Hacker News Reader

Comment by agust | Hacker News Reader

To clarify what this is about regarding Apple:

After a year long market study, the CMA has concluded that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market, as well as limit the capabilities of web apps on iOS and on the entire mobile eco-system. They note that it is obviously to their own benefit, as a weaker web on iOS results in a stronger exclusive and captive native app eco-system, which they can tax at will.

The CMA is now set to start a market investigation reference (MIR) which will give them the power to impose changes to Apple. The number one remedy considered is requiring Apple to stop banning competing engines on iOS.

Announcement for the MIR: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-browsers-and-cloud-gamin...

Final market study report: https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/mobile-ecosystems-market-study

View on HN

Music to my ears - from my own experience, safari is a pain to deal with. I've run into many bugs that haven't been fixed for years, and they've lagged behind in implementing standards like WebGL 2.

Hopefully this will force them to invest more resources into safari and webkit

It's actually already happening. Since the CMA started investigating around October last year, Apple has issued more than 70 job listings for WebKit, at least half of which have already been filled.

They also have significantly increased their release cycles, and released a number of bug fixes and new features. They still have a long way to go to fix the huge number of bugs WebKit's been rigged with for years, and to catch up with other engines in terms of functionality, but it's encouraging.

It seems like Apple acknowledged regulation is coming and they can't stop it.

Amazing!

I would hope that this ends with Apple being pressured to make changes. Whether Apple will comply in a way that meets the spirit of the requirement is an entirely different question. I can see them allowing other engines, hamstringing them or otherwise adding friction, and blaming it on “security” reasons.

It is indeed a risk. A risk that the CMA is well aware of though, and among the remedies considered are also present:

- "mandating access to certain functionality for browsers (including supporting web apps)"; - "requiring Apple and Google to provide equal access to functionality through APIs for rival browsers".

All this remedies combined should, in theory at least, prevent Apple from obstructing other browsers.

IMO, at this point, Apple’s resistance to allowing other browser engines is the only viable resistance to a Blink/Chromium monopoly.

Not really since CMA also took aim at Google Chrome's dominance. If that is made no longer the default browser then it'd go a long way to increasing browser diversity. I can only hope Gecko (Firefox) grows in the wake of that.

Chrome is not the default browser on Windows yet massively dominates there with around 9x the usage of Firefox (and around maybe 6x the usage of the Windows default browser, Edge).

Aren't OEMs bundling Chrome as an opportunity to sell extensions installs?

It's highly unlikely that opening up iOS to competing browser engines will result in Chrome taking over. It has always been that way on macOS, and yet Safari is dominant there with around 60% market share.

What is much more likely is that Apple will start investing properly in WebKit to be able to compete with Blink and Gecko. It's in fact already happening.

Do you have a source for that 60% figure? That seems odd to me. Almost every non-techy person I know with a Mac still uses Chrome.

>that Apple's browser engine ban on iOS in anti-competitive and distort the browser market

Isn't this a good thing? Without this distortion, what is preventing the web from becoming fully dependent on the Chrome engine?

Competition from Apple? Why would people use Chrome if Safari is as good or better?

"This website works only in Chrome" or "Please download chrome to continue" might become common occurrence on Safari iOS forcing people to stick to Chrome on iOS

The true culprit of Chrome's dominance, I presume, is Google giving Chrome the only ad ever to appear on the google.com landing page. An ad that has been there for close to a decade.

That is the attitude of a monopolist in one area (search) using its dominance to establish dominance in another area (browsers). That nobody has reamed Google for giving Chrome an ad on the landing page without ever selling that space to anyone else is a big miss.

Advertising is not establishing dominance.

Giving yourself a preferential treatment not available to your competitors due to your control of another market is establishing dominance.

Haven't seen any of those on Android so far, so I don't see why they would appear for iOS. Hell, I've barely even seen websites do that on desktop (Microsoft Teams being a notable problematic web app here) and I'm on Linux+Firefox. The only real exceptions so far have been applications that choose not to support Firefox because of its abysmal market share. It's often easy to find working alternatives for those, though.

The only reason devs would show a "download chrome to use this" prompt would be if Safari were behind in support for the necessary features or if Safari's bugs are too much of a hassle to support (i.e. lack of push notifications, lack of web FS/BT/serial if the web app needs that, or a lack of provisioned browser storage that the mega.nz website relies on).

What I expect to happen, and what the recent expanse of the webkit team suggests is already happening, is that Safari will get better once it gets competitive pressure from Chrome and other browsers.

I've been using Safari privately almost exclusively for 15 years. Most everything works OK, but I keep Chrome around mainly because Unifi web management doesn't work in Safari (it might work now, it's been a while since I tested).

Browser sync and superior ad blocking (obviously not in Chrome but in Brave and Firefox) is a huge one. That's why I use Firefox on iOS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com