Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are “as painful as possible” for Firefox

pete_the_cat , 4 months ago

Is anyone really surprised by this?

sturmblast , 4 months ago

Fuck Apple

Pulptastic , 4 months ago

Apple: hold my beer!

victorz , 4 months ago

I don't get it though. I mean it should only be as bad as before. It shouldn't be worse now. If maintaining two browsers is too much work, they'll just maintain the WebKit version as before. Browsers aren't forced to use their own engine where they can, right? Even though of course it would be best if they were allowed to use their own engine everywhere. 👍 But the point is it shouldn't be worse now. Only equally shitty. At least for developers. From a goodwill standpoint it should be putting Apple in a worse light for sure. 🫤

Fedegenerate , 4 months ago

When a company' website doesn't work on Firefox I don't get angry at Firefox, I just don't use the site. When a company makes their cookie popups are a pain in the ass I don't get angry at the EU, I get angry at the company that made the popup. I use Firefox as a Canary that dies when a website is a piece of shit.

Maybe it's a win-win, I don't have to deal with Apple's bullshit and Apple doesn't have to waste resources on me, for me to block all their shady shit.

le_saucisson_masquay , 4 months ago

Got to buy material for house renovation, several hundreds € of saving if I bought on one website that didn’t work with Firefox. Guess what I did.

Almost everyone choose money and commodity over everything else. Firefox is doomed to fail, and I say that as Firefox user.

UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT , 4 months ago

You could have said the same for Internet Explorer some years ago, and they got their lunch eaten despite being free AND the default owned by a monopoly

Aux , 4 months ago

The difference is that Google had the capital and a monopoly itself. Mozilla doesn't have shit.

zuch0698o , 4 months ago

Except and arguably better product in the browser space?

Aux , 4 months ago

Both Mozilla and Opera had better browsers.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Mozilla has a regular income from Google.

Aux , 4 months ago

Yeah, they're pretty much owned by Google, thus not a competitor.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

Google paying Firefox explicitly to make Google the default search engine. That doesn’t mean they own Firefox in any way shape or form. Firefox routinely makes anti Google decisions, and acts against googles interest. It’s pretty clear they aren’t googles bitch.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Most of the revenue of Mozilla Corporation comes from Google (81% in 2022). They have influence.

The excuse of search engine funding is a fig leaf for the US and monopoly laws.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

Google pays every browser they can to make Google the default search engine. Including direct competitors, and companies that have a direct interest in going against Google. Companies like Apple, who butt heads with Google regularly.

That doesn’t mean they have influence.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Agreed. Those other companies don't rely on Google for 80% of their income. That's where the influence occurs.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

Can you point to an example of Mozilla bending the knee, in the slightest, on a subject Google would want them to have a different opinion than normal on?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

why doesn't Firefox adopt the features of AdBlock Plus and CustomizeGoogle

Google refuses to fix [a phishing enabling] flaw, as it believes that it is not a problem. Google also operates the Firefox phishing blacklist

https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/a-dangerous-conflict-of-interest-between-firefox-and-google/

KairuByte , 4 months ago

The first explicitly states its conjecture. In reality, it’s much more likely in my mind that Mozilla is not well suited to fast paced changes like the recent YouTube cat and mouse Adblock saga. Imagine if you were waiting not for an extension update, but a browser update.

The second isn’t even about Mozilla. They rely on Google for the anti phishing list. Is there a free and open alternative? I legitimately can’t find one. I can find paid alternatives, but I doubt users would be willing to pay.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

I believe these are reasonable examples of slightly bending of Mozillas knee to Google, as requested.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

The second one isn’t even Mozilla…

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Mozilla chooses to implement Google's phishing list.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

The alternative being?

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

A non Google supplier

KairuByte , 4 months ago

Such as?

Like, you’re pretty clear about not using Google. The question is, what service exists that is within their ability to pay (free)?

“They shouldn’t use google” is a fine argument, assuming it’s possible to stop using google without incurring huge fees and/or removing the functionality completely.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Why assume they won't pay?

Even for free they could support something like openphish.com and help it grow and maybe outclass Google.

The point is that we don't know the details of their agreement, nor the unwritten rules to guarantee continued support.

KairuByte , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

openphish.com would very likely buckle under the load. They’ve had ~2 million urls per day in the past seven days. There are 181 times that many users of Firefox.

Again, I get where you’re coming from. There’s just literally no viable alternative.

Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In , 4 months ago

Maybe there's no viable alternative because Firefox users are not supplying the demand.

However, rather have the current arrangement than no Firefox. But I suspect that Mozilla are not as free from Google as they would like to be.

LunarLoony , 4 months ago

However, if Google decided one day to yank 80% of Mozilla's income...

