131–140 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using that logic of Edge being counted as Chrome, why dont we consider 100% of the iOS browser market to be Safari?
Chrome was forked from WebKit but had been it’s own engine for a very long time at this point. They share ancestry but are pretty different. Edge is literally built off a relatively recent version of Chromium. It’s not a separate engine.
I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…
That's the whole purpose of this post. Instead you want to fear monger and deflect from a sore subject for Apple.
Tl;dr - "Profitable company makes reasonable decision to stay profitable." I don't really understand why the walled garden seems to still surprise so many people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The size of macOS market is not relevant for the point being made here. What matters is that macOS is very similar to iOS in that it is owned by Apple, Safari is available on it, and comes pre-installed. The only difference is that on macOS browser competition is not banned by Apple. Yet, Safari still has around 60% market share on macOS. So there is a good chance that even if competition where allowed on iOS, Safari…
> The size of macOS market is not relevant for the point being made here. I disagree. There are already plenty of sites that are broken on macOS Safari because it's a niche platform. The only saving grace is that websites still have to support iOS Safari. If vendors were able to say "we only support Chrome" on iOS as well, I think that 60% macOS Safari marketshare would drop rapidly due to necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Short term, it's decidedly not good, but long term? How can we know? History. > If the approach is so inherently flawed that this result is an inevitability Only an inevitability due to attitudes like yours. Please stop contributing/pushing for the end of the open web.
Man, I use Firefox for Christ sake. You don't have to be anti open web to know letting anti-competitive behaviour run rampant is even worse than having the open web that we have today. Your perspective is as insane to me as mine is to you. Don't let a corporation make decisions about your computing freedom for you. Anti-competitive behaviour from both sides is why we're in this situation (Apple/Safari/Chrome) to begi…
Tl;dr - "Profitable company makes reasonable decision to stay profitable." I don't really understand why the walled garden seems to still surprise so many people.
Apple claiming security as a reason for monopoly, how classic. The EU's digital markets act bans the only Safari lock on IOS, so this is gone whether apple likes it or not. (1 - sorry couldn't find a better source) Safari is the new IE, there is a difference between a monopoly while still being able to use a competing product (like chrome in other platfroms), and forcing Safari(WebKit) while hindering the web because…
Ehm. Chrome is the new IE. Apple is using anti-competitive methods but its far far away from market domination.
Microsoft is doing even more, by pushing so much Edge-only stuff.
On iOS Apple forces the Webkit rendering, but for normal user it does not even matter much. They can download Chrome and get the UI they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. If Chrome reaches certifiable monopoly levels, it becomes easier to use anti-monopolistic instruments to force them to unbundle browser-making from other activities - which is really how things should be.
I think this won’t work because Chrome doesn’t have independent business model. Also, if Chrome is removed from Google they could create another alternative based on Chromium since it’s open source.
Wut? Independent browsers existed before Google, and still do.
The browser is such a key element of the web experience that the possibilities for commercial exploitation are fundamentally endless; the number of players in the space is kept low only by the amount of resources required to really compete with the biggest IT companies on the planet. If you could forbid such players from being in the market, you'd see a plethora of new entrants.
> if Chrome is removed from Google they could create another alternative based on Chromium
The point is not to remove Chrome, the point is to forbid web-giants like Google from being in the browser market, because it enables monopolistic practices towards their web properties. So they would obviously be forbidden from restarting the project as "ReChrome" or whatever.
I’m going to ignore the security angle and post my big fear. Chrome has dominance similar to IE at the height of its popularity. Whatever you think of their decisions, Apple is the only thing stopping a 90%+ Chrome web. (Note: not why they’re doing it, just a side effect) People keep arguing Apple is being anti-competitive. But no one seems to recon with the possible consequences of what they’re asking for. And I fea…
I don't think the IE comparison is apt. IE shipped on (almost) every machine, had a ton of lock in features like ActiveX, etc. MS actively abused their monopoly position to make it so preventing default installation of Netscape by OEMs, incentivising ISVs to ensure web based enterprise products shipped with "Works best in Internet Explorer" etc. Netscape lost market share to IE not because it lost users but because w…
It's good for Google when Chrome is good. So Google has a great incitament to improve Chrome. The only drawbacks would be proprietary functionality others can't use.
Edit: Apple is also not claiming what the title suggests (source would be needed), the author of the tweet seems to just interpret it this way.