own hardware and software to enter into the competitive market? No, let's just forgo all the research and development and cry our way into someone else's platform.

This regulation would have to expand into every piece hardware with an OS, for the sake of equality.

 

[gnipgnop]

The specific complaint being discussed here is about the browser engine restrictions and Apple doesn't allow other browser engines to be installed on iOS.

Then you should say "browser engine" instead of just "browser" which is misleading.

 

[mateytate]

I don’t get this at all.

if I build a department store. Why can’t I run that store how I like? Should I be compelled to let someone else come in and make money in my store? Vendors / Customers who aren’t happy with the way I run my store can sell / shop across the street?

Nobody is compelled to buy an iPhone so why is it considered a monopoly? People who aren’t happy can buy a different device. If nobody likes existing options then the market can be disrupted by a new entrant.

No, with respect I don't think you do get it. Capitalism left unchecked, is really not good for the end consumer in the long run. Capitalism works well without intervention to a point - but when you have corporations growing to trillions of dollars with essentially limitless resources, they could theoretically buy up all the competition and every start-up and effectively become the only phone manufacturer in the world. The reason they don't do this is because of organisations like the FTC in the US and Competition Commission in the UK. Its also the reason we can still chose to buy a different device. There are many examples in the past where exactly this has happened, and its why there are Government agencies in place to protect against it.

In my opinion, if we were to let the corporate world run amok without Government oversight and 'trusted' them to behave, it would end very badly for the average consumer.

 

[jakey rolling]

LOL..."end users could still install and use Netscape Navigator or other browsers if they wanted to"...that's what I was responding to. iOS users can install Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Brave etc.

I might be putting more faith in you than is deserved, but surely you understand the difference between being able to install an entire technology stack of a browser, including its rendering engine, and installing what is basically a shell around the one and only rendering engine allowed on an OS.

 

[MVMNT]

Says the loyal Apple guy with a Hackintosh.

Just reminded me to update my signature with everything else I own now. Cheers...

(Also, a 4.1>5.1 is not a Hackintosh, great discord there)

 

[amartinez1660]

I don’t understand this one… where does it end?
Will they force also for graphical applications to be other than Metal too? They will have to open it for OpenGL, Vulkan, DirectX and whatnot?

Don’t know if that’s a good or a bad thing overall, but I don’t see for example directX making sure to maximize its performance and battery efficiency for iOS devices and all the niceties that are being shown right now on WWDC regarding Metal 3.

The rules of the iOS house are:
- want to run graphical applications? Metal3 and assorted kits
- want to run web browsing applications? WebKit

 

[_Spinn_]

In other words, UK wants Chrome to be the only browser around? Ok then...

Yeah that will be the end result unfortunately

Firefox can't compete, Edge is just a Chrome clone, and the only reason Safari has a large market share is because it is the only browser engine allowed on iOS and iPadOS. If this goes through I expect Safari's market share to drop and Google will have not major competitors (that aren't just chrome clones).

 

[djphat2000]

Yes. BUT the barrier to entry is high.

So.? That's not anyone's problem to fix. Taxi's had dominance before Uber or Lyft. Someone(s) found a way to compete.

A company would not only have to build a mobile OS from scratch, but would then have to convince large phone manufacturers to allow their OS on the device.

Yes, exactly what Apple, Google, BlackBerry, Symbian, Palm/WebOS and Microsoft did do.
We all know this is hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

Android and iOS have 10 years on any new OS.

Seems ripe for disruption from another innovator. Someone(s) should try and harder. Maybe they will succeed. Maybe they should follow all these new rules and regulations and will be more successful for it.

And Apple and Google are both giant multinational corporations which will do all they can to keep any other OS from replacing their own.

This is assumed, and not certain. Which is one of the issues I have with these new regulations. Lets all assume that they will abuse the power they have and punish them before they get to do it. Why not lock up all potential criminals why we are at it. Cause they are going to do it.

There are already alternate phone OSes available for Android phones, but who wants to spend upwards of $1,000 on a device then wipe out the operating system that is built to run on that device?

Sounds like the same issue we have on PC's today. People do it all the time. Which just proves that there are alternatives if you try just a little more than complain about it not existing.

Sure, there will be a few, but most general consumers will stick to Android.

Which is fine.

 

[jakey rolling]

Then you should say "browser engine" instead of just "browser" which is misleading.

You aren't even arguing in good faith anymore. It is pretty common knowledge that, for all intents and purposes, the browser engine is the browser, and installing an alternate browser on a desktop OS means installing the alternate browser engine. You are ignoring important context to try to make a point.

 

[hagar]

While not exactly the same, I feel it was more similar than different even though motives may have varied.

Microsoft was trying to control first-party OS (Windows) by requiring IE to be installed and they were even less controlling/restrictive than Apple as Windows end users could still install and use Netscape Navigator or other browsers if they wanted to.

Apple is trying to control first-party OS (iOS) too and don't even allow end users to do things like install non-Webkit browsers.

Personally, I think the App Store is a bigger issue than Webkit but that's a separate discussion.

Microsoft had a monopoly with IE on the entire internet.
Apple does not have one with WebKit: More than half of the users browse with Chromium on the web.

 

[gnipgnop]

I might be putting more faith in you than is deserved, but surely you understand the difference between being able to install an entire technology stack of a browser, including its rendering engine, and installing what is basically a shell around the one and only rendering engine allowed on an OS.

LOL again...you know what quote I was responding to. It simply said "browser". Feel free to provide the breakdown on what technology advantages for rendering would occur in iOS for a browser not using Webkit. Other people in this thread have already pointed out that the Webkit limitation is more to prevent Chrome from total domination than anything else. If there was really that much innovation, why does Chrome totally dominate desktop/laptop web?