Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#61

Post by tgv »

nixass wrote: post #27
tgv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a wrapper around Safari? It's a capable and efficient browser. Firefox can wrap its bookmark sharing and whatever around it (I actually use Firefox on iOS, though I don't bother with the profile sharing). We don't need Safari to be 100% Chrome compatible, right? That's just for lazy programmers and greedy marketeers.

It's literally crap and lacks features. See Firefox on Android, compare it to iOS and update your post

That's an absurd statement. I have an Android tablet, and Firefox on that is definitely less agreeable than on iOS. The way it handles tabs, searches, private windows, and data settings, are all inferior on Android. It does have more extensions.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#62

Post by ccouzens »

native_samples wrote: post #56
throwaway4good wrote: post #12

What are you going to do about it? A symbolic fine? There are no alternatives.

The obvious one would be to fine Apple until they implement Android-style mechanisms for openness. As pointed out above, although they're being lumped together, Android is leagues more open than iOS. Does it even make sense to talk about an Android "stranglehold" when the OS is forkable and many vendors have their own spins on it, with new features often appearing there first before Google even have it themselves? In…

> Does it even make sense to talk about an Android "stranglehold" when the OS is forkable and many vendors have their own spins on it,

There are improvements to be had here.

> The agreement (to pre-install Google play) places a company-wide ban on Android forks, saying OEMs are forbidden from taking "any actions that may cause or result in the fragmentation of Android"

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-lice...

For better or for worse this restriction limits the ability for an Android fork to get off the ground.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#63

Post by MCArth »

agust wrote: post #57

To clarify what this is about regarding Apple: After a year long market study, the CMA has concluded that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market, as well as limit the capabilities of web apps on iOS and on the entire mobile eco-system. They note that it is obviously to their own benefit, as a weaker web on iOS results in a stronger exclusive and captive native app eco-sys…

Music to my ears - from my own experience, safari is a pain to deal with. I've run into many bugs that haven't been fixed for years, and they've lagged behind in implementing standards like WebGL 2.

Hopefully this will force them to invest more resources into safari and webkit

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#64

Post by tgv »

NonNefarious wrote: post #29
tgv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a wrapper around Safari? It's a capable and efficient browser. Firefox can wrap its bookmark sharing and whatever around it (I actually use Firefox on iOS, though I don't bother with the profile sharing). We don't need Safari to be 100% Chrome compatible, right? That's just for lazy programmers and greedy marketeers.

What's wrong is that you're stuck with the same shitty browser engine. If you encounter a problem with WebKit, you're screwed. Think it through.

No post body was provided.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#65

Post by the_other »

agust wrote: post #57

To clarify what this is about regarding Apple: After a year long market study, the CMA has concluded that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market, as well as limit the capabilities of web apps on iOS and on the entire mobile eco-system. They note that it is obviously to their own benefit, as a weaker web on iOS results in a stronger exclusive and captive native app eco-sys…

IMO, at this point, Apple’s resistance to allowing other browser engines is the only viable resistance to a Blink/Chromium monopoly.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#66

Post by tempodox »

agust wrote: post #57

To clarify what this is about regarding Apple: After a year long market study, the CMA has concluded that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market, as well as limit the capabilities of web apps on iOS and on the entire mobile eco-system. They note that it is obviously to their own benefit, as a weaker web on iOS results in a stronger exclusive and captive native app eco-sys…

I would hope that this ends with Apple being pressured to make changes. Whether Apple will comply in a way that meets the spirit of the requirement is an entirely different question. I can see them allowing other engines, hamstringing them or otherwise adding friction, and blaming it on “security” reasons.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#67

Post by isodev »

neximo64 wrote: post #25

It's interesting to hear Apple always talk about the level playing field they've tried to create. From within the company i think they really believe they've got a level playing field. But then Apple has apps that can do much more than everyone else has access to, in ways that have nothing to do with security or privacy. - Apps access to NFC (e.g Apple Pay vs you being able to make your own nfc card) - Inability to h…

> Inability to have non WKWebView type browsers. Safari can do the one it wants, which is Apples choice.

This is primarily for privacy and security reasons. One wouldn't want a funny casino app, or the likes of Google or Facebook to hijack people's web access.

Another aspect is the user experience - a piece of web content will render exactly the same way anywhere on the system. There is no need for people to be concerned with webapps asking absurd things like "Download browser X to view this page".

A third aspect is actually very helpful to developers - you can count on 100% of the APIs you intent to use being available on the system's web browser, creating in-app experiences significantly easier (and cheaper) to develop.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#68

Post by tgv »

Gigachad wrote: post #30
tgv wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Samsung browser is a Chromium wrapper. Some people dismiss wrappers around Safari on iOS, although I think there are more important things to worry about than exactly which rendering engine gets used.

The rendering engine is less important than the JS apis. Safari is missing half of them and some of them are flat out broken.

Safari is not missing anything of value: it's mainly access to USB, Bluetooth and such which have no place in a browser. And Firefox doesn't support many of them either. It's just Google trying to get more data about you.

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#69

Post by boudin »

nvrspyx wrote: post #59
boudin wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit like IE in the 2000s, it was possible to install an alternative browser on Windows but the fact that IE was pre-installed and set as default meant that it was very hard for competitors to get in the market. This is a similar situation on Android.

Ok, but IE continued to be pre-installed and set as default. Now, it's Edge. It was that IE was set as default AND Microsoft restricted the API for third-party browsers.

Not everywhere, in the EU a ruling forbid Microsoft to do that and when installing Windows, the user was prompted to choose a browser. It was there for quite a while: https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/windows-8-ge...

Re: Apple and Google’s mobile browser ‘stranglehold’ may face UK investigation

#70

Post by tgv »

II2II wrote: post #43
tgv wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a wrapper around Safari? It's a capable and efficient browser. Firefox can wrap its bookmark sharing and whatever around it (I actually use Firefox on iOS, though I don't bother with the profile sharing). We don't need Safari to be 100% Chrome compatible, right? That's just for lazy programmers and greedy marketeers.

The issue is that the dominant engine developer uses their market position to push their competitors out of the market or to define their own web standards. The former is what happened with IE in the late 1990's. The latter is what is happening with the Blink and V8 engines today. As for 100% compatibility, most people will regard unexpected results as bugs or hindrances then switch to a compatible browser. You may b…

If Apple were forced to allow Chrome on iOS, Chrome's influence would grow even stronger. So why do you think that's an argument against wrappers around Safari?
Post reply on HN