KairuByte , 4 months ago

Yeah that would be problematic to an extent. But I doubt that’ll happen, and if it did I’m sure it would continue just in a slower/reduced capacity.

le_saucisson_masquay , 4 months ago

Yes but Internet Explorer had massive issue, nowadays it’s Firefox that has compatibility issue, doesn’t have a platform where its default (Microsoft has windows/edge, android/chrome, iPhone/safari) and no meaningfull advantage on the other.

The cards are stacked against it, if only they could use Google money to get some advantage, like a better design. Right now if I open Firefox there is 3 row of sponsored clickbait articles. The reason I paid money for Mac is because I was fed up of the very same bullshit on windows, make something lean, sleek that works well and people might use it but here it’s a kind of dinosaur software that is even filled with sponsored articles.

ilinamorato , 4 months ago

But you're forgetting something important: Firefox is open-source, meaning that it is literally impossible for it to fail. Even if the Mozilla org goes down in flames tomorrow.

If Mozilla dies, someone else will become a maintainer for the Firefox open-source project. If they are compromised or bought out, someone will fork the project (again). If 100% of websites make some code change that forces them to only work on a Chromium rendering engine, the developers of one of the Firefox forks (or, more likely, all of them) will implement a fix within days that spoofs whatever signal the lock-in code requires. If some form of online DRM is implemented, it will be cracked and the solution will be made available online. Or the relevant chunk of Chromium will be copied and modified to generate that verification key on Firefox without telemetry.

The browser may never achieve market dominance, but it doesn't have to. It's on the Internet, and on the Internet nothing ever truly goes away.

le_saucisson_masquay , 4 months ago

Sure nothing goes away on the internet but things get deprecated. Keeping up with a browser development must require highly technical engineer, who often don’t work for free. If Mozilla were to disappear or get 80% of its budget removed (Google) one can doubt they would be able to keep up with the evolution of internet.

I mean just look at Linux desktop, people working on it for free is great but it’s slow, innefective and it goes to all direction at the same time. Without million of $ behind it, Firefox would be gone in a year or two whatever the amount of fork happening.

ilinamorato , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

That's just...not true on any level at all. Of course things get deprecated, but engineers work for free on open source projects all the time.

And you understand nothing about Linux development if you think its development is slow; the kernel already has stable support for Intel's Meteor Lake graphics, which were released only 43 days ago at the time of this comment.

The idea that Firefox would be "gone in a year or two" without Google's money ignores the reality that there are thousands of large, successful open-source projects without massive financial endowments, projects that are still continuously updated over years and even decades for no other reason than that the maintainers want to use them.

le_saucisson_masquay , 4 months ago

Misunderstanding, I was speaking of Linux desktop environment. You think I speak of Linux. Linux is backed by dozen of companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta. It sure doesn’t lack any fund. Now compare it to the Linux desktop environment where this is mostly people working for free, shit doesn’t get done in 43 days. For instance, Wayland has been out for several years and many environment still doesn’t work with it or have not even started working on it.

The closest open source project I can think of is libreoffice. Just check it, it lacks tons of functions compared to ms but most important is that it barely improved at all in years. Now doc document aren’t going to change drastically , file from the 90’s are still compatible but the web foundation it improves very fast. When I say 2 years I’m generous, its already half dead (3.14% user !), breaking compatibility would be the nail in the coffin.

ilinamorato , 4 months ago

Actually, LibreOffice is the perfect example, thank you. After OOo development went in a direction the community didn't agree with, the Document Foundation was formed and the project was immediately forked. 13½ years later, the project is still updated every six months. It has every necessary feature and supports all formats. A browser would be similar; web standards don't change that much. Wayland, by comparison, is currently a niche product for a niche product; it doesn't need the same support, and so it doesn't get it.

le_saucisson_masquay , 4 months ago

Well I admire your optimism, personally I don’t have much faith into open source project because their is often very little or no money for the developer.

ilinamorato , 4 months ago

The last forty years of FOSS software would beg to differ.

Eezyville , 4 months ago

I feel the same but I also cannot avoid some sites. Ohio's unemployment and job board only works with Chrome based sites and I have to use those when I'm in between jobs.

funkless_eck , 4 months ago

can you send fake device headers using a plug in?

Or can you use a stripped down version of Chromium?

Eezyville , 4 months ago

I just use Chromium or Edge. It's too much effort to be stubborn otherwise.

aStonedSanta , 4 months ago

This brings up an interesting thought though. Should governments and states be able to prefer you to use a certain browser or should they be required to make the website function on all..

Mocheeze , 4 months ago

Pretty sure the old fuckers in the legislature aren't writing that into the contracts. If you ask them what browser they're using they'll probably say "internet."

roertel , 4 months ago

Most government sites must be accessible to individuals with disabilities such as low vision or other imapirments. You can't require a blind person to use chrome to apply for a job.

rottingleaf , 4 months ago

They just ignore it, even if it's law somewhere, because "are you nuts, everybody's using Chrome, you are a luddite boomer, we'll do things the normal way".

