Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox
Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox
Mozilla is “extremely disappointed.”
smells like legally actionable monopolistic behavior. apple clearly needs to be broken up... when was the last time we did that?
That was literally the point of this ruling. The EU only has the power to enforce things in the EU and they can't force Apple to act differently outside of it.
Yeah, I don't think they read the article... Sovereignty only applies, well, in the bloc or nation.
see, apples a hard one… i usually agree with breaking companies up, but most of apples value comes from their extremely tight integration. would that be possible if they were separate? i don’t know - i wouldn’t want to lose the value that i get from apple products
like, how would that work?
you’d usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely
or iphone, mac, homepod? airdrop between devices, airplay, etc is pretty seamless and i’m not sure how well that’d work if they were separated… and again the m series chips are there because they planned for scaling up an iphone to mac size quite a while ago
retail maybe - that could be a good option, but honestly probably a drop in the ocean and wouldn’t solve anything
perhaps if they separated app store from the rest of apple, or music - like a services division? they’re not so tightly integrated (yet)
or perhaps they should just be separated and be made to deal with it - then we would hope they don’t get a bunch of shit business majors in to run them who don’t understand apple and want to make their turf as profitable as possible… but that always ends up happening eventuallly
you’d usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely
You don't need to split the OS, it's the App store that needs to be split out, and web browser to be free to choose like in Windows and Android. Microsoft had a judgement on that when they were a monopoly, so they were legally required to offer alternative web browsers equal access on Windows.
Integration between products can be done well through standards and public apis. Apple just doesn't expose this functionality to other developers because they want you stuck in their system because of the benefits of the integration between products.
I mean, yeah, turns out that when you are in a quasi monopolistic position in many different markets and you get to decide the rules for all of your competitors you can absolutely integrate your "ecosystem" very smoothly. Go figure.
Their stubbornness on this makes the software/hardware divide the most obvious and a good place to start. Right now they're keeping the hardware hostage to benefit first party software and exclude everyone else's. That clearly has to change.
Just an opinion, but if they were forced to use open standards between products then it would still be easy to tightly integrate features between the various "companies". The problem is this would also allow everyone else to play alongside them, meaning Apple would no longer have a monopoly on such things, and the open standards might even gasp be used by other operating systems. But what do I know about Apple products, they may already be using open standards?
"Tight integration" means the company's software works well with their other software. It doesn't mean locking out all others, whether they integrate well or not.
If there's any company that doesn't need to be broken up, it's Apple. They only really have 3 core functions: hardware, software, and cloud services. And the cloud services really only matter to people using their hardware and software.
A better approach for Apple specifically are pro-consumer regulations. Breaking them up seems unnecessary to me.
This argument is dumb, open up the specs, APIs, etc and allow integration with their products. There's no reason only Apple should be able to write software for these products. The specification makes the product appear seamless, there's no reason it couldn't remain so if others developed or manufactured for the platform.
I'm fine with Apple retaining interoperability between their first party software products, they just need a way to bypass the walled garden. If they have sideloading (everywhere and without restrictions) and ideally also bootloader unlocking, they provide a sanctioned path around the walls of their ecosystem and now it's up to the user to choose to leave that garden. If the user is comfortable there, they can stay. Trying to fuck over sideloading is the issue here. I'm fine with the App Store being restrictive if there's a way around it, and simply sideloading an app shouldn't break the rest of the OS's capabilities.
yep, you have great points. also everythings cloud-y, so no geographic lines to draw ala ma bell. not a ton of diversification.
theyre building a car though?
There’s no monopoly. Use an Android.
Well, not really, because you could use android, and it commands 70% of the global market share
Also, the way the law is, you have to have both a monopoly & also be causing substantial harm to the public. I.e. you can have a monopoly if it's really nice and more like a public utility. So after the Microsoft antitrust case (for basically same thing), it's been very hard to justify breaking up tech companies or banks
If a company acquires its monopoly by using business acumen, innovation and superior products, it is regarded to be legal; if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern
For example, business can defense that its business conducts bring merits for consumers
(Wikipedia)
What happened with Microsoft browser tie ins antitrust?
Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins
So in short, Apple's legal / business strategy here is totally solid. Arguably helps users, defended by precedent, and doesn't dominate market share. Of course they have to debate all this
if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern
Hey, ChatGPT ...?
Closed Ecosystem: Apple is known for its closed ecosystem, which can limit users' choices. For instance, iOS users can only download apps from the App Store, and Apple tightly controls the app approval process.
Proprietary Connectors: Apple often uses proprietary connectors and cables, such as the Lightning port, which can be inconvenient for users who want more universal standards like USB-C.
Repairability Issues: Apple products are often criticized for being difficult to repair. For example, the company discourages third-party repairs and designs its products with components that are challenging to replace.
Serious dumb question, how is it considered a monopoly? What forms the monopoly?
The company? If so, what is the proposal? Apple HW team is separate company from SW team? Apple phones and Apple computers are separated?
The app store? There's only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldn't make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
What is constitutes the monopoly and what's the proposed fix?
I'd say that forcing Apple to make it easy to install other operative systems in their hardware would be a good start. And yes, making firmware available for those.
If Apple were to be splitted, I'd separate the whole iPhone branch from the rest of the company.
The app store? There's only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldn't make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
those had enough competitors and weren't the richest companies in the world. Although if it was my decision, I'd force them to open the hardware up too and allow third party software not approved by the manufacturer.
