Mozilla says Apple's new browser rules are 'as painful as possible' for Firefox
theverge.com
theverge.com
If I buy a device from company A, then want to do business with company B, why does company A have anything to say about it? Am I not the owner of my device?
Not every appliance has to be a general purpose computing device.
it doesn't (I'm fine with game console OS as is), but Apple/IOS is definitely in an arguable position to be a general purpose computing device. I think subjecting anti-tether laws to companies in such a position seems reasonable fro the consumer end.
>What is a ”device“, exactly? What does it mean if it ”possible“ to use the device?
I feel it's less about what Apple can do and more about what they can't. They can't make it any more difficult to tinker with the hardware a user bought than any other general purpose computing device (in this case, desktop/laptop devices).
they have to refund the proportional difference.
/s?
Apple's operating system (iOS) gets installable packages from the Apple Store.
Please do provide a link.
The caveat is that it only seems to be available on older hardware. This is absolutely a hack that Apple actively tries to stop in hardware implementations.
Universal chargers, informed tracking consent, separation of accounts...
US and EU balance each other pretty well.
In theory I think people would thank the EU for this, but in practice people generally dislike the new cookie banner status quo.
We can quibble about whether the legislation necessarily dictates the shitty scenario we find ourselves in, but its the scenario it did lead to nonetheless.
Or drop the unnecessary ones.
2. Provide a simple "can we share your data with third parties Allow/Decline" box, and
3. Apply DNT value automatically so they don't need to ask.
They could also... not track you?
It's crazy that we have to explain that every time a thread about the cookie banner comes in.
Isn't HN supposed to be a forum full of tech saavy people?
What kind of blind spot people have to not be able to reach this conclusion themself and instead blame a protective law for what clearly is an abusive move from companies that have a long track record of abuses?
Or do they just repeat what the PR of those companies tell them?
I mean in what world have you been living in the past 30 years with companies lying, trying to escape all possible constraining laws, spying on users and generally bullying at every occasion they could? And your first conclusion is that they did the annoying banners because they are the good guys and took the best solution possible because they like you?
Most people do, and techies/HN people are people.
EU: “You need to respect PII”
The market: malicious compliance and obvious dark patterns
EU: sigh Ok, we’ll also have to tell you how you’re allowed to ask. drafts new legislation
I do love GDPR's ability to download your data, but I am unsure of how much actual good that's done.
Universal chargers is great!
The last thing I want is another App Store. I enjoy the privacy and security of its payment disintermediation. An App Store from Facebook or Amazon is just going to be 'yet another spying apparatus.' No doubt employers and schools will be demanding their use soon.
> the annoyance of needing new (expensive) cables for no real reason
A USB C cable is like $5 and one with a built in dac is $20
I hope everything will be with USB-C, all home appliances as well.
I'm not sure I want a kettle pulling 2400w over a usb cable
USB kettle is not a joke you can find plenty on Amazon.
But I'm thinking about cordless appliances: shaver, toothbrush, vacuum cleaner, etc.
My toothbrush is already USB charged. I think for those small / battery charged applications you mentioned we'll get there pretty soon.
2. USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap and massively preferable to needing to hunt for the Apple-specific proprietary cable. Not sure why you had to explain the purchase of a $2 cable to your wife.
3. Freedom of choice means you are free to continue using the walled garden, should you wish, but others are also free to explore alternatives which is currently impossible.
Shitty USB-C cables are ludicrously cheap. Quality cables are merely not expensive, and when you have to replace them in quantity [1], it leads to a decent amount of money having to be spent to replace otherwise perfectly fine non-USB-C cables and a whole bunch of electronic waste as those now-obsolete cables make their way to the trash bin.
— [1] I easily have over a dozen and a half Lightning cables between the ones in my bedroom, my living room, my laptop bag, and my home desk. At ~$10-12 for a pair of braided Anker USB-C replacements, I’m looking at nearly a hundred dollars to replace them all.
And don't tell me lightning is quality, I've seen my friends consume them by the dozen.
Third-party cables, for whatever connector, you get what you pay for. Is it a shame I have a good number of lightning cables that I will have no use for in the near future? Yes.
I also have countless other cables that I longer have use for. I still haven’t been able to fully remove micro-usb from my life but we’re getting close and I’m glad for it. It would be much nicer to only have one type of cable in my bag, that’s for sure.
And presumably you only have to replace them if you replace your phone? It's not like the change came in and you had to rush down the shops straight away for new cables.
