Hacker News Reader

Comment by fabian2k | Hacker News Reader

The simple fact that they restrict this to the EU, where they are forced to provide the option, shows that Apple is not serious about this. They're barely fulfilling the letter of the law here.

If this would be only about security as Apple claims, there would be no reason to restrict this to the EU and to force Browser vendors to publish other engines as separate apps after they meet the security conditions Apple imposes.

View on HN

> The simple fact that they restrict this to the EU, where they are forced to provide the option, shows that Apple is not serious about this. They're barely fulfilling the letter of the law here.

Apple may or (more likely) may not be complying in terms of allowing third party browser engines, but I don't see how you can argue that not implementing this _outside_ the EU fails to comply with EU law (which applies _inside_ the EU).

That's not to say they shouldn't allow this elsewhere (although it will just cement the Chrome monopoly - actually _decreasing_ competition and solidifying the incumbent's position) but I don't think you can argue that this law requires them to do that.

I'm not saying this is against the law, but it is clear that Apple only moves exactly as far as the EU forces it to, not a bit more. And within the limits the law allows, they're doing everything they can to make it tedious and difficult to actually get alternative apps stores or browser engines on their OS.

> it is clear that Apple only moves exactly as far as the EU forces it to

I don't think this is a secret - Apple publicly opposes these kinds of laws.

> And within the limits the law allows, they're doing everything they can to make it tedious and difficult to actually get alternative apps stores or browser engines on their OS.

Sure, it's unclear what the EU can do to oppose this though. If they push too far they risk invoking the wrath of the much more powerful US government.

The EU does not risk invoking the "wrath" of the "much more powerful" US government by telling Apple to stop abusing it's customers, market and developers.

You have progressive states passing similar legislation as the EU within the US so I bet they'll be getting the firm hand first if anything.

If states get too onerous the Feds will pass similar, very much less restrictive legislation, which will have the effect of nullifying state legislation due to federal supremacy.

The US government doesn't really take kindly to other states trying to reign in its companies. This is something that has bipartisan support. Even American politicians who support regulating Apple, only support _them_ doing this. Is this good? No. But it's also how Europe treats other countries. Basically: think about what France would do if Mozambique ejected or otherwise restrained Total -- that's roughly what Americans would do.

https://www.politico.eu/article/victory-eu-donald-trump-meta...

> If they push too far they risk invoking the wrath of the much more powerful US government.

what is it going to do?

threaten massive tariffs then retreat?

repeatedly?

> Apple is not serious about this. They're barely fulfilling the letter of the law here.

Is that surprising in any way?

They've been asked to not reject third party browser engines in the EU. Check.

Google has plenty of developers in the EU so I'm not even sure what people want exactly.

they want apple adhere to EU law for everyone outside the EU lol

how can people think like this

No. Apple claims they cannot implement this due to security concerns. Yet at the same time, they assure EU users that the Apple platform is of course secure. So which one is it?

By limiting this change to the EU, Apple displays that they clearly are able to add support for multiple browser engines without compromising security if forced to, so the only reason left is their unwillingness to commit to their users freedom of choice.

It’s just greed, nothing more.

"shows that Apple is not serious about this"

noo, that how law works

EU make an law that forces Apple to adhere, apple make changes that suit the new law

if its works in EU only then its working as intended

It’s actually the opposite, no? If it’s about security it makes sense they choose to compromise the security of their platform only where they are forced to.

Security for who against what threat? It's hard to make the case this is possibly in the users' interest.

This is about securing the phone in Apple's interest against the desires of the user.

> It's hard to make the case this is possibly in the users' interest.

Not in the least.

If anyone who wants can make a complete browser for iOS, then, for instance, Meta could come out with their own Facebook™ Browser that does extra super duper tracking on them and everyone they interact with online.

Or Russia/China/Trump/Obama/whoever you hate most could make their own browser that inserts propaganda into websites, redirects you away from sites that are critical of them, etc.

Or straight-up criminals could make browsers that steal your credit card info.

And a) Apple would be put in the position of having to do comprehensive testing on all these browsers to make sure they did not do these things, even in unusual situations, and b) do you actually trust Apple's App Review system to catch it all? 'Cause I like Apple, and I sure as hell don't. Especially in cases like the latter, where they could create a dozen profiles and have each one submit a dozen slightly different versions of their compromised browser (eg, one that's Skibidi Toilet themed, one that's got scantily-clad women (just PG enough that Apple won't ban them for that) framing the pages, one each themed for the MCU movies...)

I don't trust the app store to act in my interest at all. They have damn gambling apps all over the place.

As an iOS and web user, it is my desire that Apple doesn't allow other browser engines because immediately Google and other web devs will start pushing webapps that only work with mobile Chrome and we'll all be forced to install a Chromium browser to use certain websites, it becomes default and users will think "Safari sucks now, a bunch of websites don't work with it," finally ending Google's last bit of real competition in the browser space: Safari with its terrifying 17% marketshare.

That's not even getting into the resources/battery life aspect.

> Google and other web devs will start pushing webapps that only work with mobile Chrome

This is anti-competitive and should be illegal, too.

I mean, none of this really affects me. Forcing safari on me does.

This. Exactly this.

As a web dev, I happen to love some of the tech advancements in Chromium, and as a nerd, I'd be thrilled to see it on iOS, just for the fun technical novelty of it all. But allowing it on iOS will downright kill WebKit, as web devs will just code for Chrome (as they already do). The floodgates will be opened.

As a user, I value battery life, smooth performance, and system integration (technically and visually). It's great to use an Apple browser on an Apple OS, just as it is nice to use Chrome on Android—everything fits together.

Gosh, I miss the pre-Blink days when WebKit was able to benefit from Chromium, but alas…

So to protect an artificially inflated browser engine you're willing to remove user choice and freedom to prevent a competitor from doing well? Microsoft was learned this was illegal many years ago. When the US government went after monopolies and didn't cosign them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com