Except you don’t have 3 browsers on your iPad.
You have 3 different skins of the same browser.
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.
UK Regulator Blames Apple for Stifling Mobile Browser Competition
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You have 3 different skins of the same browser.
Because nobody is that stupid to imply that Apple would leave such a lucrative market. Not seriously, anyway. But there are loads of sarcastic comments saying so.
As much as I would prefer they did leave on privacy grounds since they tell us they care so much about ‘privacy being a human right’. But they are fighting it, and that is good.
The UK isn’t fining them anywhere near what the EU is (yet). As Apple exists to make money, if the EU impacts that severely, there is a case that shareholders may want them to pull out. But we both know it won’t happen
I did read you entire post I responded as I did because I don't agree.
Why would Chromium share increase to 99%? Is Safari/WebKit so bad and undesirable that no one would want to use it if they weren't forced to? Is it so bad that once alternative engines were available on iOS/iPadOS, nearly everyone would abandon Safari/WebKit?
According to Statcounter, Safari has pretty good browser share in the UK with around 43% on mobile and 40% on tablet (and obviously much higher share specifically on iOS/iPadOS) right now. Is blocking competition really the only way you think WebKit can survive? If you really think it's so bad then that's even more reason people shouldn't be forced to use it on iOS/iPadOS. Even more reason Apple should try to make (and/or market) it better.
I would hardly call Apple a bit player in the UK and Europe. According to Statcounter, for example, Apple's share of the mobile OS market in the UK is around 48% and its share of the tablet OS market is around 57%.
The 1990s investigations and cases against companies like Microsoft in the U.S. (FTC, DOJ) and other countries were meant to try to help give smaller companies a "leg up." That's what antitrust/competition laws are largely about.
I'd argue it's not "blocking competition" though. It's about making the devices as safe, secure, and battery efficient as they can be.
Apple is going to be the one who gets the blame when Chrome destroys battery life, not Google. In fact, Google has incentive to make Chrome use up more battery to entice people to switch to Android.
Both can be true. It may be about making the device "better" to use but it's also blocking competition.
Maybe to a small degree but people have long already been saying Chrome uses up more battery so it seems to be a fairly known factor/issue. Maybe this will incentivize Apple to use its vast wealth/talent/resources to innovate and make iOS/iPadOS better with alternative engines and therefore a better product overall for more people.
Incentivizing Apple through forced regulation like the dma isn’t going to result in a better end-user experience.
We're talking about the UK here but if Apple does things like make using alternative browser engines a better experience (e.g., addressing potential battery drain or other issues) on iOS/iPadOS then it absolutely could make for a better end-user experience than the way it is now.
Safari is fast and efficient.
Did you try deleting cookies and website data?
I had that issue last year, then fixed it by turning off iCloud Private Relay.
Now you're modifying your wording/statement. You had said, "ISN'T going to result in..." which is definitive and that's what I was disagreeing with. Now you are softening it by essentially saying it may or may not. That's different. Unlike your original comment, mine wasn’t definitive. I said it COULD make for a better end-user experience than the way it is now.
Correct. “Isn’t going to result in a better experience” and “could result in a worse experience” are consistent unless you want to play semantics.
So we are on the same page as we both hedged our bets by using weasel words.
I would say that’s misleading only because iOS devices are better on the web and last longer. Even if the device can no longer meaningfully use apps. Like my iPad mini 2.
And they did absolutely nothing. Which is my point.
No, we're then back to (or still) disagreeing. While I agree that it COULD result in a worse experience, you can’t definitively conclude that it "ISN'T going to result in a better end-user experience” which is what you had originally stated and are repeating again.
How does that change the fact that Apple is still a major player (and not a "bit player" as you called them) in the mobile and tablet OS market in the UK and Europe?
Who did absolutely nothing? Microsoft or the DOJ? While the ruling to breakup MS was later overturned on appeal, MS was engaged in a variety of anticompetitive activities and the DOJ actions did result in MS having to make a number of concessions related to existing and future business agreements, Windows interoperability requirements, increased user choice options, increased API sharing, allowing a third party technical oversight committee to monitor MS activities, etc.
The problem is, you don’t really have three browsers running on your iPad. You have one browser engine on your iPad.
In the US they have a 80% plus market share. In the U.K. it’s around half that. In Asia, lower too. And as I said, the apple figure is vastly inflated because that’s just mobile web.
You’re deluded if you think it did anything. On appeal they paid not to have to do ****. And they did nothing.
80% plus share of what? Where are you getting that figure from? According to Statcounter, Apple currently has around 58% share of mobile OS market and 55% share of tablet OS market in the U.S. As I previously posted, Apple's share of the mobile OS market in the UK is around 48% and its share of the tablet OS market is around 57% which hardly makes them a "bit player" (as you called them) there not matter what their share is in the U.S.
The App Store didn't exist for the first year of iOS. Jobs was wary about having one. Wanted devs to do web apps initially. Only launched a store when devs made known their displeasure by jail-breaking the iPhone.