Lets hope that the anti-trust judiciary has enough technical understanding to realise how restrictive and damaging to competition - Apple’s policy of not allowing alternative web browser engines on IOS is.
They should force Apple to allow alternative engines to Webkit, thus enabling much stronger competition to Safari and to native Apps on Apple mobile devices.
> They should force Apple to allow alternative engines to Webkit, thus enabling much stronger competition to Safari and to native Apps on Apple mobile devices.
The ironic part here is that back in 2007-2013 Microsoft was sued by the European Union [1], and was forced to implement a downloader GUI that offers a randomized overview of available Browsers [2]; and their website/download links.
Back then Microsoft's defense was that an enduser could just install another Operating System on the hardware if they didn't want to be forced to use Internet Explorer.
And now, 10 years later, here we are, where Apple absolutely controls the Hardware _and_ the Software. Yet the European Union does seemingly nothing against it.
But when that happened didn't Microsoft have something like 95%+ of the global desktop operating system market share? Whereas Apple has nowhere close to that in mobile market share and likely never will. They are not a monopoly in the same way Microsoft was a monopoly.
With Apple you have viable alternatives from Android handset manufacturers: alternatives that are suitable for the average person on the street.
With Microsoft this was not the case. When that case started Apple were basically dead in the water on the desktop... and then you had Linux, which was not suitable for the average user (yes, I'm sure we can all cherry pick a story about somebody's grandparent being perfectly happy with Linux back in the day but these anecdotes, whilst fun and interesting, do not add up to meaningful data).
The EU Commission and several other competition bodies are currently studying Apple's anticompetitive practices. The reason it has avoided their action until now is probably due to the technicality of the issue and its deep ramifications. Hopefully the numerous recent articles about the matter will help the regulators understand it and act on it.
Well, probably also that technically Microsoft had a monopoly in desktop operating systems (apparently 97% of desktop computers in 2000 according to an article I found), whereas Apple’s smartphone market share in Europe is just less than 30%.
It’s more subtle because it depends what you consider to be the market.
Windows was the dominant operating system of the PC platform. But the openness of the PC platform wasn’t a problem. On smartphone, you are bound by the hardware to keep the OS sold with it. So it could make sense to consider the « iPhone devices » market instead of the « smartphone » market (same for Android).
Not just Google - Many thousands of developers would benefit from being able to create web applications that can run on desktop and mobile and are not handicapped on Apple devices.
I'd rather take the side of the end users. Don't forget developers are end users too. Developers benefit from an open ecosystem, not the locked down silo'd web that Chrome is pushing for.
What is the locked down silo'd web that Chrome is pushing for? Safari is pushing for a crippled web that requires developers to pay an Apple app tax to reach users.
You're talking about "developers reaching the users", but that's from the perspective of building websites and webapps. What about from the other side? What if you're a developer that wants to control your own computer & your interfaces to the web?
It used to be a lot easier 10 years ago, federated protocols were more common, websites were forced to be more accessible in a more fragmented browser marketshare. It wasn't until Chrome started doing forced auto-updates (and the other browsers followed) that really pushed to a monoculture and led to more locked down websites. Developers loved that it made their work easier, but there is a cost of freedom.
I don't understand. You can still control your own computer's interface to the web. You can install extensions to disable JavaScript functionality or even build your own browser to do so. The only frequently used web browsing platform that doesn't allow this is iOS, as far as I know.
>Back then [...] an enduser could just install another Operating System on the hardware if they didn't want to be forced to use Internet Explorer
That does not make much sense, coming from Microsoft. Users were never forced to use Internet Explorer on Windows* and could always install other browsers freely. No need to switch OSs.
*The only time Microsoft imposed the use of Internet Explorer, as far as I can remember, was back in Windows XP, when Windows Update came as a web application.
The issue that is so often missed is that it wasn't the fact that IE was bundled as the default or that it had the largest market share. Very simply, the issue was how that market share was attained. Microsoft threatend to withdraw OEMs Windows licenses if the OEM bundled a competing browser, thus levereaging their near desktop OS monopoly to dominate web browsers.
> That does not make much sense, coming from Microsoft. Users were never forced to use Internet Explorer on Windows* and could always install other browsers freely. No need to switch OSs.
I think your parent's history is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't avoid using Internet Explorer if you were on Windows. You could also use other browsers, but so much crucial functionality passed through IE that you simply couldn't opt entirely out of it. (For example, it couldn't be uninstalled.) I think that, at least for a while, Explorer (the file browser) was basically IE pointed at the local filesystem.
The EU looks at the health of the market and there is plenty of competition and Apple only controls a small fraction of it. Windows on the other hand was installed on like >90% of computers.
Ironically Apple ensuring that every browser on iOS runs webkit is one of the only things preventing Chrome from having a complete hegemony of the web.
