Browser developers gripe about Apple promoting them in the EU
EU iPhone owners now get shown a list of browsers instead of solely launching Safari, but some of the firms behind those other browsers think it's terrible how users are being told about them.
EU users now get prompted with alternatives to Safari
You always could install alternative browsers on the iPhone, you weren't required to stay with Safari. You just had to know that the alternatives existed and, perhaps more seriously, all the alternatives still had to depend on the same Apple WebKit that Safari does.
Now that the European Union has mandated that Apple support other browsers, a potentially good outcome is that the makers of Chrome and Firefox could abandon WebKit and use their own browsing engine.
They've made some noise that they might.
The developers behind both Chrome and Firefox have repeatedly complained that they consider WebKit a straightjacket. Since the EU rules, there have even been hints that accept engineering two versions of their apps, one for within the EU and one for the rest of the world.
It would take the resources of such large developers to make that possible, even if it could ever be called practical. And in the end, it's deeply unlikely that the average iPhone user would be able to tell alternative browser engine apart.
The only visible difference any EU user is going to see is that Apple is promote other browers. Now when you first go into Safari after updating to iOS 17.4 in any of the EU's 27 member states, you get shown a list of alternatives to Apple's browser.
"It starts from you clicking Safari," Jon von Tetzchner, CEO and cofounder of Vivaldi, told Wired. "Which, I think all of us agree, that's the wrong spot."
Tetzchner says the user should be made to make the choice when setting up their phone, just as happens with Google and Android. That ignores, though, that the gigantic majority of people upgrading to iOS 17.4 will be coming from iOS 17.3 and would clearly relish the idea of schlepping through a whole setup procedure again.
Also, a vaunted benefit of Android is that you have choice, but it's not as if the iPhone denies you that. Instead, the iPhone gives you something to be going on with until you want an alternative, where Android expects you to know the difference between browsers, and to have opinions about it.
Then as Wired points out, Google's method hasn't always been that preferable to anyone. In 2019, it did a similar thing in adding a selection of default search engines, but rivals initially got listed only by paying to be there.
By comparison, Apple waits until you want to use a web browser, and then when you tap Safari like you've been doing since the Middle Ages, it offers you a list of alternatives. No one has paid to be on that list.
Instead, Apple lists the top-used browsers -- and specifically the top-used browsers in whichever EU country you are in. There are at present a total of 15 possible browsers, though not all are available in all countries.
At launch of iOS 17.4, for instance, Tetzchner's Vivalidi browser has earned a spot in 13 out of the EU's 27 states.
So the list includes browsers based on popularity in a given territory, but then it also randomizes the list. In theory, then, any browser available to any EU user has the same chance of being selected over Safari.
Not all developers are unhappy
"We believe that Apple's approach to presenting the browser choice screen is fair and acceptable," says Andrew Moroz Frost, whose Aloha Browser is available in 26 out of the 27 countries. Frost particularly lauds how Apple lists the browsers in random order.
Apple also doesn't present the list and "accidentally" have Safari already selected. The user has to make a positive choice for what they want, even if that is to stay with Safari.
There is an issue that the average user has no reason to know the difference between the browsers, since their interest is in the sites they visit rather than the app they use to get there.
What that also means is that this list popping up when you just want to launch Safari could be as much of an irritant as it could be a benefit. The extraordinarily enormous majority of iPhone users in the EU are going to bat aside that list and just carry on using Safari as they always have.
Which is another example of how, for all that the EU says it demands choice for users' sake, the whole Digital Markets Act is more choice for choice's sake. Ultimately, the changes forced on Apple will be of more benefit to businesses than to users.
Those businesses just got a boost from Apple on every iPhone in the European Union. And yet some developers are acting like that's a bad thing.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Personally, I don’t know anyone that has mentioned they wished there was more choice in the web browser market. As the article mentions l, most people will make that choice once and never think about it again.
They regulate everything out to oblivion.
Really bad =/
I’d be back in the regulated EU in a heartbeat if I could.
"You always could install alternative browsers on the iPhone, you weren't required to stay with Safari. You just had to know that the alternatives existed and, perhaps more seriously, all the alternatives still had to depend on the same Apple WebKit that Safari does."
A alternative web browser that doesn't allow for changing the engine can't really be called an alternative.
"it's deeply unlikely that the average iPhone user would be able to tell alternative browser engine apart."
My wife has run into numerous problems over the years where mobile Safari has been unable to function with web sites and she's had to move to a non-WebKit device.
The easiest solution to this issue is to present the user with a browser selection dialog on first boot after the OS update and during setup for new iOS users.