Well, it would be nice to be enlightened about countries where government sites really are usable with screenreaders and\or Lynx.

Hagdos , 4 months ago

You would have to find a good definition of "all browsers", and I think that would be nearly impossible.

I absolutely agree that governments should support Firefox, that's a reasonable claim. But do they need to support the earliest version of netscape? Or the browser I made as a hobby project last week and published as open source? There's a limit to what's reasonable and workable.

jumping_redditor , 4 months ago

Conforms to a specific revision of HTML with a specific revision of JavaScript and css, also requiring it to not use any proprietary extensions of either HTML or JavaScript.

Or the government could just use PDFs and email, I think that might be able to accomplish all the functionality of most websites.

rottingleaf , 4 months ago

Specific versions of basic standards would do. HTML forms, as another comment says. With tables and CSS which doesn't make it unusable if your browser doesn't support CSS.

Buddahriffic , 4 months ago

As the others have mentioned, it's about following standards. Like if you specify a design for a plug using standard measurement units, people can then make plugs that plug into that using whatever measurement and calibration tools they want because they all generally follow standards.

It would be like if the government released some device that was meant to be repaired by anyone but used some proprietary Apple screw head for all the screws. That's not repairable by anyone, that's only repairable by Apple customers.

foggy , 4 months ago

It would be reasonable for a govt to tell Google that actions taken on their platform which force users to use a certain browser to access a govt website are violating some equal opportunity law or something.

Buddahriffic , 4 months ago

That's not really where the problem lies. It lies in the choices made when developing the site. "Do we use a framework or feature that isn't part of the HTML standard to force users to use the subset of browsers that support that or do we use one of the many other options that do follow the standard?"

It wouldn't surprise me if those choices are being made by some web devs because those high up don't even think about it and those implementing it don't think much about the standards and just do it the way they do it because it's easy or that's just the way they know how to do it.

Governments (and their agents) shouldn't be choosing proprietary options that force people to use a specific company's resources.

tatterdemalion , 4 months ago

If the government cared at all about accessibility, then you'd be able to do your taxes in an HTML form.

aStonedSanta , 4 months ago

Yeah. Now that we have a functioning FCC again we might see some progress.

WiseThat , 4 months ago

But then how will congress give taxpayer dollars to a private company to do a terrible job?

I mean, we COULD have a government run agency that retains skilled engineers and keeps a good talent and knowledge pool of people specialized at delivering services that hundreds of millions of people rely on OR we could give money to the lowest bidder and blame "government inefficiency" for the contractor's fuckups.

Grimy , 4 months ago

Firefox has add-ons that automatically reject all on cookie pop ups. It works great and sometimes you see it working which is really satisfying.

Fedegenerate , 4 months ago

I use it. Sometimes it can't though, which is my cue to leave.

chiliedogg , 4 months ago

Until Chrome starts doing its bullshit "attestor" stuff that'll essentially make websites not work on Chrome if they allow Firefox and other browsers that respect privacy.

Pretty much zero websites will choose Chrome over Firefox.

Adanisi , 4 months ago

There's an extension called Consent-O-Matic that will deal with the popups automatically for you.

Squizzy , 4 months ago

Presumably rejecting them? It's the legitimate toggle that gets me though. How do 400 partners require access to my browsing information in order for your site to run?

victorz , 4 months ago

That's the obvious bullshit lol, exactly

Adanisi , 4 months ago

I think you can configure it but I have mine set to reject them all.

But yeah the excuses are absurd. This tracking is not only not necessary, it's also wrong.

judgejenkins , 4 months ago

I use Firefox as a Canary

You shouldn't capitalize canary, it's like saying goose or pigeon.

6xpipe_ , 4 months ago

But, it's the Canary®™... of coal mine fame.

shaked_coffee , 4 months ago

Well, to be fair the EU can't force Apple to change outside of its territories, and it makes sense that Apple prefers to maintain the status-quo untill other countries will follow EU example with similar regulations.

I can see Mozilla's point there, but this scenario, even it it's not optimal, still seems me a better one compared to the All-WebKit-Everywhere one. If Mozilla struggles to maintain two versions of Firefox for iOS, I'd say they can drop the useless WebKit version and just maintain the real version for EU only market (untill other markets will follow).

How many people are currently choosing FF in favour of Safari on iOS after all?

Aasikki , 4 months ago

The problem is that Firefox desperately needs more users and even those who use the WebKit version are better than nothing. The WebKit version at least gets the name of Firefox out there.

shaked_coffee , 4 months ago

I am a Firefox user both on desktop and on my android phone. And not only to support Mozilla in keeping the browser engine competition alive, but also because of some really good features that alternatives are missing (respectively Multi-Account containers on desktop and extensions on Android).

On my iPad, though, I tried using Firefox (even just to have bookmarks and history synced) but it’s really just a reskin of Safari with worse integration with the system and less features. Therefore I moved back to safari.