Also, to your second point, because of the EU, everybody* who currently uses Lightning will be replacing all of their cables eventually. That’s money out of pocket sooner or later. Maybe it’s easier to swallow when it’s $12 every three months instead of $100 all in one go, but the sum doesn’t change.
As it was you had choices as a consumer; open, closed - whatever you want. But the thing I deliberately want to choose for is now taken away from me through one of the worst and most unfair business laws I’ve ever seen, that only does harm to the majority of consumers whose choice is taken away and whose privacy and safety is being weakened to destroyed. But “they have a choice to stay in their walled garden” (they just can’t use their phone the way they want and were always used to anymore if they do, but we don’t mention that part and we don’t care those millions of people are getting royally screwed over).
You know, true choice could’ve been achieved if the EU had made a fair law. They didn’t and now we as consumers are going to pay a very heavy price.
Besides, before lightning, apple obsolated all 30-pin compatible devices.
- Apple changed cable without the EU once and would have changed again (remember the 30 pins?). They even didn't bother providing one at a point. At least this way we all get a uniform version that is cheap and can charge non phone devices.
- "yet another spying apparatus". Apple is one of the biggest advertiser in the world, and was part of the PRISM program. Their genius is to make you believe they don't spy on you. And noone force you to use the alternative store. That's called choice. Something I know Apple users are not big on.
If only people spent 10% of the energy they use to defend billion dollar bullies on caring about freedom.
in my view, you’re the one defending bullies. wielding the power of the state to control free enterprise is like pointing a gun at somebody to get your way. "do what i say, or else" is what a bully does.
> noone force you to use the alternative store
i get the strong feeling you didn't really read what i wrote
> Remember 30 pin?
I’ll do you one better: The first 30pin was widely deployed to all sorts of cars, and the majority of those hardwired the end that plugged in to the car. Then Apple changed the 30pin wiring while keeping the actual connector the same. The 30pin still plugged in, but it no longer charged the device nor passed audio through to the stereo.
I have 4 stores installed on my Samsung phone.
It's fair the average consumer don't want to deal with those things. It's not that we can't.
It sucks, but it's less bad to let them do all the wrong things, and then say "not that", until only what's good remain.
I wish companies would not start by being assholes to save a step, but politicians is terrible.
I guess they were hoping that the EU's rules apply everywhere?
I’ve never once heard anyone say “you know Electron is such a great experience on the desktop, I would love to have all my mobile apps to be web based too”.
How many different versions of the operating system do they need to support because of how soon Android phones are abandoned by the manufacturers?
But this still doesn’t answer the question, if PWAs are so great on Android, then why are the same companies who are making iOS apps making Android apps instead of just telling Android users to use the web version?
Every year there is some excuse (usually missing API X) why they aren't a success.
I also think ad tech companies will prefer native apps for major markets (iOS) because it is tougher to block ads. PWAs tend not to support content blockers at the moment, but there certainly can.
What does your app do that's so special it needs more than a console game?
Only one of these definitions just cost Google $5 billion settlement for tracking Chrome incognito mode users.
From investigation to enforcement to adjudication all the way to the ECJ you’ll be looking at roughly 10 years.
Once all of that has played out, maybe some other jurisdiction might then decide to copy some parts.
We haven’t even entered the pre-investigation phase in which the EU will wag their fingers.
Agree or disagree with the changes, but this is a non-sensical line to take. If you want to play on the world stage, this is how it goes.
It’s up to Apple to decide how it complies with the rules of each market it does business in.
But, by the same token, the laws as put into place outline none of the specifics of how that should actually function. All the EU did was wave its hand, say “browsers, please” and assumed that magically a perfect outcome would occur.
Well, now that lack of clarity is biting the EU in the ass, because it left Apple a ton of wiggle room. What Apple has announced of 17.4 changes is essentially a lawyer’s answer to the actual legal requirements imposed on them, not the ones the EU were implying.
do you think that the regulators did that on purpose, or are they simply not competent enough to understand the implications?
The more specific they get and the more prescriptive they are in how a business should do business, the easier it is to get it overturned in court.
That’s also the reason why the DMA doesn’t contain price regulation, because the first question a judge will ask is why is necessary and how they landed in the price.
The inverse is also true though. By using vague terminology like “reasonable”, they have more wiggle room to argue one way or another once it gets before a court.
At that point you then have to cross your fingers that the court not only finds that your reading of the vague language is the one true reading, but also that the reading itself is in line with the rest of the laws.
Contrary to what people seem to think about the EU, it isn’t some benevolent dictatorship that can put a wishlist to paper and then it’s some law of nature that can’t be contested.
