You understand.It's not hard to see all this as part of the same push to reduce system security - regardless of what opportunities it may allow bad actors, the UK Government does not want users being able to keep their stuff private
You understand.It's not hard to see all this as part of the same push to reduce system security - regardless of what opportunities it may allow bad actors, the UK Government does not want users being able to keep their stuff private
It’s very easy to start and run a company in the U.K. The problem tends to be trying to access venture capital to grow your business quickly.Maybe it’s because it’s so hard to start and keep a company going in the UK and Europe.
That’s not correct. The U.K. government doesn’t want criminals to hide behind private walls. I would think that was the same in every country.It's not hard to see all this as part of the same push to reduce system security - regardless of what opportunities it may allow bad actors, the UK Government does not want users being able to keep their stuff private
That isn't how it works people should have a right to privacy and the goverment needs to build a case to charge someone with a crime without invading that right.That’s not correct. The U.K. government doesn’t want criminals to hide behind private walls. I would think that was the same in every country.
They do. The police have to apply to the High Court for permission to access this data. If they don’t have any evidence, they won’t get the permission.That isn't how it works people should have a right to privacy and the goverment needs to build a case to charge someone with a crime without invading that right.
I’m glad iOS uses a different engine to promote competition.
Apple needs to allow non webkit browsersKnowing that Safari was always the first to fall in pwn2own and knowing that many of the flaws were easy to detect makes me believe that Apple talked about security but didn't care. They're somewhat better now, but I'd rather have Firefox as Firefox, which is more secure and even Chrome as Chrome.
Is that in response to the ask about non webkit browsers? If so, I mean, fix up Safari and make it less buggy if that's the only game in town. Otherwise open it up. Or is it that opening up the platform in that regard would show how behind Safari is?… on their own platform.
I said 'they're' as in the UK, not the CMA. And guess what? The CMA is a UK regulatory body.The CMA has nothing whatsoever to do with the IPA Act.
Brave manages to do it wellHow is wrapping yet another Chromium engine in a UI “competition”?
We’ve got Chromium, WebKit, and whatever Firefox uses (gecko?). If anything the danger to the Internet is EVERYTHING becoming one engine.
I’d love for Apple to find a way to make chromium safe to use on their platform, but I can’t fathom how they would be able to do that as browser exploits are the largest non-human technical threat out there.
How about you look at my entire post in context. Isolating just that one statement is not approaching this conversation in good faith. That statement in isolation is clearly wrong, so please look at my entire comment.It's not promoting competition when you restrict competition (alternative browser engines) on a major platform. If Apple actually wants to help promote or create competition, perhaps they should make Safari/WebKit available on Windows and Android. Also, make Safari/WebKit better (or market it better) on iOS/iPadOS so that people would choose it over Chrome/Chromium because it's better and not just because they have to as it is now.
You’re implying that the UK operates as a whole, such that the CMA would find against Apple in retaliation against their stance on the IPA. I’m saying that “the UK” doesn’t work like that.I said 'they're' as in the UK, not the CMA. And guess what? The CMA is a UK regulatory body.
That's like saying that the NHS and the NHS England have nothing to do with each other.
Go to bed.You’re implying that the UK operates as a whole, such that the CMA would find against Apple in retaliation against their stance on the IPA. I’m saying that “the UK” doesn’t work like that.
Your comparison is false. The NHS and NHS England do have a lot to do with each other, obviously. The CMA is a body. The IPA is an Act of Parliament, a law. The CMA has no care whatsoever about the IPA.
There’s a ton of money if your “browser” is just a reskinned chromium which itself is basically an advertising and data collection platform.It a web browser, it servers up web pages there really isn't any money to be made creating browsers that is why there are not more of them.
No you don't. You have 3 different front-ends to the same browser engine (Webkit). Those three "different" browsers won't render sites any differently or better than any other, or offer newer web features that aren't present in WebKit.
If so, It means the os is unsecure as a server without password!Allowing other Browser engines besides WebKit would expose the OS to many security issues.