Good! What an absolutely ridiculous argument. Glad it got booted right away.
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
443 points (99.6% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, π©πͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
" Same Safari. Different device "
It reminds me when it tried to patent a tap as a 0-length swipe. Scummy.
I'm glad that the EC countered the argument of Apple strongly. Because you'd assume that the legal team of Apple consists of some capable lawyers, possibly even old members of the EC? At some point I'm scared that even the EC would be outmatched but we're not there, it seems.
It was a pretty crap arguement given the European commission were able to counter the arguement using Apple's own marketing.
Safari on iOS: Browse the web.
Safari on macOS: Browse the web.
Safari on iPadOS: Browse the web.
Apple: NooOOo!!1! They're cOmpLETelY diFeRrENt!!11!!!
EU: STFU, idiot!
Well, I guess that was to be expected from a patent troll. I'm glad I don't use any Apple products.
also isnt this about webkit, not safari?
you can have other browsers on all 3 platforms, but they all have to use webkit
This might have big implications for Google. If underlying technology is what determines if a browser is separate and distinct from an other one. Then all chromium browsers could be considered one browser.
Especially with chromium powering not just Chrome but edge, brave, Vivaldi, opera, Samsung internet browser etc. This makes it the default on four major operating systems, and the majority of the global market. It also makes up the majority of alternative browsers.
This is a real problem. Google have defacto control over the internet and the standards thar define how people access it. This is a big issue for Safari right now, because chromium is based on safaris web kit. However, Google forked web kit and it is going to continue to diverge. We will see less sites work on safari in the future, similar to how we see less sites work in Firefox.
This is really bad, because it forces users to use a Chromium based browser. People that prefer safari or Firefox are often compelled to install chrome because they need a website to work correctly. Despite chrome being clunkier, less battery efficient and more spyware.
I think the EU should force all significant operating systems sold to commercial users to provide an option for web browsers. This should include windows, iOS/MacOs, android, pre-installed (Linux), android and possibly chromeOS.
How the internet is accessed and the standards it adheres to are very important. It should be a truly open consortium defining these standards.
We are heading towards the same issue we had with internet explorer. This time the issue will be two major browsers rather than one (chrome and Safari). This will also be hidden by the illusion of choice between all the chromium variants. Firefox is great, but it's not got the default power like it's competitors.
Considering they're all run by different companies, I'd disagree with you there.
They all use the same open-source codebase, but they all have their own proprietary features added on top by different companies.
To be clear, I do agree that Google is basically controlling the market through their open-source code, but I disagree that they can all be called a single web browser.
It's interesting they have declared chrome a gatekeeper, but not Samsung internet browser. They are also investigating edge.
On example cited by Apple is Safariβs sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history.
I think this is why Safari is one browser. In my eyes, Chromium-based browsers are distinct enough. Yet if Safari's difference is mere sidebar... you don't claim those three to be distinct browsers.
All chromium browsers are simply settings and UI tweeks. Some have additional features, but how they operate and how they render websites is the same.
If they were separate and distinct, they would fork chromium. Developing the core of the web browser separately.
They don't. The take the new chromium build and merge it with their browser software. If safari used different UI design, logos and removed the shared history and settings features from each platform. It would have the same practical distinctions as chromium variants.
I didn't read this novel but that's a false equivalency for sure
He's articulating the problem of a single entity controlling web standards. It is a huge problem and both apple and Google are trying to kill competition in different ways, but the goal is equivalent.
No it isn't, Google is already trying to abuse their near monopoly with Chromium
Surely then they wouldn't mind being split into three different companies!
Maybe there is something I don't understand but is it possible to install and use macOS safari version on iOS? I don't understand how it can be a good / serious argument from Apple ???
I would think to be compliant with regulation you should effectively be able to install an alternative on your device? Which I believe is possible since there is a firefox on iOS. Even though as far as I know all browser on iOS are powered by the same underlying engine.
Apple does force all web browsers on their devices to use the safari engine. Which is what the lawsuit is about:
Apple is now obliged to ensure that Safari adheres to the DMA's requirements, such as by allowing non-WebKit-based browsers on iOS and iPadOS.
Is DMA good? I read due to DMA you have to connect the new PS5 the first time to use the blue ray disc
It was not a serious argument, it was a half assed hail Mary that the lawyers pulled off to shut up the overgrown toddlers that make up the higher management in big companies. Have you seen the tantrums they throw when someone tells them no?
So they won't mind being split into three different companies, right?