The makers of the DMA are legislative bodies and the EC that enforces it is an executive body. Both need to work within the limitations of the law and the European courts will be the arbiters of that.
That gives Apple an "advantage"...but the nature of the advantage originates outside the EU.
But at the same time I am somewhat saddened that it seems so far fetched that Europe could produce world-class apps, including browser, by itself for itself.
In this case, I think the issues of privacy and user choice/competition are largely orthogonal (but both important!)
My browser of choice is still Firefox and I'd love to use the full version on iOS (for its extensions and because I could sync my history and bookmarks to my computer), but privacy-wise I really can't complain about Safari.
[1]: https://tosche.net/blog/ink-traps-and-pals (first link I found describing it--I didn't know the term ink trap until just now)
Why would these rules "force an independent browser like Firefox to build and maintain two separate browser implementations"? Can't they just keep on using the current implementation?
This means that Mozilla would have to maintain 2 versions, one for non-EU using webkit, the other for EU using their own, preferred browser engine.
Genuinely interested: wouldn't it make sense for Mozilla to just drop support for the webkit one and go with their own engine for the EU? That would reward the better legislation, and then the US could follow.
it is obvious that Firefox users want the real Firefox and not a Safari skin, so Apple screws their customers that prefer Firefox. As I understand when you buy an Apple device they do not put on the box or the website a big banner that tells the user about their apps limitations, the Apple tax and that Apple forces developers not to inform them about better deals.
No language on what the developer agreements terms are, because the E and the U in EULA stand for “End User”, so presumably it’s not deemed relevant to the end user.
IMO the above is disgusting, illegal, anti-user crap, they prevent that you the user get informed about something that could benefit you but might make Apple lose some money.
EULAs (or agreements in general, for that matter) are unenforceable if the terms of the agreement aren’t known to the consumer before it binds them.
That’s why companies present EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap type agreements to the user before the user can use the service.
In Apple’s case, it’s slightly more complicated because there’s a purchase for a physical device involved. Because of that, all their EULAs state in the opening in all caps and bold to stop using it and return it for a refund if you disagree with the terms.
This is sufficient for the EU because it allows consumers to read the terms before they’re bound to it while also providing an option to undo the sale for the device, preventing consumers from being stuck with a device they can’t use.
EU courts regularly enforce EULAs and other shrinkwrap/clickwrap agreements. Typically, the only contention is about specific terms and clauses because while the contract form is fine, the terms within still need to adhere to the law.
The EU has an explicit grey list and a black list of unreasonable terms. But in most cases where a term is considered unlawful, only that specific clause is struck down, not the entire agreement.
Often, this is the desired outcome by the person subject to the agreement because they might otherwise not be able to use a piece of software at all.
Remember that the default legal status is that you can’t use someone else’s software. You need permission (i.e., a license) from the copyright holder. That license is granted via a license agreement.
Voiding the entire agreement also voids the license granted to you.
I can tell you that the courts in the EU mainly care about the letter of the law.
Less SCOTUS-esque rollercoaster rides about intent and historical tradition, more plaintext reading of the law.
Doesn’t mean they never have to interpret if something is unclear, but the DMA is actually pretty straightforward, with here and there some language that’s open for interpretation but not pertaining to browsers.
Cry me a river, I have no sympathies.
Their complaint seems legitimate, to me. I think you're throwing around ad-hominem to discredit a valid argument.
That pays well? That's an indecent salary. I'm sure many people would love to have that position for a fraction of it, and they would not do a worse job.
And that's only the CEO, not all the employees.
Even if you keep all that lean, you now created a giant cost center with no additional revenue.
It's an artificial financial burden imposed by Apple, and there is not even a decent argument for it.
>Apple takes EU specific actions to satisfy EU specific regulations
Is that an indecent argument? I'm probably among the last people to defend Apple, but the only problem I'm seeing here is Mozilla complaining they can't keep paying their CEO $7,000,000.00 USD if they have to hire more developers.
Apple doesn't have to bear that burden because they use webkit everywhere, the same thing you (Mozilla) could be doing.
But equally as a user my priority is the overall security of my phone over any one particular app. And we know from decades of experience that browsers are a major source of security issues.
I wish Firefox instead of playing the victim card would instead do a white paper outlining technically why certain approaches are hard to implement, why their approach is more secure if it is and what steps they do take to protect user's security and privacy. Would help the overall discussion that's for sure.
So would be good to understand in detail what Firefox's issues are.
I think that is a fair complaint. It's a financial burden to maintain two versions that Apple is imposing on them.