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

Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 206 posts

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#91

Post by JustSomeNobody »

planetjones wrote: post #85

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…

Because they have nearly quarter of a trillion dollars to say no with.

Edit for magnitude.

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#93

Post by mikeash »

planetjones wrote: post #85

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 smartphone market share is in the neighborhood of 15-20%.

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#95

Post by module0000 »

tdkl wrote: post #87
planetjones wrote: post #85

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…

While it sucks, Apple doesn't have the majority of the market.

This! Without a majority, the concept of antitrust isn't applicable or even on the US justice dept's radar.

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#96

Post by pvg »

planetjones wrote: post #85

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…

The older, slower, more API-rich component FF Focus uses is UIWebView. And it's not at all similar to Microsoft because they were never 'forced to allow a choice of browser'. Apple also doesn't have a market share as dominant as Microsoft did and does not attract the same level of regulatory scrutiny.

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#97

Post by jamchris »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #91
planetjones wrote: post #85

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…

Because they have nearly quarter of a trillion dollars to say no with. Edit for magnitude.

There was an anti-trust case against Microsoft, they also have some money in the bank, so no this is for sure not the reason

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#98

Post by izacus »

mikeash wrote: post #93
planetjones wrote: post #85

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…

Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't monopoly law (at least in EU) dependant on the companies market power (e.g. the ability to sway market / damage consumer rights), not market share?

Re: Firefox Focus – a free, fast and easy to use private browser for iOS

#99

Post by delecti »

Jtsummers wrote: post #90
roadnottaken wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can argue that Apple has a monopoly on smart-phone OSes, so it's not really an anti-trust issue like it was with MSFT. If you don't like it, get a different phone.

That was also only one part of the anti-trust case against Microsoft. They, at the time, had a very aggressive policy towards competitors and potential competitors. Going so far as, among other things, threatening to charge OEM PC manufacturers (IIRC, HP in particular) more for their Windows licenses (versus the discounted rate they got, eating into their margins or pushing their prices up) if they sold PCs with non-…

Not to mention that that was MS imposing restrictions on devices sold by other manufacturers. This is them imposing restrictions on their own devices running their own software. I imagine there's a much higher bar for shenanigans before anything they do in that regard could get them in trouble.
Post reply on HN