Why am I telling this? Because for any non tech-savvy user, if their first experience with FF is on their iPhone / iPad (with the WebKit version), they will probably not like it, and eventually associate in their mind “Firefox = bad browser”, preventing them to give it a try on their desktop.
So, from a certain point of view, maybe getting rid of the WebKit version would help Mozilla gather some more users on the other platforms in the long term…

Aasikki , 4 months ago

Fair point. Honestly had no idea as I've never owned any apple devices myself, but yeah that sucks and I'd probably also reluctantly stick to Safari in that case.

DJDarren , 4 months ago

I used FF on my phone for a while, back when my old MacBook was stuck on a version of macOS that didn't offer iCloud syncing. Firefox on both devices worked perfectly, but I always slightly preferred to use Safari wherever possible.

These days I keep FF on my Mac for if ever I need a second browser, and it's the first thing I install if I ever need to setup a Windows VM.

Dominik , 4 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

1984 , 4 months ago

I feel like of a group of dedicated Firefox engineers should fork the source code and start their own company.

If they would focus on adding really useful features at a rapid pace, people would be willing to pay for it.

Similiar to Kagi, if you make a really good software, you will get a group of dedicated people to support you.

Just a tech company without these super expensive CEOs that are not needed in a smaller company.

Psythik , 4 months ago

Aren't there already a bunch of forks of Firefox already? How will one more help anything?

cley_faye , 4 months ago

There is a difference between forks made by other people to tweak a project/do something specific for it, and the base project's dev team moving away from whatever it became.

I'm usually not in favor of such fork because the reason for moving away is sometime dubious; some project just rename themselves to "start fresh and drop legacy compatibility issue". But in the case of Firefox, Mozilla is the thing holding back features while adding bloat. Since it can't change to a saner structure with more long-term sustainability plans, devs/engineers could move into a fork to not be bound to that anymore.

Of course it's not that easy; for all the bad Mozilla (foundation or other, I don't care much that they are two entities at this point since one is owned by the other) is doing to the actual software, they do provide salaries. At least, for now.

ForgotAboutDre , 4 months ago

Servo is a fork of a Mozilla research project, it's moved to the Linux foundation.

They are rebuilding a web engine built for the internet today, rather than adapting the older web engines of yesterday. Mozilla already uses some of their components in Firefox.

But they are only building a web engine, for other people to turn into browsers, we views, electron alternatives etc.

Blisterexe , 4 months ago

I don't think your idea is bad but remember that the reason that small companies (like the one that makes arc) can maintain a browser is that they're using chromium, and maintaining a browser engine is the hard part

fromaj_debite , 4 months ago

Lol. Firefox cost of development is $500 milions a year. Stop bs. No one can develop a browser anymore, even Microsoft. And the salary of CEO is not the problem.

vinhill , 4 months ago

Cost of development was 221 mio in 2022

https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf

fromaj_debite , 4 months ago

Same magnitude. We can not fork firefox with serious support

vinhill , 4 months ago

Yeah, I guess your point stands. But also, it's 221 mio for Mozilla as a whole. Firefox might again be a fraction of this. While e.g. the Linux foundation has a lower budget, with all the contributed work hours of volunteers / corporations, a fork of Firefox is more realistic than the 500 mio make it out to be.

fromaj_debite , 4 months ago

It is not the same software. A lot of drivers are developed externally for Linux. You can not do that with Firefox. Firefox is the main project of Mozilla

Wanderer , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

How many people know why CEO's get paid what they do?

A lot of it is they are actually worth more than me and you.

But the main thing that made CEO wages increase is that a law was passed for CEOs wages to be made public to discourage high wages. When that happened they competed against each other and the wage inflated.

Currently the negotiating position of businesses is far higher than that of workers because they are scared of not having a job/ don't know what they are worth. The workers need public salaries. But like a lot of things in this world the workers vote against their own interests.

I'm not really sure how to fix that. But I'm starting to feel like someone really needs to try.

Dominik , 4 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

Wanderer , 4 months ago

I'm pretty sure any CEO will try squeeze as much money out of their company whether they are doing well or not. That's irrelevant.

I actually talked to a (small) CEO last week he said all CEO's either do it for ego or for money. That's all it is to them.

But that's not really the point you are making. The board chooses the rules of the game and its up to the CEO to win it, that's their job. In this case the board wasn't rewarding market share as that didn't interest them, they were rewarding other metrics which Mozilla improved on. I don't know anything about this company other than its my desktop browser but here is an article I just found

https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5053290/mozilla-2023-annual-report-ceo-pay-skyrockets-while-firefox-marketshare-nosedives

Dominik , 4 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

Wanderer , 4 months ago

I don't understand. What makes you say that?

ahal , 4 months ago

I'd take lunduke with a bowl of salt. That dude has had a hate boner against Mozilla for over a decade.

cyberpunk007 , 4 months ago

This is why I support Linux and open source stuff whenever I can. Always used Firefox. Linux on the server and desktop. Doesn't work for everyone but it's the last free open thing we've got. What's been great about Linux is now that basically everything is a Web app Linux is the perfect OS. But now we are dealing with bullshit browser wars. Uhg. Firefox will be the Linux if browsers in no time.