If you actually want stronger competition the best thing you could do is separate Chrome from Google.
Or forcing Apple to accept real competition in the browser engine market and fund their team appropriately. Google puts literally several thousands of manpower into Chrome while Apple puts roughly one tenth into Safari. This is not acceptable.
Let's then also hope that the anti-trust judiciary understands that a closed-loop Web where the browser, the so-called "standards", the content/ads, and gatekeeping are made by the same party, is antithetical to what made the Web successful and got public spending behind in the first place. And that solving an economic problem of the software industry (nobody wanting to install your app, and nobody wanting to buy it either when everything is "free" as long you accept erosion of your privacy) isn't the job of the web, especially when it clearly is detrimental to the original purpose of the web as a medium for easy self-publishing.
Good point about the standards being made by the same party. It's also hard to imagine that w3c & Mozilla haven't had their motives affected at some level.
> They should force Apple to allow alternative engines to Webkit
I would be A-OK with that if the alternative engines provided the same privacy and security guarantees to me that Mobile Safari does (with penalties for breaching those guarantees.)
This is about forcing Apple to allow other engines. You can still choose not to use them. It follows that there is no reason that your choice of engine should be the default and only option for everyone that uses an iOS device.
Users can't make an informed choice about what browser engine they use. They don't understand what a browser engine is, and what impact it has on their security, battery performance and so on.
So no, you can't choose. When we say "you can choose" we need to realize that this is only good when you can make an educated, informed choice. If you can't, you need to be protected. And that's Apple's role.
Random choice is not a choice. Would you have your infant "choose" what drugs to take for headache for example? What criteria will they use? Pill shape, color, size and flavor. Well that's basically also our proverbial mom and pop picking a browser engine.
Furthermore browser engines have this peculiar habit of getting into everything. Open any app at all and it's probably using WebKit without you realizing it. What if the app uses some random outdated fork of Netscape, why not? Do you realize what "choice" you made by opening that app?
Yes, users can make an informed choice about what product to use or to buy. This is true for computers, this is true for mobile devices, this is true for any kind of software, and obviously this is true for web browsers. People have been doing it on all other OSes since web browsers have existed.
There is no reason to prevent competition in such a market, and hopefully regulators will become aware of the issue and act on it soon.
So your answer to all specific problems I stated is "I reject your world and substitute my own".
Not one reasonable and intellectually honest person expects that the average phone user out there even knows what a browser engine IS, let alone compare two of them, or know where it's used (when it's not even disclosed).
Keep in mind smartphones are even more widely used than "computers" in general. So I guess even 8 year olds now are expected to do a security analysis on the browser engine their game uses before playing.
I honestly thought showing how consumers are able to make informed choices in other and as technical markets like computers, mobile devices and other softwares categories, plus the fact that it is the case for web browsers on any other OS, would be two strong enough arguments to dismiss yours...
Probably more than 95% of car owners do not understand how the engine of a car works. So, following your reasoning, it would justify having no competition in the car market?
Thankfully most of the world chose the free-market economy model, of which free competition is a pillar. There is no reason for the web browser market to be an exception and justify obstructed competition like Apple does on iOS.
Consumers clamored for Flash engine, against their interests. Chrome aims to be the new Flash. iPhone rejected one, to the benefit of open web, and must be free to reject the other.
Just because the average consumer doesn't understand browser engines, doesn't mean that those who do should have that option removed. Hide it in developer settings behind three warning prompts for all I care but make the option available to those who want it.
What you suggest actually can't work, it means applications have no control themselves what engine they run on. Browser engines can't just be a config setting, you're basically asking for chaos.
Also you should review what "ad hominem" means. Saying "no one intellectually honest would say 2 + 2 is 5" is not ad hominem.
Ad hominem doesn't mean "don't say bad words about me and my opinions". Ad hominem would be disregarding an opinion not by discussing the opinion, but by discarding the opinion based on WHO said it.
It's in fact very hard to commit ad hominem against an anonymous person online who has said nothing about themselves. If they said "I have a history of delusions" and I said "therefore your opinion has no merit", that's ad hominem.
The fact that despite that you constantly hear people complaining about "ad hominem" online is just that much funnier. Strawman is another one that most people love to say, while having no clue what it means.
You called the argument delusional, and therefore it wasn't an ad hominem, so you're right about that.
But, "Delusional" is often associated with name-calling, so it sounds more like you're calling the person delusional, rather than what they said. Something like "This sounds delusional to me" would avoid that confusion.
But even if I decided to call the commenter names, that wouldn't be ad hominem (link above on details).
It's rude, it's uncivilized maybe, we can have qualifications like that. But it's not "ad hominem", because "ad hominem" isn't about "you insulted someone".
> Users can't make an informed choice about what browser engine they use. They don't understand what a browser engine is, and what impact it has on their security, battery performance and so on.
