Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oh no, a manufacturer who makes a product specifies what can run on it. I have 3 different browsers installed on my iPad right now. The EU needs to get on it and build a better mobile device. Nokia used to own the market, come on innovate.
Except you don’t have 3 browsers on your iPad.

You have 3 different skins of the same browser.
 
Why there are no comments like "leave uk"??
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
 
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.

I did read you entire post I responded as I did because I don't agree.


Chromium use will increase to pretty much 99% marketshare if iOS wasn't locked down.

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.
 
Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Unlike in the US, Apple doesn’t have a commanding share of the market in the U.K. and Europe. They’re a bit player.

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%.


I don’t understand why lesser products need a leg up. Apple never got a leg up when it had a tiny market share and was struggling under the Windows monopoly - and it was definitely the better product. How about forcing Microsoft or any multibillion dollar company, even Apple, to make their software available on all platforms. Some people might want Final Cut and Logic back on Windows.

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.
 
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'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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackSheepAz
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.

Both can be true. It may be about making the device "better" to use but it's also blocking competition.


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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Yep the UK. It could also make for a worse user experience.
 
I’ve had to stop using Safari on iPhone.
When I upgraded my os about a year ago it’s become unusable.
Webpages take for ever to load.
And no update since has fixed this issue.

-AE
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.
 
It could also make for a worse user experience.

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.
 
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 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%.

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.

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.

And they did absolutely nothing. Which is my point.
 
“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.

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.
 
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.

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?


And they did absolutely nothing. Which is my point.

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.
 
Oh no, a manufacturer who makes a product specifies what can run on it. I have 3 different browsers installed on my iPad right now. The EU needs to get on it and build a better mobile device. Nokia used to own the market, come on innovate.
The problem is, you don’t really have three browsers running on your iPad. You have one browser engine on your iPad.
 
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?

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.

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.

You’re deluded if you think it did anything. On appeal they paid not to have to do ****. And they did nothing.
 
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.

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.


You’re deluded if you think it did anything. On appeal they paid not to have to do ****. And they did nothing.

:rolleyes:
 
No no, the goal was to avoid users to jump out of the walled garden (=a$$le store). Imagine if you could run games in the browser instead of buying them in the store.. do you think jobs would have been happy?!
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.