> If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again.
Since this is behaviour Google is already doing and has been doing for a decade, it seems like the EU could just skip to the part of actually doing something.
How so? There are a number of features Apple dragged their feet on (WebRTC, push notifications, WebM support, AV1, the list goes on), it could be argued that Apple was intentionally stifling the capabilities of the browser to enforce the profitability of the App Store. I understand your concern, but Apple's failure to compete with Google is not Google's fault. Apple had a chance to make a browser that Chrome users switched to, but they didn't. Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Regulators can't see into the future. Thus-far, Chrome's behavior might be frustrating but totally fair game relative to the way Apple plays. Once Safari is competing on it's own merits, we'll see how things go and respond accordingly. If it's anything like the App Store, it'll take us ~8 years to observe the abuse and respond effectively.
Incidentally, many of these "features" came about from Google trying to create moats or cut out competitors. Further, Chrome is a dog on Apple Macs, cuts battery life to a fraction, plus brings a host of invasive and compromising behaviors.
In general Google has made no attempt for their browser to be competitive on feature dimensions that matter to many Apple hardware buyers; their share remains driven by residual tech influencer group-think still left over from the IE wars more than the value of, say, WebM over x265. (See also Duck Trumotion and Widevine for more of Google's motivation.)
The profitability motive is false, see Steam charging the same 30% despite e.g. Gog or Microsoft store. This is inconvenient for those making the argument Apple's fee is out of line.
> Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Clearly they need more help with this. Glad EU is looking out for them.
Sounds like it sucks, then. If things are as bad as you say, then we have nothing to worry about because everyone will want to use Apple's browser. I'll let all the Linux guys know, and I'm certain they'll switch to WebKit right away.
> The profitability motive is false, see Steam charging the same 30% despite e.g. Gog or Microsoft store.
No, it's pretty substantial. The App Store made 80 billion USD last year, which was one of their only businesses that approached hardware profitability. Ensuring that nobody can eschew Apple's software control is completely their directive. If Apple did become more like Steam (eg. had other software stores to compete with) things would be pretty fair I'd argue.
> Clearly they need more help with this. Glad EU is looking out for them.
Apparently Chrome is borderline-unusable on Apple products anyways, so Apple has nothing to worry about.
Normal users install the browser Google advertises at them constantly on all Google's websites, then complain that Apple sucks because their laptop's battery went from a reliably 12 hours of life to 7 hours and also the fans kick on all the time now, but they have no idea why that's happening unless they happen to bring this up with some computer nerd in their life and the nerd explains what's going on.
If normal users install everything that's advertised to them, then they shouldn't be trusted with a computer full-stop. Unfortunately, operating a computer needs to be a conscious decision.
> If normal users install everything that's advertised to them
They 100% do. It's why software installation is as annoying as it is now. Did you do any tech support (even the unofficial kind) around the turn of the millennium, when computer ownership topped 50% (in the US) and Internet use was beginning to become widespread? It was a hellscape of unwanted shitware that users couldn't figure out how to get rid of, and viruses. More recently, I've seen normies install Chrome then wonder where their (Firefox, which they had because I'd installed it) bookmarks went and not know how to get them back (they didn't care at all whether they were using FF or Chrome, but ended up with Chrome anyway because "google said they needed it" on one of those ubiquitous "hey, this site works better in Chrome" ads they put everywhere whether it's true or not) and I've seen one end up paying for OneDrive, and have it totally fuck up their workflows, despite not knowing what OneDrive even does.
> then they shouldn't be trusted with a computer full-stop.
That is no longer an option and there's no chance at all we're going back to a time when it was. I wish we would! But we're not.
> > Since this is behaviour Google is already doing
> How so?
Using a different browser on google.com or youtube.com has many times shown me ads claiming that the web is better using Chrome.
Google Cloud's console frequently breaks for non-Chrome users.
YouTube for many years used a non-standard API which only Chrome optimized instead of the standard one which all three implemented, which meant that video playback used far more CPU on other browsers.
YouTube for many years favored WebM format at the expense of video quality and performance.
Google Meet for years would drop sessions for Firefox or Safari. No other WebRTC service had problems with those browsers.
> Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Yes, that's the point. Chrome would not have gotten so far ahead of Firefox and WebKit without both a huge financial push and heavy promotion on Google's most popular web properties.
So, Google builds around Chrome. That's fine. Apple has every right to implement those non-standard APIs that Google uses (Microsoft fought Oracle for that right), and they could feasibly hack in workarounds for all of these problems if they cared or had to compete with Chrome in the first place.
We'll have to see where things go after Apple starts playing nice. I support legislation that restricts Chrome only if Apple doesn't stand to directly profit from it.
It's not that Google builds around Chrome as much as they use their control of things which are unrelated to Chrome to promote Chrome. Right now, Apple favors their browser on iOS and Google favors theirs everywhere. I fully support consumer choice so I think the right answer would be iOS supporting other browsers and Google not being allowed to promote their browser in unrelated apps. If Chrome is actually so much better, they don't need to interrupt a YouTube or Gmail user's session to tell them.
Then we're at something of an impasse. Apple also promotes their own browser on MacOS, so it's not like they're innocent of this too. Having more options is simply a greater priority than stopping $COMPANY from cross-promoting a browser.
You have to think about what happens next. Google pushing Chrome on users of their web apps has successfully put Firefox into what appears to be a fatal downward spiral, and has lead to more developers only supporting Chrome. Microsoft stopped trying to fight that and created Edge-on-Chromium. Safari on iOS has been the primary thing keeping web development from being Chrome development and if you care about the web or open standards you want to think about what happens if that changes.
Open Standards had their shot, Apple turned their back on them. It doesn't matter at this point what happens, because both companies have proven that they need government intervention to do the right thing.
If Apple doesn't want to build a Chrome competitor, then that's not Google's fault. Both companies are refusing to give up their strangleholds, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
First and foremost though, Apple needs to be litigated. The rights of the user should supercede the petty combat between browser developers.
It is untrue that Apple turned their back on open standards. What is true is that Google has hijacked the standards body and has pushed things as "standards" that nobody except Google wants (WebUSB anyone?) and have significant downsides for user security and privacy. WebKit has flat-out refused to implement standards that impose risks greater than their benefit. So has Firefox.
It would help if you argued on the facts, not on your emotion.
It seems a bit strong to suggest the "rights of the user" are in question here, when no one is being forced to use an Apple phone. It's happening everywhere in this thread, and I'm a bit surprised why more people don't recognize that consumers already have rights and a choice. It's called Android.
> I support legislation that restricts Chrome only if Apple doesn't stand to directly profit from it.
Why would you connect how these two different companies should be treated? Sculpting regulation to attempt to engineer an outcome institutionalizing the current market balance between two oligarchs is just about the opposite of what I want any regulator doing.
That doesn't make any sense as a response. You're claiming that Apple have been neutering Webkit to force people to make apps but people are making apps that are mobile sites using Webkit which belies your claim.