No one would have problems understanding what the dialog was related to.
This current situation is a type of concealed coercion.
The user has clicked on Safari for a reason and won't have time to correctly process a dialog that's sitting between them and their desired page. The most likely result is that the user will choose Safari out of inertia and then that will stick.
Apple is fully aware of this.
It's about moving the place of the screen where users choose. No more, no less.
It's very similar to the tactics used by most software companies when new terms and conditions must be signed off on.
If an upgrade is available that requires accepting new terms and conditions, then that fact should be presented to users when they are notified that the update is available. And an option to view the new ToS should also be available.
That isn't the case. Updates are pushed out and 'sold' to users (new features, bug fixes, security etc) and it is only when the update is installed that the ToS appear.
Rejecting those terms often leads to a message warning the user to stop using the software, or other such limitation, and very probably with no one-click downgrade available.
Most users, wanting to get back to their app or system as soon as possible will simply click 'accept'. Inertia again.
It is equally wrong.
But this gets back to the point that these EU regulators are creating a synthetic little world where all these esoteric things that normal humans don't give a rip about are establishing the pretense for a preemptive nuclear strike for stuff that only matters to themselves, their bankrollers, and their little fiefdoms where they are King for a day. They are taking huge leaps of self created faith trying to tell us what we want when we are quite content and happy to keep on keeping on with what we've got. We have lives to live. This crap doesn't even register on our give-a-crap-o-meter.
Notice how those who are identified as being grievously impacted by their contrived transgressions are never asked to weigh in on the issues in question? Sure, they'll cozy up to some little man-troll like Epic's hermit kingdom leader to get their finger on the pulse of the nation and react based on a minute sample taken from those who have a bone to pick with Apple, Google, etc. Totally open loop and without scrutiny, feedback, rationale, or tapping into actual public sentiment that would largely kick all of these regulators and their special little friends to the curb. I just hope they never have to deal with actual problems that affect the masses. Their synthetic little world of self importance will crumble.
But still you hate EU, want Spotify to bleed, and keep buying devices assembled in communist China. How coherent.
It isn't just manufacturing. Apple itself has reportedly had strong economic ties with that 'horrible' country:
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chinese-authorities-apple-ceo-signed-275-billion-deal-with-them
And what of the workers? Are they horrible too?
Is it because it's a communist country? Because so is Vietnam.
If you want change, you are far better off pushing your own democratic government for that but, for all the bluster, the US still has a gigantic trade relationship with China and it is not going to change any time soon.
You can also send a message to Apple by not buying their products at all. Why buy an Apple product made in India when it is the company (not the product) that is more than willing to do business in 'horrible' China?
Isn't every country on the planet doing business with China? China has pulled millions of people out of poverty thanks to that business. It has made life better for the inhabitants of those countries (US included) through cheaper products.
Yes, local manufacturing has reduced as a result but no one has cared until now, that China is now vying for the top positions in the different leagues. And moving production back to local settings will push prices up. Apple already knows that anything produced by TSMC locally will be more expensive so I'm glad you accept that without question.
I'm not sure others will though.
Times have changed, and China is considered a military threat by its neighbors, as it acts as a bully in the South China Sea. This U.S. has been, and is in fact changing, its trade relationship with China, and not to the benefit of China.
COVID opened the door to this, when China faltered in its place in the supply chain, one of many reasons why Apple began shifting said supply chain to other countries.
China's demographics and economy are not as rosy as they were in 2012, and the future does not look all that great for China. But sure, China is spending a whole lot on its military, much more than people can imagine. What do you think the they will do with that? Hence the sanctions on dual purpose technologies, and especially, semiconductor technology.
Meanwhile, Chinese influence operations continue apace.
BTW, you forgot your BRICS talking points, especially the dollar replacement. That isn't going to happen, btw.
Even with all the chip related policy issues, take a look at reality:
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/12/china-remains-a-crucial-market-for-us-chipmakers-amid-rising-tensions-.html
You want to guess?
China doesn't yet have the skillset to build all of its own fab equipment, and the DUV machines that were used by SMIC to make Huawei's phone SOC, aren't able to be sold into China anymore, nor is support going to be continued.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-27/us-is-asking-allies-to-tighten-servicing-of-chip-gear-in-china
Then there is this;
https://www.politico.eu/article/ex-belgian-pm-guy-verhofstadt-was-a-victim-of-chinese-hacking/
I guess that China is giving up on influence operations alone.
And for more nonsense:
https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-with-steve-inskeep-of-npr/
Anyway. This is about browser choice so get back on topic.
I haven't seen much here that actually tackles the point being made, which is a very valid point IMO.