Haha , 4 months ago

Lmao i was calling apple out earlier in a thread for this exact reason!!!

Llewellyn , 4 months ago

Keep us informed!

jackhp95 , 4 months ago

I absolutely love how Mozilla has been calling out Apple, Google, and Microsoft. So good.

baatliwala , 4 months ago

Sad thing is they don't have enough pull to make people listen.

jbk , 4 months ago

Well they recently got people to get scared of what car manufacturers want to do with all sensitive data they get access to, who knows

maness300 , 4 months ago

Yeah, normies went from IE straight to Chrome.

They'll never admit when they were wrong.

Engywuck , 4 months ago

They still gladly accept Google's sweet money (while asking for donations). So brave of them! /s

olmium , 4 months ago

Isn't it just for the default search engine which you change without any difficulty?

cley_faye , 4 months ago

The point is, donations barely cover the "salary" of its president (7-something millions dollar) and funds allocated to dev dwindle each year. Which is plainly stated in their yearly reports. The google money is a large part of what makes it possible to do anything else than pay the board; the donations are the cherry on the cake at this point.

Engywuck , 4 months ago

Just? You call someone out and still accept money from them? Highly hypocritical behavior, if you ask me.

Moreover, here it comes the cognitive dissonance of Mozilla's fans: they say "the default search engine can be changed easily", while a the same time they blame "Chrome/Edge being the default" for the low FF market share, when in reality installing a different app is easier for tech illiterates than changing the default search engine.

Doublethink can be amazing.

teeceebeeinit , 4 months ago

Your vitriol is pathetic and exhausting. Take all this energy you have and maybe advocate for what you think is a better browser rather than berating people. You may live in Spain and not be American, but your attitude and the way you present yourself, at least in comments, is glaringly American.

"I vehemently hate dancing, to the point I can get upset even if someone just suggests it to me."

Holy shit, you lack the self control to keep composure at the fucking mention of dancing? I thoroughly pity your child.

Take your fuckin' meds, dude. Get help.

Engywuck , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Just block me, just as I'm going to do with you. Goodbye.

Railcar8095 , 4 months ago

Good advice. Bye!

KairuByte , 4 months ago

So brave!

noughtnaut , 4 months ago

Bluntly, where would Mozilla be without Google's funding?

Gone, probably.

So while I agree that it is poisonous and there is something very wrong with Mozilla corporate structure, it is a necessary evil.

Engywuck , 4 months ago

Who cares? Nobody needs Mozilla anyway.

KairuByte , 4 months ago

You appear to be lost, corporate deepthroaters anonymous is down the hall on the left.

Engywuck , 4 months ago

Get lost.

HootinNHollerin , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

Tis you who seems lost

Engywuck , 4 months ago

Get lost you too.

lurch , 4 months ago

Crapple at it again

yoz , 4 months ago

Bro legit question, why can't all the app developers pull their app from apple store. Within no time apple will change its tune

Bonehead , 4 months ago

Because app developers have to jump through a lot of hoops to get into the app store, and even if every single app was pulled then the developers would have to jump through all those hoops again. And this time, Apple won't make it easy. Meanwhile, they are hemorrhaging money for every minute their app is not on the app store. On the other hand, Apple would give incentives to new applicants to replace everything that was pulled, and the app store returns to relatively normal within 24 hours since there are tons of apps out there that just aren't popular enough to be on the app store at the moment. Would you want to be the first developer to pull their app?

Kidplayer_666 , 4 months ago

It would take a google or a Meta to pull out for Apple to actually care. Which is why they already have special deals around the general rules anyway

anlumo , 4 months ago

Would you pay for the missed income then? Who would?

ryper , 4 months ago

The 30% fee developers keep complaining about has been in place from the start, so they really should have protested the app store at launch. Now they're too dependent on app revenue for any kind of protest.

Telodzrum , 4 months ago

Apple only has this power because its users are a major source of income for developers.

fuckwit_mcbumcrumble , 4 months ago

Apple recently became the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world (not just NA), and have 61% of the US market.

