- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
It has now emerged that after being informed that Safari was likely to fall under the DMA’s regulations, Apple filed formal a response to the European Union claiming that Safari is, in fact, “three distinct web browsers.” The company’s claim is based on the argument that Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are entirely different and serve different purposes.
On example cited by Apple is Safari’s sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history. Since this feature is unavailable in the version of Safari for iOS, Apple claimed that it is a distinctly different browser. The company added that each version of Safari serves different purposes for users depending on the device upon which it is accessed.
The European Commission went on to point out that Safari’s functionality and underlying technologies are near-identical across platforms. The Commission even highlights Apple’s own marketing materials for its Continuity feature, which appear to contradict the company’s claims, touting the tag line “Same Safari. Different device.” As a result, the Commission rejected Apple’s claim and insists that “Safari qualifies as a single web browser, irrespective of the device through which that service is accessed.”
You must log in or # to comment.
Good! What an absolutely ridiculous argument. Glad it got booted right away.
" Same Safari. Different device "
It reminds me when it tried to patent a tap as a 0-length swipe. Scummy.
I’m glad that the EC countered the argument of Apple strongly. Because you’d assume that the legal team of Apple consists of some capable lawyers, possibly even old members of the EC? At some point I’m scared that even the EC would be outmatched but we’re not there, it seems.
It was a pretty crap arguement given the European commission were able to counter the arguement using Apple’s own marketing.
Safari on iOS: Browse the web.
Safari on macOS: Browse the web.
Safari on iPadOS: Browse the web.Apple: NooOOo!!1! They’re cOmpLETelY diFeRrENt!!11!!!
EU: STFU, idiot!
Well, I guess that was to be expected from a patent troll. I’m glad I don’t use any Apple products.
also isnt this about webkit, not safari?
you can have other browsers on all 3 platforms, but they all have to use webkit
Webkit is the engine. There have been different browsers with identical engines.
They demonstrated that they know this
What I implied was that just using the same engine doesn’t make them the same browser. That’s not demonstrated there.
They demonstrated knowledge of engines, might wanna work on reading comprehension
That’s not what I said. Check your reading comprehension.
Its true. They are three different browsers, on three different systems, all owned by apple, and prioritized over any competition while not being available to compete with themselves.
It’s* true.
So do you want to talk about how your username is incorrect as well, or can we agree that everyone doesn’t have to be technically correct in every case for the meaning of text to come across?
I’m convinced their username says “its no tits” and no one can convince me otherwise
To be fair it is correct. I did not notice any exotic birds in their comments.
Out of curiosity, what’s my username and what do you think it means?
thene verfox, but no clue what that’s supposed to mean 🤷
So they won’t mind being split into three different companies, right?
This might have big implications for Google. If underlying technology is what determines if a browser is separate and distinct from an other one. Then all chromium browsers could be considered one browser.
Especially with chromium powering not just Chrome but edge, brave, Vivaldi, opera, Samsung internet browser etc. This makes it the default on four major operating systems, and the majority of the global market. It also makes up the majority of alternative browsers.
This is a real problem. Google have defacto control over the internet and the standards thar define how people access it. This is a big issue for Safari right now, because chromium is based on safaris web kit. However, Google forked web kit and it is going to continue to diverge. We will see less sites work on safari in the future, similar to how we see less sites work in Firefox.
This is really bad, because it forces users to use a Chromium based browser. People that prefer safari or Firefox are often compelled to install chrome because they need a website to work correctly. Despite chrome being clunkier, less battery efficient and more spyware.
I think the EU should force all significant operating systems sold to commercial users to provide an option for web browsers. This should include windows, iOS/MacOs, android, pre-installed (Linux), android and possibly chromeOS.
How the internet is accessed and the standards it adheres to are very important. It should be a truly open consortium defining these standards.
We are heading towards the same issue we had with internet explorer. This time the issue will be two major browsers rather than one (chrome and Safari). This will also be hidden by the illusion of choice between all the chromium variants. Firefox is great, but it’s not got the default power like it’s competitors.
Considering they’re all run by different companies, I’d disagree with you there.
They all use the same open-source codebase, but they all have their own proprietary features added on top by different companies.
To be clear, I do agree that Google is basically controlling the market through their open-source code, but I disagree that they can all be called a single web browser.
On example cited by Apple is Safari’s sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history.
I think this is why Safari is one browser. In my eyes, Chromium-based browsers are distinct enough. Yet if Safari’s difference is mere sidebar… you don’t claim those three to be distinct browsers.
