It’s actually both parties lol. And yeah FDA doesn’t have any real criminal enforcement authority. Probably by careful design lol.
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 Revives Antitrust Probe Into Apple's Browser and Cloud Gaming Restrictions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In what way? Seems the government gives companies and developers the freedom to chose if they want safari or not. And preventing Apple from forcing them to use/support safari
Exactly where they describe regulating the market.
No, just that means the interests of the markets ability to compete supersedes an individual companies interest to maintain control. Aka apples freedom is infringing others freedom to choose
In what way? Safari isn’t removed. If consumers like safari they can use it(voting with their money/ actions) and companies choosing to implement safari specific proprietary solutions (voting with their money and resources)
But if safari isn’t a great option because Apple doesn’t do a good job, then it will lose users.
Isn’t it a choice? Instead of not having the ability to choose anything not based on safari?
Developers also complain about the lack of Web NFC and other APIs in the iOS WebKit.
It's not like developers WANT Chrome to be the only good browser.
It's just that it's not easy to develop around Safari's quirks, hit-or-miss browser standards support, and generally poor communication around its roadmap and priorities.
For 3D developers, it's been a particularly painful, confusing journey. Many of user-reported problems at Frame are from people who have performance issues on the Safari browser, particularly from iPhones. It's stunning to me that five year old Android phones can handle many 3D websites better than the latest iPhones.
For instance, full-screen capabilities are limited in third-party browsers, and Apple restricts Apple Pay integration to Safari. At the same time, web-based apps cannot run in full screen, and third-party browsers do not offer the option of adding a web app to the home screen.
They already had that freedom, exactly as you said. Apple can't force them to stay.
So at the bottom of the poll, grouped into "other"...
Apple can't stop anyone from choosing. The problem you and others in these conversations have is that you're not looking at products, you're looking at features and trying to force homogeneity across platforms.
Exactly. And they have. But their market decisions are being overridden by political decisions. You said there are two ways to vote: money and ballots. Government is imposing the view of bureaucrats over the wishes of consumers.
So? People complain about all sorts of things. Just because somebody had an idea "let's allow near field communications access over the world wide web" doesn't mean it's a good one or that every developer must be required to implement it.
Maybe not Chrome, but they'd be happy if they only needed to support one.
I see no reason governments must force any of these trivialities. If this is what government commissions are debating about, it seems like an enormous waste of taxpayer funds while a few individuals figure out how they can legislate their ideas of a good product.
Seriously- whether you want a full screen web app or not, you should be in the streets complaining that government is putting their energy into enforcing it.
Ok got you; as always the devil is in the details.
* Feature policy - So yes, Safari doesn't support a list allowing multiple origins in a single iframe to be allowed. And so yes, with Safari you have to allow specific features opposed to denying them. Hmm, seems pretty decent security practice to me to block all and only allow what should be used.
* X-frame-options - ahem that is absolute, better to use to use csp frame-anchestors
* DNSSEC benefits are in the DNS network, and there sadly too many registrars make it too difficult and cumbersome to implement as well
Some don't even support it at all, yep that is you Microsoft Azure...* Credentials API - hmm yes no thank you. A very bad idea to have that programmatically accessed by the source you are visiting. The way password managers, either by iCloud or by third parties like 1Password, can integrate is the way to do it to make it easier for the users.
* Trusted Types - yes got to give you that one. But in reality I can't see many developers use that when many hosted sites don't even have the correct CSP setup, and there are way easier techniques for sanitization to prevent this. But fair enough it can harden it even further.
* Intersection v2 - safari does use the v1 spec, the v2 spec goes further but is also specific about it that it the visibility enhancements shouldn't be utilized other than in very specific edge cages and on a limited based as it is an expensive computation (iow. impacts the user experience). I wouldn't worry about that too much.
* Document/Permissions policies - yes they replace the feature policy. Granted Safari doesn't support the replacement policies yet, and arguably should. But it isn't that they don't support the features as the features policy does that, same for many of the existing browsers. So when you harden your website you just apply the correct headers for each situation. Not a big deal at all.
Something I don't get from all the upset replies is, what's wrong with allowing different engines on iOS? Like, sure, although I think it's misinformed, I can at least see how some people might be against allowing sideloaded apps. But this? It makes no sense at all.
What a bizarre response. Anyway, the fact remains that Apple restricts browser engines, sideloading and alternative app stores on a major mobile OS and therefore doesn't allow users of that major OS to "vote with their $$$" by allowing them to choose things like getting apps from alternative app stores.
That can depend on the country/region and browser activity from some counties are more important than others but sure, I’ll play the game and pick a number... 71.53998012% give or take.
It can make it a good use of resources depending on how a company is able to monetize browser usage. Offering a competitive browser product on Android, Windows, etc. would give Apple customers who may also own/use non-Apple devices an opportunity to still use Safari.
With an "open ecosystem” you get to decide which browser engine, app store, etc. you want to use, that's the point. Apple doesn't allow users of a major mobile OS (iOS) to "vote with their $$$" by allowing them to use browser engines other than WebKit and/or app stores other than the App Store and/or sideload.
If you like an open ecosystem, please feel free to use you $$$ to get one. The iPhone is closed ecosystem, a lifestyle device, vote with your $$$ and unless there is a health or safety issue - government stay the heck out of micro-regulation.
I'm curious how does allowing alt app stores, side loading, and alt browsers have an impact on your usage given that you would never use these features anyway? I use a Samsung S22 Ultra, but have not used the Samsung app store. I do use sideloading to install AdGuard for global ads blocking.
This is the point right here in a nutshell: I don't want my browser usage monetized.
It was in response to the bizarre statement that Apple isn't allowing people to vote with their money. In truth, I see people buy Android phones every day without Apple interfering.