> So no, you can't choose. When we say "you can choose" we need to realize that this is only good when you can make an educated, informed choice. If you can't, you need to be protected. And that's Apple's role.
I'm getting strong deja vu to arguments over authoritarian nanny states in this.
Even if I accept the contentious value judgment that people need to be guided and protected by an entity that has strongly conflicting interests to them, I still don't think this is a strong argument as the default browser would still be Safari. People with little to no understanding of what a browser is are hardly going to download some outdated fork of Netscape.
> Users can't make an informed choice about what browser engine they use. They don't understand what a browser engine is, and what impact it has on their security, battery performance and so on.
why do they have to make this choice, why can't they just use safari?
> Users can't make an informed choice about what browser engine they use. They don't understand what a browser engine is, and what impact it has on their security, battery performance and so on.
My 80+ year old grandma made the informed choice to use Firefox on macOS. She can't use Firefox on her iPhone. She wants to use Firefox everywhere. She disagrees with you.
Not necessarily - if an app I am required to use for work chooses to use Chrome/whatever as its engine, for example, I don't have a choice there. Same for my bank / doctor / school / etc.
What kinds of penalties do you have in mind? Do you think Safari should be held up to the same standard other browsers are if they surpass it in security or privacy on any front?
Those guarantees are currently provided by Apple and you seem to trust them. What would stop you from chosing alternative browsers from other companies you trust to provide the same guarantees ?
Apple were heavily relying on Google and Yahoo from maps, integrated web search, to weather data for a long time. At no point they asked you if you wanted to give your location to Yahoo.
Would you give a pass to Apple for how they handled privacy in the past and not to Mozilla who comparatively had only a few hiccups ?
Let's leave the goalposts where they are. Besides, I'm extremely confident that Apple only ever used Google for mapping in the early days of iOS/iPhone OS. In which case, if you took the time to read the ToS, it's there.
They stayed on Google Maps for 4~5 years until the writing was on the wall that it wouldn’t help them in the future (android being the elephant in the room). They still happily relied on whoever service they could rely on. Do you remember the facebook and twitter accounts setup directly in the system preferences ? Or right now they’re still sending data to Weatherchannel, until they complete Dark Sky’s integration I assume.
Service providers where mostly in the deal to get user data, and Apple’s push on privacy only started well into Cook’s tenure.
But you have trust in them in their current business position (it only was “the early days”). By that token I don’t think it’s unrealistic to assume at some point you’ll find other companies that are either new or show they changed enough to get your trust.
And they tell you this is happening. The links I shared illustrate Google and Mozilla doing things without asking or informing the user. Apple do indeed have form in this area too, battery/processor throttling springs to mind.
With regards maps, although what this has to do with your original question is beyond me, Apple informed the user very clearly on where the data is from and what data they were collecting, they still do. It was originally a combination of TomTom and OpenStreetMap, by the way.
Also, Jobs was pushing privacy in 2010 - "Privacy means people know what they're signing up for, in plain English and repeatedly. I believe people are smart and some people want to share more data than other people do. Ask them. Ask them every time. Make them tell you to stop asking them if they get tired of your asking them. Let them know precisely what you're going to do with their data."
I agree that companies can change. Big companies rarely do. I'm concerned that it's only a matter of time before Mozilla make the decision to switch to blink, which would be the end for them and the open web.
Interestingly, of the complaints made in this article, 6 are Editors Drafts, not agreed upon standards, or Working Drafts, again experimental un-agreed 'standards'. I'll concede that a working draft is close enough to being standardised. The rest, bar one, are implemented in WebKit. So the complaint in the article is that the WebKit project is holding up the web by not including Google's experimental features in a bid to say Apple should be allowing other, less secure rendering engines on a platform where users store a ridiculous amount of PII. It's being framed as 'freedom' - I'm sceptical. They'll be caterwauling about 'choice', but by enforcing 'choice', there is very real, and frankly sinister, risk that it will be lost irrevocably along with any semblance of an open web. Careful what you wish for.
I don’t remember my parents losing sleep at night because third party ISP couldn’t get the same access to copper lines. Yet we got meaningful regulation of that market.
I think as long as there’s big enough third parties losing money there is hope for change.
In terms of competition law, the skins-over-webkit they do allow are plenty.
Anti-trust doesn't so much care about competition to improve web APIs. Because it's not really a market, what with no money changing hands etc.
In MS/IE/Netscape times, the idea of licensing browsers was still fresh. And, more importantly, browsers differed In more than just synthetic benchmark scores: IE had ActiveX plugins that weren't available for any browser or operating system, and those were widely used, discriminating against other OS, an actual market.
A similar situation would be Apple intentionally crippling Google Docs, or amazon.com. The changes to ads and tracking are the closest we've gotten in the last decade, and Apple has a pretty good case that they are doing so with the user's interest in mind.