Nobody with a brain is pulling out of that.

yoz , 4 months ago

More people should buy apple products. Let's end humanity...woohooo I am going crazy living in this shitty world.

originalucifer , 4 months ago

smells like legally actionable monopolistic behavior. apple clearly needs to be broken up... when was the last time we did that?

pupbiru , 4 months ago

see, apples a hard one… i usually agree with breaking companies up, but most of apples value comes from their extremely tight integration. would that be possible if they were separate? i don’t know - i wouldn’t want to lose the value that i get from apple products

like, how would that work?

you’d usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely

or iphone, mac, homepod? airdrop between devices, airplay, etc is pretty seamless and i’m not sure how well that’d work if they were separated… and again the m series chips are there because they planned for scaling up an iphone to mac size quite a while ago

retail maybe - that could be a good option, but honestly probably a drop in the ocean and wouldn’t solve anything

perhaps if they separated app store from the rest of apple, or music - like a services division? they’re not so tightly integrated (yet)

or perhaps they should just be separated and be made to deal with it - then we would hope they don’t get a bunch of shit business majors in to run them who don’t understand apple and want to make their turf as profitable as possible… but that always ends up happening eventuallly

CalcProgrammer1 , 4 months ago

I'm fine with Apple retaining interoperability between their first party software products, they just need a way to bypass the walled garden. If they have sideloading (everywhere and without restrictions) and ideally also bootloader unlocking, they provide a sanctioned path around the walls of their ecosystem and now it's up to the user to choose to leave that garden. If the user is comfortable there, they can stay. Trying to fuck over sideloading is the issue here. I'm fine with the App Store being restrictive if there's a way around it, and simply sideloading an app shouldn't break the rest of the OS's capabilities.

Shdwdrgn , 4 months ago

Just an opinion, but if they were forced to use open standards between products then it would still be easy to tightly integrate features between the various "companies". The problem is this would also allow everyone else to play alongside them, meaning Apple would no longer have a monopoly on such things, and the open standards might even gasp be used by other operating systems. But what do I know about Apple products, they may already be using open standards?

MudMan , 4 months ago

I mean, yeah, turns out that when you are in a quasi monopolistic position in many different markets and you get to decide the rules for all of your competitors you can absolutely integrate your "ecosystem" very smoothly. Go figure.

Their stubbornness on this makes the software/hardware divide the most obvious and a good place to start. Right now they're keeping the hardware hostage to benefit first party software and exclude everyone else's. That clearly has to change.

originalucifer , 4 months ago

has anyone attempted using right-to-repair laws to gain direct access to the hardware they purchase? i like the idea of purchasing a phone i can do whateverthefuck i want with

xthexder , 4 months ago

What right to repair laws? The one's we've been trying to make are barely even there yet.

pineapple_pizza , 4 months ago

Integration between products can be done well through standards and public apis.
Apple just doesn't expose this functionality to other developers because they want you stuck in their system because of the benefits of the integration between products.

originalucifer , 4 months ago

yep, you have great points. also everythings cloud-y, so no geographic lines to draw ala ma bell. not a ton of diversification.

theyre building a car though?

Buffalox , 4 months ago

you’d usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely

You don't need to split the OS, it's the App store that needs to be split out, and web browser to be free to choose like in Windows and Android. Microsoft had a judgement on that when they were a monopoly, so they were legally required to offer alternative web browsers equal access on Windows.

accideath , 4 months ago

And yet, Microsoft is trying to push Edge down windows users‘ throat…

It’s not quite as bad as effectively not allowing other browsers but it’s not far behind. Apple is less obnoxious than that on macOS. They won’t beg for you to use Safari

Pantsofmagic , 4 months ago

If only they'd cut the shit with iMessage

accideath , 4 months ago

When does Apple beg you use iMessage?

admin , 4 months ago

At least with Edge it's not disrupting the market by pushing an inferior rendering engine, like they did in the IE era. That by itself held the web back a good couple of years, and they were fined for abuse of their monopoly.

But at any rate, all of this is whataboutism - the issue is with Apple's abuse of their position right now.

accideath , 4 months ago

Oh yea, they absolutely do and I’m glad the EU is forcing them to open up.
I personally prefer Safari, so I'm mainly looking forward to the sideloading but that didn’t mean that the rest of the world shouldn’t be able to install a real firefox or chrome.

In all honesty, I can understand the browser engine lockdown less than the appstore lockdown. There’s some point to the argument, that sideloading might open the door to viruses, etc. but the browser argument is based on battery life. It’s not 2010 anymore, phones can handle chrome…

penquin , 4 months ago

That doesn't mean jack shit. Just because they have integration, doesn't mean they get a free pass on this shit.

ryannathans , 4 months ago

This argument is dumb, open up the specs, APIs, etc and allow integration with their products. There's no reason only Apple should be able to write software for these products. The specification makes the product appear seamless, there's no reason it couldn't remain so if others developed or manufactured for the platform.

JTskulk , 4 months ago

"Tight integration" means the company's software works well with their other software. It doesn't mean locking out all others, whether they integrate well or not.

umbrella , 4 months ago

apple fanboys are horrible.

Eggyhead , 4 months ago

Because they have counter arguments or because they like stuff that you don’t?

umbrella , 4 months ago

no, its because they come up with all sorts of egregious and nonsensical arguments to defend apple no matter the shitty thing they do.

if an apple product was killing babies they would bend over backwards to justify how it cant be apples fault.

their marketing did a number on peoples head, in a scary fucking way.

no way i would ever justify the shitty things google does just because I use a fork of their os on my shitty phone.