People are paying for the hardware, they should own it and not be imposed artificial limitations.
Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
No, but Playstation games did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Bleemcast! And Sony sued them but failed
Apple doesn’t have a monopoly they have a platform that a lot of other organisations (including Mozilla) depend on. The EU has legislated restrictions for any platform that is in that position.
They drew a line in the sand for what size a platform needs to be for this new legislation to apply and Xbox isn’t big enough.
It doesn't, the poster just doesn't like Apple (neither do I) and those are apparently magic words for "stop this company I don't like."
Allowing different markets seems like the only alternative to side loading/homebrew. It was easier to develop games back in the day when you didn't have too grovel to the device company overlords, this regulation just takes us back to that (sort of).
Probably like 15-20 years ago when Microsoft was forced to de-bundle IE with Windows.
I absolutely love how Mozilla has been calling out Apple, Google, and Microsoft. So good.
Sad thing is they don't have enough pull to make people listen.
Well they recently got people to get scared of what car manufacturers want to do with all sensitive data they get access to, who knows
They still gladly accept Google's sweet money (while asking for donations). So brave of them! /s
Of course, they want to make it as complicated as possible so that people don't actually do it.
This is why I support Linux and open source stuff whenever I can. Always used Firefox. Linux on the server and desktop. Doesn't work for everyone but it's the last free open thing we've got. What's been great about Linux is now that basically everything is a Web app Linux is the perfect OS. But now we are dealing with bullshit browser wars. Uhg. Firefox will be the Linux if browsers in no time.
Bro legit question, why can't all the app developers pull their app from apple store. Within no time apple will change its tune
Because app developers have to jump through a lot of hoops to get into the app store, and even if every single app was pulled then the developers would have to jump through all those hoops again. And this time, Apple won't make it easy. Meanwhile, they are hemorrhaging money for every minute their app is not on the app store. On the other hand, Apple would give incentives to new applicants to replace everything that was pulled, and the app store returns to relatively normal within 24 hours since there are tons of apps out there that just aren't popular enough to be on the app store at the moment. Would you want to be the first developer to pull their app?
It would take a google or a Meta to pull out for Apple to actually care. Which is why they already have special deals around the general rules anyway
Would you pay for the missed income then? Who would?
Apple recently became the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world (not just NA), and have 61% of the US market.
Nobody with a brain is pulling out of that.
The 30% fee developers keep complaining about has been in place from the start, so they really should have protested the app store at launch. Now they're too dependent on app revenue for any kind of protest.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Apple’s new rules in the European Union mean browsers like Firefox can finally use their own engines on iOS.
Although this may seem like a welcome change, Mozilla spokesperson Damiano DeMonte tells The Verge it’s “extremely disappointed” with the way things turned out.
“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte says.
In iOS 17.4, Apple will no longer force browsers in the EU to use WebKit, the underlying engine that powers Safari.
“Apple’s proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari,” DeMonte adds.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the new terms a “horror show,” while Spotify said the changes are a “farce.” Apple’s guidelines are still pending approval by the EU Commission.
The original article contains 285 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 50%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Lmao i was calling apple out earlier in a thread for this exact reason!!!
Fuck Apple
More people should buy apple products. Let's end humanity...woohooo I am going crazy living in this shitty world.
Is anyone really surprised by this?
Well, to be fair the EU can't force Apple to change outside of its territories, and it makes sense that Apple prefers to maintain the status-quo untill other countries will follow EU example with similar regulations.
I can see Mozilla's point there, but this scenario, even it it's not optimal, still seems me a better one compared to the All-WebKit-Everywhere one. If Mozilla struggles to maintain two versions of Firefox for iOS, I'd say they can drop the useless WebKit version and just maintain the real version for EU only market (untill other markets will follow).
How many people are currently choosing FF in favour of Safari on iOS after all?
The problem is that Firefox desperately needs more users and even those who use the WebKit version are better than nothing. The WebKit version at least gets the name of Firefox out there.
I am a Firefox user both on desktop and on my android phone. And not only to support Mozilla in keeping the browser engine competition alive, but also because of some really good features that alternatives are missing (respectively Multi-Account containers on desktop and extensions on Android).
On my iPad, though, I tried using Firefox (even just to have bookmarks and history synced) but it’s really just a reskin of Safari with worse integration with the system and less features. Therefore I moved back to safari.
Why am I telling this? Because for any non tech-savvy user, if their first experience with FF is on their iPhone / iPad (with the WebKit version), they will probably not like it, and eventually associate in their mind “Firefox = bad browser”, preventing them to give it a try on their desktop. So, from a certain point of view, maybe getting rid of the WebKit version would help Mozilla gather some more users on the other platforms in the long term…
I used FF on my phone for a while, back when my old MacBook was stuck on a version of macOS that didn't offer iCloud syncing. Firefox on both devices worked perfectly, but I always slightly preferred to use Safari wherever possible.
These days I keep FF on my Mac for if ever I need a second browser, and it's the first thing I install if I ever need to setup a Windows VM.
Apple: hold my beer!
I don't get it though. I mean it should only be as bad as before. It shouldn't be worse now. If maintaining two browsers is too much work, they'll just maintain the WebKit version as before. Browsers aren't forced to use their own engine where they can, right? Even though of course it would be best if they were allowed to use their own engine everywhere. 👍 But the point is it shouldn't be worse now. Only equally shitty. At least for developers. From a goodwill standpoint it should be putting Apple in a worse light for sure. 🫤