More competition would be great for the iOS browser space, but the reality is that competition will mostly be from the other big "gatekeeper" in the room: Google. Chrome is the project with the resources and reach to better compete with Safari, and working its way into iOS will bring the web close to a Chrome monoculture. Google's browser may have better support for certain web features, but it will also come with a built-in tracking system that spies on users and serves up their interests to advertisers. Safari has a much better privacy story.
It's borderline journalistic malpractice to conspicuously ignore the fact that Firefox is way better for privacy than either of them.
Well I guess that depends very much on what you mean by being on life support. Like financially speaking? Oh yeah, they are more or less entirely dependent on Google. Regarding user numbers? Sure, Statcounter says 3.3% currently. Technologically speaking? Not really, quite the opposite actually. Besides Apples WebKit and Googles fork of it called Blink there is but one game in browser engine town, and its name is Gecko.
Except they actually don't in this case. You're free to release a browser with any engine you choose on Android and distribute it through the Play Store.
My takeaway from that article is they don't, and haven't.
The splash screen for installing a package not from the play store is there to protect the end user. Without it there would probably be a much worse unwanted software issue on android.
I've been "side loading" or just "installing" applications on my android devices since the nexus one, without the help of the play store.
That’s not what the lawsuit is about. Google made backdoor deals to pay developers to release on the play store instead of their own 3rd party app store. They were found at fault for anti-competitive behavior.
They don't. They discourage it on the consumer end, but that also has good safety reasons behind it. They go a little too far in pushing people to Play Store over other app stores, and require basically any phone with Google Services to have Play Store, but that's a different matter.
They've never tried to dictate rules on what sideloaders, both on the supplier and consumer side, can and can't do like Apple has.
The closest they've ever done to this is use Play Protect against apps like Lucky Patcher. And that's a piracy app that, among other things, patches other applications to do things like bypass Google's payment systems and disable ads.
Thats absolutely correct, around android 6, it got real annoying to install 3rd party apps, settings called it somthing like "install apps from places other than the google play store".
Apple is being forced to make major changes to iOS in Europe, thanks to the European Union's "Digital Markets Act."
The change, due in iOS 17.4, will mean rival browsers like Chrome and Firefox get to finally bring their own web rendering code to iPhones and iPads.
Despite what sounds like a big improvement to the iOS browser situation, Google and Mozilla aren't happy with Apple's proposed changes.
“We are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Apple’s proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,” DeMonte said.
Apple's framework that allows for alternative browser engines is called "BrowserEngineKit" and already has public documentation as part of the iOS 17.4 beta.
Google's browser may have better support for certain web features, but it will also come with a built-in tracking system that spies on users and serves up their interests to advertisers.
The original article contains 779 words, the summary contains 147 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Also, oh no! Another company is trying to compete against gøøg|e to make money off of selling their users data! Call unfair play because gøøg|e is the only ad/browser/internet monopoly company allowed to do that! /s
