121–130 of 206 posts
Why can't someone take Apple to court and argue that developers should be able to build native web browser apps without relying on the Web View component? We have st3fan saying "Firefox Focus" is not ideal because he's had to use the older and slower WKWebView to implement it. Isn't this similar to Microsoft when they were forced to allow a choice of browser, or do Apple get away with it because they allow alternativ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why should third party developers forced to use the engine Apple provides, instead of trying to innovate? The whole point of having different browsers is to have competition (which means better performance/new features), but currently in the iOS world there is Safari and multiple reskinned Safaris.
Because of security, browsers are a huge vector of attack.
That's not a valid reason. With per-app sandboxing. At worst a non-Apple native browser that escape the confines of the web page and be subject to app security.
That amounts to using "security" as an argument for not being allowed to do something with the reason as, "Because we're smart and you're not".
Why can't someone take Apple to court and argue that developers should be able to build native web browser apps without relying on the Web View component? We have st3fan saying "Firefox Focus" is not ideal because he's had to use the older and slower WKWebView to implement it. Isn't this similar to Microsoft when they were forced to allow a choice of browser, or do Apple get away with it because they allow alternativ…
http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/10/07/french-company-sue...
Works really well! First I joked about how it's the perfect browser for watching adult content on the go (which it is :P) but it's rather impressive. The execution is really smooth, there's just enough options and it's really fast; there's even an option for blocking web fonts. Great work!
Why can't someone take Apple to court and argue that developers should be able to build native web browser apps without relying on the Web View component? We have st3fan saying "Firefox Focus" is not ideal because he's had to use the older and slower WKWebView to implement it. Isn't this similar to Microsoft when they were forced to allow a choice of browser, or do Apple get away with it because they allow alternativ…
Apple gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly. There's a large variety of non-Apple smartphones and tablets you can buy. Microsoft's behavior was restricted because they were a monopoly. There were alternatives to Windows, but the court decided that they were sufficiently insignificant that Windows was effectively a monopoly. That changes the rules. Windows market share at the time was about 95%, Apple's…
By virtue of Apple integrating the operating system with hardware, iOS has a defacto 100% monopoly on devices compatible with Apple's Ax series chips (e.g. A9 in iPhone 6s). There's nothing illegal about that.
The market for Ax series devices is now larger than the Intel-compatible PC market was at under consideration during the Microsoft antitrust case.
The question then is whether Apple's policies stifle innovation and harm consumers. I think the answer is "yes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But why should third party developers forced to use the engine Apple provides, instead of trying to innovate? The whole point of having different browsers is to have competition (which means better performance/new features), but currently in the iOS world there is Safari and multiple reskinned Safaris.
Stop talking about 'reskinned safari' please. This is not how it works. It is not what those alternative browsers currently are. You make it sound like we just change the color of the bezel. There are huge amounts of code around the WKWebView, which is the only thing common between browsers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly. There's a large variety of non-Apple smartphones and tablets you can buy. Microsoft's behavior was restricted because they were a monopoly. There were alternatives to Windows, but the court decided that they were sufficiently insignificant that Windows was effectively a monopoly. That changes the rules. Windows market share at the time was about 95%, Apple's…
As I understand antitrust law, it is legal for a monopoly in one market to expand into an adjacent market. However, if that monopoly stifles competition in the adjacent market in a way that harms consumers, that monopolist’s acts are illegal. By virtue of Apple integrating the operating system with hardware, iOS has a defacto 100% monopoly on devices compatible with Apple's Ax series chips (e.g. A9 in iPhone 6s). The…
Back in the MS monopoly days, there were a ton of things people wanted to do where they had no choice but to buy Windows if they wanted to do them. Today, there is very little that people do which requires an iOS device. Apple has many closed features (the App Store, iMessage, iCloud) but open equivalents are available. Almost nobody is buying an iPhone because they need an iPhone in particular to do something. They're buying iPhones because they need a smartphone, and they prefer an iPhone.
I am very much not a fan of Apple's approach here, I just don't see anything illegal about it.
"Cannot download. This app is not compatible with your device." Um…what? I'm on an iPhone 5! Not that ancient!
Fun fact: I still have an iPad Mini 1 running some very ancient version of iOS that I use once in a while for single-page browsing. It gets the job done for very short sessions. I'm amazed the battery is still good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple gets away with it because they don't have a monopoly. There's a large variety of non-Apple smartphones and tablets you can buy. Microsoft's behavior was restricted because they were a monopoly. There were alternatives to Windows, but the court decided that they were sufficiently insignificant that Windows was effectively a monopoly. That changes the rules. Windows market share at the time was about 95%, Apple's…
As I understand antitrust law, it is legal for a monopoly in one market to expand into an adjacent market. However, if that monopoly stifles competition in the adjacent market in a way that harms consumers, that monopolist’s acts are illegal. By virtue of Apple integrating the operating system with hardware, iOS has a defacto 100% monopoly on devices compatible with Apple's Ax series chips (e.g. A9 in iPhone 6s). The…
Sure, and equivalently Apple has a 100% monopoly on Apple devices. How does that make sense? One problem with anti-trust laws is that the market is not well-defined. Is the relevant market Apple phones? Smartphones above some price point? Smartphones at a price point? All smartphones? We can always pick and choose to make it seem like a company has a monopoly.