Eggyhead , 4 months ago

they come up with all sorts of egregious and nonsensical arguments

In the first sentence, and then

if an apple product was killing babies

in the very next…

If Apple users are horrible, logic like this ensures that “fanboy” haters remain a tier worse.

umbrella , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

you are bending over backwards to misinterpret what i said, and you prove my point somewhat.

abhibeckert , 4 months ago

They didn’t bend over at all. You literally made a ridiculous argument while complaining about other people doing that.

You really think if Apple killed babies people would be ok with that? Of course you don’t.

umbrella , 4 months ago

exaggeration is commonly used as a figure of speech.

tsonfeir , 4 months ago

There’s no monopoly. Use an Android.

RGB3x3 , 4 months ago

If there's any company that doesn't need to be broken up, it's Apple. They only really have 3 core functions: hardware, software, and cloud services. And the cloud services really only matter to people using their hardware and software.

A better approach for Apple specifically are pro-consumer regulations. Breaking them up seems unnecessary to me.

Eggyhead , 4 months ago

Breaking up the music, tv, news, arcade, banking, and possibly cloud storage branches makes more sense to me than simply divorcing hardware from software. Not that I see any reason to do that since competition for those services already thrives on Mac/iOS.

rottingleaf , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

You seem to have forgotten that there were Safari and iTunes for Windows, and QuickTime player (for whatever reason everything was associated with that on our PC in my childhood, so I didn't know it's Apple) too.

There's nothing in any of their services which would make them useless outside of the ecosystem, provided Apple doesn't intentionally kill itself with behaving stupid.

Actually if that breakup happens, then maybe in like 10 years something decent may come out of it.

sir_reginald , 4 months ago

separate the phone branch from the desktop computer branch. that'd be a good start.

I understand the logic behind not wanting to separate hardware and software, that's the only selling point Apple has over any other manufacturer. So just make the iPhone a different company.

BURN , 4 months ago

That’d ruin what makes Apple products so good. The fact is, people like Apple because everything is connected. It’s one of the largest draw points of apple and would only piss 90% of the users off for no tangible benefit to anyone else.

lung , 4 months ago

Well, not really, because you could use android, and it commands 70% of the global market share

Also, the way the law is, you have to have both a monopoly & also be causing substantial harm to the public. I.e. you can have a monopoly if it's really nice and more like a public utility. So after the Microsoft antitrust case (for basically same thing), it's been very hard to justify breaking up tech companies or banks

If a company acquires its monopoly by using business acumen, innovation and superior products, it is regarded to be legal; if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern

For example, business can defense that its business conducts bring merits for consumers

(Wikipedia)

What happened with Microsoft browser tie ins antitrust?

Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jackson's holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jackson's findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins

So in short, Apple's legal / business strategy here is totally solid. Arguably helps users, defended by precedent, and doesn't dominate market share. Of course they have to debate all this

Isoprenoid , 4 months ago

if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern

Hey, ChatGPT ...?

Closed Ecosystem: Apple is known for its closed ecosystem, which can limit users' choices. For instance, iOS users can only download apps from the App Store, and Apple tightly controls the app approval process.

Proprietary Connectors: Apple often uses proprietary connectors and cables, such as the Lightning port, which can be inconvenient for users who want more universal standards like USB-C.

Repairability Issues: Apple products are often criticized for being difficult to repair. For example, the company discourages third-party repairs and designs its products with components that are challenging to replace.

fulg , 4 months ago

To be fair, USB-C didn’t exist when Lightning was introduced, and it was vastly superior to Micro-USB.

It doesn’t really have any reason to exist now…

Agreed with your other points though!

I have an old iPad that I try to reuse for another purpose and all the locks to stop me to keep using it make it such a pain in the butt, when the alternative is simply to enable developer mode on an Android tablet.

Thankfully I remembered when buying a laptop and skipped the very enticing M-series hardware, because in 5-7 years that thing is a brick destined for the landfill.

Dominik , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

WallEx , 4 months ago

Its USB 2 speeds, so no

Dominik , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago)

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

WallEx , 4 months ago

Ah right, obviously you would change the core specs, how stupid of me

TauriWarrior , 4 months ago

Obviously it would be updated? Why would it be obvious when Apple hasn't updated it at all, it was introduced in the Iphone 5 where it had USB 2 speeds, the Iphone 14 also has lightning connection and has..... USB 2 speeds.

10 years and no update. Seems more like you liking Apple to mucb to think rather then us hating them too much.

sir_reginald , 4 months ago

it feels better

that's based on nothing. technically, it's inferior in every way.

Dominik , 4 months ago

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

sir_reginald , 4 months ago

So basically you would want every device to use a nonexistent updated lightning just because "it feels better"? Are you aware that lightning is a proprietary connector?