(Incidentally, in the UK people vote with £££, not $$$. You weren't the one to start it, but someone should speak in defence of the pound.)
True.
False.
So when other browsers are allowed on iOS, you expect Safari share to exceed the share of iOS devices by a factor of 2? That's a pretty clear sign you haven't thought this through very well...
If a user has multiple Apple devices under the same Apple ID, then it is as if Safari is the same on all the devices. It will still stay the same even if alternate browser engines are allowed. To achieve the same functionality for chrome or other browsers, a user has to explicitly sign in to those browsers to enable sync. That level of friction will always be there and that should help Apple. If, in spite of this, Apple cannot protect its market share, then Safari should become extinct and Apple cannot blame anybody for its fate.
If Safari is competing well, the argument is moot. Apple has nothing to worry what happens to other browsers on iOS or Mac, or Windows. According to you, you and a majority of the users would choose Safari exclusively and all these moves by EU/UK should not matter. Apple should be magnanimous and let the other browsers be themselves and try to compete with the so called superior browser that Safari is. Why hobble them with artificial restrictions and stop them from becoming better browsers to take on Safari. Let Apple level the playing field for the other browsers
I would hazard a guess that most people don't even realize that the rendering engine of Google or Edge on iOS is different than what they have on their desktop. The rest of the functions around it those companies have done well anyway to shield those users.
I like Safari, I like it even better following Sonoma. But for work we use Google WorkSpace and I keep, as one should, it totally separates with a managed Chrome browser. Same for previous work where we used Microsoft 365 and the managed Edge browser.
In a way one could say that Google and Microsoft do the same things as their managed browsers across desktop/mobile come with their services.
I like Safari, I like it even better following Sonoma. But for work we use Google WorkSpace and I keep, as one should, it totally separates with a managed Chrome browser. Same for previous work where we used Microsoft 365 and the managed Edge browser.
In a way one could say that Google and Microsoft do the same things as their managed browsers across desktop/mobile come with their services.
That's too bad because Safari already has been heavily monetized via things like the Google agreement and revenue from Safari app extensions/store.
That statement wasn’t bizarre, it was factual. By restricting alternative browser engines, alternative apps stores, sideloading, etc. Apple is indeed preventing users of a major mobile OS (iOS) from "voting with their money" when it came to those types of activities. Your response was bizarre.
Exceed their share of iOS devices by a factor of 2? Where are you coming up with that math? Based on Statcounter data, Safari currently has over 25% of the global mobile browser market which includes Android, iOS, etc. Since iOS is only a part of that mobile OS market, Safari's share specifically on iOS (where it is only available on mobile) is therefore much higher. As such, my number would represent a DROP not an increase in Safari's browser share on iOS. That's a pretty clear sign you haven't thought this through very well...
False. It's a take it or leave it. Since when do manufacturers of consumer lifestyle products offer menus of items from other manufacturers to include in their products. They don't. I'm sure if the UK government opened up an investigation to force automakers to include components from any other vehicle there would be a ****-show in the UK. But yet here it seems that some people are cheering that Apple is potentially going to be regulated given that a perfectly suitable alternative is already existing and according to some, far less $$$ than Apple. Bizarre is correct.
I honesly don't think he would've bothered with all the anticompetitive nonsense to try to promote second rate services in the first place.
Do you honestly think Jobs would've put his name on Apple Arcade?!
How does Apple prevent you from buying an Android phone?
Safari has a market share of 20% as I showed in the chart. I asked where you think it will fall to if Apple opens iOS to alternative browsers. You said it would fall upward to ~72% which is more than twice even the iOS marketshare of 30%. I don't see how that's possible.
Well, that about sums up the quality of this discussion...
Android is not a 1:1 replacement for iOS. Unless you've figured out a way to pair Apple Watch to Samsungs and use handoff and other things, in which case please enlighten us.
Besides, why do you feel threatened that there are going to be other browser engines on iOS?
Then it’s not a solution and it’s disingenuous to suggest it as such.
Did I actually?
It’s the "take it or leave it" that's at issue here and being viewed as anticompetitive. Once again, the FACT is that Apple restricts users of a major mobile OS (iOS) from being able to vote with their $$$ when it comes to things like picking where they buy/acquire apps for their iPhone.
Not an appropriate comparison as specific automakers don’t have the market power, dominance, influence, etc. in their market that Apple has in the mobile OS market where there are only two major players (iOS and Android).
As I've stated many times, having an alternative or multiple alternatives does not negate antitrust laws and regulations. Coke and Pepsi, for example, are typically considered suitable alternatives to each other yet both have faced antitrust charges over the years.
They don't and I never said they did. Your question shows you clearly don't comprehend the issue at hand, how alternatives don't necessarily negate antitrust laws, etc.
The UK browser antitrust issue is regarding the mobile browser market and therefore my comment was specifically about iOS devices and how allowing alternative browser engines on iOS would potentially impact Safari’s browser share on iOS where it is currently far greater than 20%. This was not about macOS where alternative browser engines are already allowed nor about Android or Windows where Safari isn’t even available.
Ok, so we agree that people can vote with their money and buy what they want and how having alternatives means people have choices. Apple isn't preventing any of that.
The difference, if I'm understanding your point of view correctly, is that once people have had years to understand the available choices and the implications of making them, and they've voted with their money on the choice they think best suits their priorities, you want government to inject itself and reverse that choice. You want government to come in and define the feature set of the minority platform to more closely resemble the choice those users actively voted against.
That seems to me to not only be anticonsumer overreach, but actively destroying innovation.
The comment thread you made it in was about Google's dominance in web engines, so it clearly isn't about iOS devices in isolation since Google doesn't have a presence there yet. If you're going to change the context, you should be explicit.