All chromium browsers are simply settings and UI tweeks. Some have additional features, but how they operate and how they render websites is the same.
If they were separate and distinct, they would fork chromium. Developing the core of the web browser separately.
They don’t. The take the new chromium build and merge it with their browser software. If safari used different UI design, logos and removed the shared history and settings features from each platform. It would have the same practical distinctions as chromium variants.
All Linux distos use the same kernel, are they all the same?
The Linux kernel isn’t in a position that it can manipulate the market through imposed standards. For most Linux distros their distribution and installation is controlled by the end user. There isn’t a default distro - except for pre-installed which is marginal.
The user of a Linux distro has a choice in the one they choose. They actively have to seek it out in most cases. So they impart agree to the UI, default apps and package management system.
Where as people buying windows, apple, android and chrome os. Are presented with a default browser and in either can’t or are heavily discouraged from choosing an alternative. Users may also have to use a certain browser to access a website, which happens with chrome.
The types of user are also different.
Again this doesn’t become relevant unless an operating system is in a position to exploit (and has ambitions or has exploited) its large/monopolistic market share. The Linux kernel hasn’t approached this. Not even in the server market, as Microsoft remain a powerful player and the operators are highly informed non commercial users.
What makes the distinction on linux distro’s is the package manager, you could make the argument that Debian and Ubuntu are the same but you cannot make the same claim about Slackware and Arch.
You also call them Chromium browsers, btw. They are different browsers in the usual sense of the word.
Safari has been always Safari regardless of the variant, in comparison.
This is branding of web standards. It dangerous in part because of the illusion of choice. You don’t seem to realise all these browsers reinforce Google’s control over the internet. None of the teams making chromium browsers are able to make a web browser - except Google. They are completely dependent on Google to give them 98% of their product.
They aren’t web browser developers working on edge and brave. It’s UI, UX and tracking developers.
I know everything you mentioned. It’s also more geeky to say Edge is Chromium. But I’m talking about the linguistics. You won’t convince me.
Do you even have a single fucking source that called them a single browser!?
Before this issue, Edge, Chrome and Opera were each a Chromium-based browser. If you call them a single browser, it’s you who are re-defining (or, in that regard, re-branding) the word.
Although G Chrome and Edge are very close to Chromium, Chromium is the base of such a diverse set of software.
You don’t call an Electron app a Chromium, do you? Qt also offers Chromium as a widget, where you can basically do whatever you want. This is why just using Chromium as the base doesn’t qualify as the same browser for me. That’s like mistaking the engine as the browser.
These are all just repacked websites. Its just a browser for a web service. It’s also an issue as you no longer get to choose the browser you use.
The web engine isn’t the same as a car engine. Web engines define how the road is built, it’s direction, it’s speed and it’s destination. Leaving this up to Google or apple is bad news for everyone. Just like it was bad to leave it up to Microsoft with internet explorer.
A big problem is how chrome has been masked to appear as different browsers and services. Even desktop app like you mention, as well as web views for android apps all running on chromium where you like it or not.
It’s interesting they have declared chrome a gatekeeper, but not Samsung internet browser. They are also investigating edge.
I didn’t read this novel but that’s a false equivalency for sure
He’s articulating the problem of a single entity controlling web standards. It is a huge problem and both apple and Google are trying to kill competition in different ways, but the goal is equivalent.
No it isn’t, Google is already trying to abuse their near monopoly with Chromium
Surely then they wouldn’t mind being split into three different companies!
Macs are PCs, iPhones are smartphones, Tim Cook is Tim Apple.
Maybe there is something I don’t understand but is it possible to install and use macOS safari version on iOS? I don’t understand how it can be a good / serious argument from Apple ???
I would think to be compliant with regulation you should effectively be able to install an alternative on your device? Which I believe is possible since there is a firefox on iOS. Even though as far as I know all browser on iOS are powered by the same underlying engine.
Apple does force all web browsers on their devices to use the safari engine. Which is what the lawsuit is about:
Apple is now obliged to ensure that Safari adheres to the DMA’s requirements, such as by allowing non-WebKit-based browsers on iOS and iPadOS.
Is DMA good? I read due to DMA you have to connect the new PS5 the first time to use the blue ray disc
It was not a serious argument, it was a half assed hail Mary that the lawyers pulled off to shut up the overgrown toddlers that make up the higher management in big companies. Have you seen the tantrums they throw when someone tells them no?
