444
Apple Argued Safari Is Three Different Browsers to Avoid Regulation in EU
(www.macrumors.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
444 points (99.6% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Chrome is already subject to the same regulation.
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