Additionally, USB-C debuted only two years later than lightning, so age is no excuse here.

Isoprenoid , 4 months ago

To be fair, USB-C didn’t exist when Lightning was introduced

Hmm, I wonder why that was?

Lightning is a proprietary computer bus and power connector, created and designed by Apple Inc. It was introduced on September 12, 2012

Design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Apple Inc. and Intel.

So Apple helped develop USB-C but failed to integrate it into their products for a decade. Now, why would they do that?

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C

wikibot Bot , 4 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

Lightning is a proprietary computer bus and power connector, created and designed by Apple Inc. It was introduced on September 12, 2012, in conjunction with the iPhone 5, to replace its predecessor, the 30-pin dock connector. The Lightning connector is used to connect Apple mobile devices like iPhones, iPads, and iPods to host computers, external monitors, cameras, USB battery chargers, and other peripherals. Using 8 pins instead of 30, Lightning is much smaller than its predecessor. The Lightning connector is reversible.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^
^article^ ^|^ ^about^

BURN , 4 months ago

Because it’s not a superior connector. Lightning is better as a purely charging port. It’s less fragile and doesn’t have a million competing implementations. One of the most frustrating things about USB-C is you can’t be sure if a cable is actually going to work.

fuckwit_mcbumcrumble , 4 months ago

That was literally the point of this ruling. The EU only has the power to enforce things in the EU and they can't force Apple to act differently outside of it.

Wanderer , 4 months ago

Bit the EU could still go nuclear and just refuse to let apple trade I the EU. It's not an EU company and it doesn't make products in the EU.

Financially it doesn't care about apple being able to sell there

maness300 , 4 months ago

Great point.

This is why Americans have no consumer protections; they're the ones fucking everyone.

nomadjoanne , 1 month ago

They're fucking themselves. In the EU the EU, not the US, is sovereign. Apple has to follow EU rules, but again, only with the EU.

nomadjoanne , 1 month ago

Ugh... I mean, they could, but the fact is I guarentee you many members of the EU commission and parliament themselves use these products, and they are popular in the EU, just not as overwhelmingly so as in the US. Ultimately, that wouldn't really fly in a democracy and, as much as I may hate apple, for good reasons.

nomadjoanne , 1 month ago

Yeah, I don't think they read the article... Sovereignty only applies, well, in the bloc or nation.

piecat , 4 months ago

Serious dumb question, how is it considered a monopoly? What forms the monopoly?

The company? If so, what is the proposal? Apple HW team is separate company from SW team? Apple phones and Apple computers are separated?

The app store? There's only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldn't make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?

What is constitutes the monopoly and what's the proposed fix?

rbits , 4 months ago

Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?

No, but Playstation games did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Bleemcast!
And Sony sued them but failed

wikibot Bot , 4 months ago

Here's the section for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

Bleemcast! is an independently developed commercial emulator by Bleem! that allows one to load and play PlayStation discs on the Sega Dreamcast. It is compatible with most Dreamcast controllers and steering wheels, and leverages the Dreamcast's superior processing power for enhanced graphics. It was created by using the MIL-CD security hole found in the Dreamcast BIOS.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^
^article^ ^|^ ^about^

maccentric , 4 months ago

Good bot!

MrShankles , 4 months ago

That's a fucking great bot!

maccentric , 4 months ago

Indeed, never seen it do that trick before, very cool

Mikina , 4 months ago

This is so sad to read... It makes me so angry that even when they won several lawsuits, Sony could just drive them out of business by suing them some more, and threatening stores that wanted to sell their software.

abhibeckert , 4 months ago

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly they have a platform that a lot of other organisations (including Mozilla) depend on. The EU has legislated restrictions for any platform that is in that position.

They drew a line in the sand for what size a platform needs to be for this new legislation to apply and Xbox isn’t big enough.

sir_reginald , 4 months ago

I'd say that forcing Apple to make it easy to install other operative systems in their hardware would be a good start. And yes, making firmware available for those.

If Apple were to be splitted, I'd separate the whole iPhone branch from the rest of the company.

The app store? There's only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldn't make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?

those had enough competitors and weren't the richest companies in the world. Although if it was my decision, I'd force them to open the hardware up too and allow third party software not approved by the manufacturer.

People are paying for the hardware, they should own it and not be imposed artificial limitations.

BakedCrossaint , 4 months ago

Allowing different markets seems like the only alternative to side loading/homebrew. It was easier to develop games back in the day when you didn't have too grovel to the device company overlords, this regulation just takes us back to that (sort of).

nomadjoanne , 1 month ago

It doesn't, the poster just doesn't like Apple (neither do I) and those are apparently magic words for "stop this company I don't like."

pete_the_cat , 4 months ago

Probably like 15-20 years ago when Microsoft was forced to de-bundle IE with Windows.

shortwavesurfer , 4 months ago

Of course, they want to make it as complicated as possible so that people don't actually do it.