Give an example. Safari has very effective content blocking in place.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
UK Probe Into Apple's Mobile Browser Restrictions Shut Down After Apple Argues Regulators Waited Too Long to Open Investigation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Give an example. Safari has very effective content blocking in place.
That’s one thing we do great in Britain, bugger everything up then demand an enquiry into why it went wrong!
Those days are not behind us. Substitute IE with Chorme and we are right back in the early 90’s.
Awwww. That’s no fair!Apple restricts their ability to use invasive cookies and other methods to build a data profile of people.
What restrictions? How would you know if you _never_ use the browser? Sounds like you've developed a negative-view lens on Safari and can't see it for what it really is, or how it has evolved.
Safari is my preferred browser.
Not the same at all. Apple is not forcing people to use their browser on devices they don’t build like Microsoft was. The closest to Microsoft would be Chrome being forced on users to access the Internet for just basic functionality because tech heads at companies push proprietary chrome tech instead of standards.
The restrictions are likely not Safari but sites using proprietary Google Chrome features to lock down the internet.
Google has carefully followed Microsoft’s pathway. Starting with the OS theft after first pretending to be an ally. Now they are using the IT world to tie the web and internal business systems to Google tech in a way that bocks anyone else.
Safari has restrictions in its content blocking capabilities and restrictions in usable codecs (e.g. VP9, which is otherwise supported when used in WebRTC).
Safari is a good browser in general, but different users have different priorities so what's true in general might not be true in specific circumstances.
I value my privacy and security particularly, so the content blocking restrictions are a showstopper for me.
...you realize Chromium and by extension Blink are open-source as well, right?
But there still exists Firefox. I use it because it handles certificate errors better than any other browser. I frequently deal with self signed / expired / weird certificates for web interfaces for old devices, so I know exactly what I’m connecting to. But Chromium often insists a connection is impossible (even after clicking through the warning), while Firefox lets me connect no problem with just a warning. Safari works too but I have to authenticate and trust the certificate and everything.
Chromium is of course the de facto and for general browsing is fine and its strict certificate stance is even useful.
Sad fact is Safari still mostly exists only because of its monopoly on iOS. I use Safari on Mac too for most things that don’t require Chromium.
So I’m glad third party browser engines are still possible and I hope that never becomes impossible, even if it is currently not as widespread as it could be.
I do. I also know that Chromium is Google developed and maintained. It is open source in thet you can use it fir free. I bet Google likes that…
WebKit was introduced by Apple in the mid 90’s and current key contributors include Apple, Google, Sony, Adobe, KDE, others.
I can't believe I can't tell you how to customize your IP to my wishes. Man the crap people get away with.
Wonder why the CMA did take their own sweet time?
Anyway, the downside of this is that Chrome dominance over Android is nailed down, as there will be nobody else questioning how Google forces OEMs to pre install Chrome on Android handsets if they were to be certified by Google for GMS. This is clearly anti competitive style aka Microsoft of the old, considering the dominance of Android in mobile market share.
The upside, Safari can remain to be the “little guy” holding off the complete domination of Chrome. If only Apple continued developing Safari for Windows. Not sure why they stopped.
Anyway, the downside of this is that Chrome dominance over Android is nailed down, as there will be nobody else questioning how Google forces OEMs to pre install Chrome on Android handsets if they were to be certified by Google for GMS. This is clearly anti competitive style aka Microsoft of the old, considering the dominance of Android in mobile market share.
The upside, Safari can remain to be the “little guy” holding off the complete domination of Chrome. If only Apple continued developing Safari for Windows. Not sure why they stopped.
If the UK wants to impose rules then why don't they develop their own mobile phone OS and try completing instead of complaining.
Apple shouldn't have to listen to a tiny islands demands.
Apple shouldn't have to listen to a tiny islands demands.
No, it's unequivocally open-source. Google accepts and reviews contributed code for Chromium much like Apple does for WebKit. Chromium isn't all that different from WebKit in that most of the people with meaningful control over WebKit's development work at Google and Apple, respectively.
They don't care. Given that Chromium's open-source, the world is welcome to maintain a version of Chromium in parallel that removes what little dependence Chromium has on Google services, even though it appears that any such dependence which Google would see as dollar signs are in Chrome, not Chromium.
Blink was forked from WebKit was forked from KHTML. Not that any constructive open-source contribution is unimportant, but to suggest that any establishment other than Apple is a substantial contributor to WebKit overall is kidding yourself. I'm also not sure it's right to consider Google, Sony, or Adobe "current" key contributors to WebKit given that all three of these companies appear to have either moved away from, if not fully off of, their WebKit investment. KDE of course has Konqueror, but its collective contributions — while again important — pale in comparison to what Apple's able to throw at it.
Disclaimer: NOT a fan of MSFT or Bill Gates by any stretch of any imagination.
TL;DR
Microsoft was sued because Netscape and Sun convinced the DOJ to file antitrust claims (some Netscape execs had government friends); they were not necessarily sued as a result of consumer complaints. This is of course a simplification, and if you'd actually like to read more about the history of this, look here:
And David Boies — the attorney the DOJ hired to sue MSFT — is a questionable character to say the least. If you've read "Bad Blood" you can see why. But, he makes his pseudo-defense about representing Theranos (and Harvey Weinstein) here:
David Boies Pleads Not Guilty (Published 2018)
The superlawyer in such cases as Bush v. Gore and the fight for gay marriage rights makes no apologies for representing Harvey Weinstein and Theranos with zeal.
The passing quips on MR are often clever and worth a chuckle, but I suspect there aren't many who really understand the history of "tech", or who have been around through the dirt and scandals, and who actually know the players. Quips are easy, truth is difficult.
That’s funny you do realise ARM is an English company?
Their chip designs are in every iphone/ipad ever made.
Jony Ive is English and he is one of the most influential people in Apple’s modern history.
I use Firefox on my iMac, I just dont like Safari, and I can't use Ublock Origin on the Firefox webkit clone on the iPhone or iPad. I'm not going to download a safari clone when the API in Firefox makes UBO work so well and gives such good privacy controls plus malware and script blocking etc and all before they get loaded in the background. As time is passing I feel like I miss out of what I actually need these days from Apple and they are not going to provide the solutions, just more extras that should be standard, like the ability to use what bowser I want, not their narrative which is webkit clones that lack the feel or usability of the real browser I use on macOS, or a mouse and keyboard for a computer that comes in the box as standard for instance not as an extra for £300.
The problem is there is no money in developing browsers. In theory someone could create a company/platform-agnostic engine by forking an existing open source engine which is used to build multiple competing browsers; if there was a compelling need for it that would have happened and there would be multiple browsers using it and be viable alternatives. It's far easier and cheaper to use existing engines and try to compete on features.
Firefox is interesting since it is an outgrowth of the browser engine used by Mosiac, and thus predates most in use today, except at least Lynx.
Last edited:
I think that depends on how good the new browser is. Oh, what a minute, that is freedom to choose. Can't have that any more! Not in Silicon Valley.
It would be a repeat of the 90s where once there were no alternatives to the direct platform competitors browser technology, they stop working on Keeping their browsers update on Apple devices. Microsoft did this with IE and is the reason Safari was created in the first place. Google has already proven they would do the same with how they held back features like turn by turn navigation until Apple caught them off guard and built their own mapping system.
Apple would much rather use partners for these things but they always seem to choose to use that relationship against them and become a direct competitor. They also start by copying Apple’s tech and then slowing development of the products they make for Apple products to make their platforms more attractive.