Companies like Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft have versions of their web browsers on Apple’s iOS and iPadOS App Stores, but these versions come with a big caveat: The App Store rules require them to use Safari’s WebKit rendering engine rather than the engines those browsers use in other operating systems.
But that could be changing. According to The Register, Google and Mozilla have recently been spotted working on versions of Chromium and Firefox that use their normal Blink and Gecko rendering engines, respectively.
This only makes sense. It’s very likely the rules around browser engines is going to go away, so I’m glad the competition is getting ready for this inevitability. If for some reason I’m ever forced at gunpoint to use iOS, I’d at least have access to real Firefox.
On short term this will likely only strengthen the Chrome monopoly. On the other hand this should wreck current Apple business model and control Apple has over iOS. Interesting times ahead and i guess thanks EU. For doing your work. Eventually something will need to be done to break Chrome monopoly in browser space and to break Windows monopoly in PC space. Preferably this would be done in one package.
@Geck
Apple preventing stuff and people use windows or chrome because they want it is not the same.
Nobody forces you to use windows or chrome on PC, but Apple is forcing you to use their browser-engine and store on iOS.
If other browsers/OS on PC would not suck, people would use them more 😉
When you will buy a PC and first step will be to select the operating system to use. Price you have to pay to use it and features the operating system offers clearly listed. And after when you will run this system for the first time. To repeat the procedure with the web browser. Then sure. Then we can start talking about choice (people made). Fourthly years of Windows monopoly was more then enough. Time is now right to move to something more modern. Whatever will that be i don’t know. But the time has come to create an environment in which this is possible. And that comes down to break the Windows monopoly.
I actually had to install chrome on every pc I ever bought. Not once was he allready installed.
Which OS should you be able to choose from, or do you only care for linux? Who would make the list of OS which PC manufacturer have to offer after first boot?
Would you force hardware manufacturer to make drivers for all these Operating Systems, who would pay them for it?
If I buy a PC with windows installed I allready made the choice, otherwise I would have bought a Mac, a chrome-book or one of the few Linux machines. Don’t you think they would offer PC’s with other OS if there would really be a demand for it?
th22,
I don’t know if you’ll remember this, but in the years after the microsoft antitrust suit google was making bundling deals with lots of software and hardware vendors to bundle chrome. Lots of people who wouldn’t have downloaded it themselves began using chrome this way. If you’ve got the cash, it is a proven business model that increases market share dramatically. It certainly did for google’s browser.
In most cases these vendors are contributing squat to linux support, it’s almost entirely thanks to 3rd party effort that their hardware is supported. It would be progress if computer vendors were legally forced to offer a no-OS option. Even as a windows user, it bugs me to no end that I should have to be forced to buy windows OEM licenses over and over and over again instead of being able bring your own.
Well, kind of. As an alt-os user there’s an obvious problem with this logic though. Vendors tend to disproportionately serve platforms with dominant marketshare. Consider that a 1-2% marketshare platform will not have 1-2% representation in the marketplace, not by a long shot. It would be fair but that’s not the way the long tail works. Skewing representation towards the monopoly gives monopolies more control and representation than they actually deserve above and beyond their user figures. Unfortunately this is a real phenomenon that I face quiet regularly as a linux user.
th22,
I do agree with you, outright bans on competing software and stores is objectively worse. It’s frustrating that apple has been allowed to do this for so long.
Even without any artificial vendor restrictions though, I think we need to recognize that the majority of users won’t go out of their way to switch, they’ll just use whatever has been bundled unless there are significant deficiencies with it motivating them to switch. Even when alternatives don’t “suck”, it’s notoriously hard to gain new market-share without bundling.
There was a time when Firefox was really good and had a good market share, I also used it for several years.
But now, its really a shame what they did with Firefox, so I use Chrome and seldom Edge.
There are probably more Browsers, but I guess they are really niche and I never used any of them.
th22,
Care to be any more specific? I don’t want to assume the gripes you have.
Things could have been different if mozilla had the advantage of bundling somehow. IMHO most ordinary users wouldn’t bother switching. Alas, FF isn’t bundled on any dominant platforms. Chrome has become the defacto development target much like IE was years ago and for better or worse most web devs mostly target the browsers with significant user share at the expense of alternatives.
Yeah, they’re not bad, but they are derivative offshoots. The market is extremely concentrated and doesn’t really support alternatives developed from the ground up.
Some of the firefox decisions have been quite frankly ridiculous. Others have been annoying but probably required.
I still use it as my main browser as it is better than the competition. Hey I love google stuff but I still can’t be bothered to install chrome on my windows box!
Firefox for general use.
Edge for some windows stuff and sites broken on firefox (becuase I cannot be bothered disabling my QOL plugins and another browser is easier).
Pale Moon, for, well I’m not really sure anymore, but I do occasionally use it!
On Android it’s Firefox for general use and chrome for stuff that gerts upset at firefox with my plugins.
Just becuase firefox has done some odd things does nopt make the competition suddenly any better that they were before or than firefox. (Yes I also have no idea why they are focusing on things that are pointless and nopbody wants, but so are the rest!)
In the meantime the EU is about to jack up Open Source software. But everyone seems to be only worried about USB C ports and rendering engines
https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/01/26/1211223/eus-proposed-ce-mark-for-software-could-have-dire-impact-on-open-source
Windows Sucks,
Thanks for posting that, it’s a good topical point to bring up!
Open source is implicitly and explicitly used as is so I don’t know what this means in practice. Who’s liable anyways? Is it the app store/distro repo? Typically for FOSS, the user has no direct connection to the developer whatsoever and the developer doesn’t even know that specific user exists.
From the original proposed rules:
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/cyber-resilience-act
So hold on, if i start a company giving support (let.s say configuration help) for nginx and a setarious security issue (stemming from a bug in nginx not the config I’ve set up) I’ll be liable for the damages related to that bug even if i contect my costumers to warn them and implement mitigations as son as they become available (if I can) . I must have something seriously wrong here. Pleses tell me what, because if I’ve got it right this is absolutely a blow to OSS
I would say: let the laws apply to the companies selling a software service or product. Let them figure out/pay for others to figure out if their own and any open source software they might incorporate is any good.
As someone who works in this field it kind of scares me, because it also means some kind of liability which didn’t really exist in the past. For a lot of the things I do that kinds of lawful liability doesn’t really need to be added. If we do things wrong we might already loose clients or maybe a lawsuit from the customer. Don’t want to have to deal with extra legal stuff on top of that.