davidw

About

Username
davidw
Joined
Visits
185
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,741
Badges
1
Posts
2,184
  • Epic Games is annoyed UK regulator isn't working harder to enable third-party app stores

    There's no third party app stores allowed in the US, but yet Fortnight is once again available in the Apple App Store. I'm sure it's not for charity on Sweeney part. So if Loony Tune Sweeney don't want to make Fortnight available in the UK (on iOS). it's on him. Trying to blame Fortnight not being in the UK (on iOS) on Apple or the UK CMA, is plain stupid.

    Fortnight on iOS still made Epic Games hundreds of millions of dollars (if not over a billion dollars) when it was in the Apple App Store paying Apple's commission and  before Sweeney stupid move to violate his Apple App Store contract, that got Fortnight kicked out. It's one thing for Sweeney to be greedy and not want to pay Apple their due commission in order to make more profit. But it's just plain stupid for Sweeney to not want to greatly profit at all from selling virtual items with an over 90% margin (not counting scamming his customers), even if he has to pay the commission. Loony Tune Sweeney is the classic case that proves ........ you can't fix stupid. 
    danoxtiredskillswilliamlondonjem101
  • Apple still effectively blocks rival browser engines on iOS despite EU order

    davidw said:
    How does a competing "browser engine" help me as a consumer when all of the value-added benefits of competing browsers is the rest of the stuff?

    Is it the extension support in Firefox? Extensions won't work in Firefox on iOS when WebKit is the browser engine? That seems like a stretch.

    Competition is good, but this seems like an odd battle. For years. Firefox had a sub-standard (slow and bloated) browser on Macs. Where was the wolf cry over that disconnect?

    There's nothing inherently wrong with WebKit. It is a near-equal engine alongside the other majors. So what are the major issues at stake?
    There is the obvious. We actually don’t know if WebKit is the best on iOS because nothing is allowed to compete with it.  For all we know another engine could run circles around it. 

    We all certainly understood what a better browser meant when Safari came out and we could dump I.E.  As a consumer I benefited from that competition. The same thing can’t happen on iOS. 

    But let's be realistic here. There are no "browser developers" that wants to develop another "browser engine" that competes with Blink, WebKit or Gecko. What these so call browser developers, that are bitching about no browser engine competition on iOS, want to do is to develop an iOS browser that uses the Blink browser engine.

    If there are browser engine developers that wants to develop a competing browser engine to WebKit on iOS, then where are their browser engines on Android? Nearly 100% of  the over dozen of different browsers on Android, uses Blink. Why in the name of Hell is the EU so concern about competition in the "browser engine" market on iOS, when there is no browser engine competition on Android? Not even Microsoft wants to develop their own browser engine for Edge (on Windows). They switched to Blink. There is no way that a browser engine can succeed by just being on iOS. It would also have to be on Android, before website developers develop for it. And they would rather not have to, just so that the  consumers have more choices of browser engines. Most consumers only care about the choice in browsers. 


    On MacOS, we have mainly WebKit, Blink and Gecko (FireFox). Blink don't come close to "running circles" around Safari or even FireFox, on MacOS. So far, most Mac users prefers Safari. But I imagine that if one was using an Android phone, they might prefer Chrome. Not because Blink runs circles around Safari but because Chrome is the browser Android phone owners are use to using. The same with Chrome on iOS. Even though iOS Chrome uses WebKit, PC users rather use Chrome on their iPhones because it's what they are use to using on their Windows PC. For the average consumers, it makes no real difference. Each has its advantages, along with its disadvantages. Blink enjoy advantages on Android, the same way WebKit enjoy advantages on iOS (and MacOS), vertical integration with the OS, as both (engine and OS) are developed by the same company. It is very hard for any competing browser engine to overcome those "vertical integrated" advantages. (Of course in the EU, they could force Apple to give those "vertical integrated"  advantages to competing browser engines.)

    So far, from what i have read, the biggest crybaby about not being able to develop a Blink browser on iOS is Meta. From what I understand, what Meta want to do is to put a browser inside their Facebook app, so users don't have to exit their Facebook app to get on the internet. Why? Because the browser inside their app would still be consider "first party" and not subject to Apple ATT.  They can data mine the Hell out of it, without informing their users. (And Spotify might be thinking along the same line, which is why the EU might be so concern about "browser engine" competition on iOS.) And Meta wants to use Blink because it offers less user privacy and more ways to mine users data. (Though there might be other technical advantages.) After all Blink was developed by Google, as a fork of WebKit.

    I think you failed to understand why Mac users "dumped" IE for Safari. It was mainly because Safari browser engine was open source while IE had a proprietary MS engine. IE for Macs even had a different browser engine than IE for Windows. Website developers got tire of MS proprietary shit that kept changing with little notice and no choice but to comply as IE had an over 90% market share at the time. Mac users "dumping" IE for Safari came at the same time PC users were dumping IE for Mozilla FireFox. Developers made the difference by jumping at the opportunity to develop for browser engines that were open source.   


    The fundamental problem with your argument is that the main premise is that because there isn’t a better engine there will never be one so it doesn’t matter. The idea is just fundamentally flawed. Again, history as our guide. How many Mac users had heard of KHTML the week before Apple announced Safari? The answer is less than 1%. Few people on any platform had heard of it. But it’s the open source project that Apple forked and turned into WebKit. Yes there are a few popular web engines but there aren’t the only three and just like Apple forked KHTML, maybe the better WebKit is a forked WebKit.  We don’t know and we won’t know because there is literally no motivation to optimize anything for iOS. 

    As for your re-write of history. No, users didn’t move to Safari because it was open sourced. Most Mac users likely didn’t know nor care. They moved to it because it was  better.  Full stop. PC users did dump IE in a meaningful way until Chrome came along. 

    The whole reason we got into the IE mess was because Microsoft used their dominant platform to push their browser while making it difficult for competitors. KHTML based browsers hit the market in 1998 and had no impact. It wasn’t until 2003 when Apple used it for Safari that it started to break through. Apple is using its platform to maintain its browser engine’s dominance in a far more aggressive way that Microsoft. Breaking though was hard enough when there were two computing platforms to account for and one was abusing their dominance. It is even harder now that there are 4-ish platforms and one of dominant platforms has made completely impossible. 

    You are not seeing the forest for the trees.

    WebKit and Gecko are over 20 years old. Google forked Blink from WebKit over 10 years ago. Besides MS proprietary browser engines for IE (Edge), how many new browser engine  has there been since Blink? You can count them with one hand. So where did all these developers that wants to develop a new browser engine for iOS suddenly come from? Even Microsoft don't want to get into it anymore. They rather use open source Blink. The bottom line is there aren't any. It's a trap. They are trying to get Apple to allow third party browser engines so they can get Blink on to iOS, not any new browser engines. Once Blink is on iOS, it's game over for what little hope there is for any new browser engine that will run circles around Safari/WebKit. But there will be more browsers that will compete with Safari. And Blink is not new to Mac users. Mac users can use the Blink version of Chrome on MacOS and so far it hasn't been a game changer. What might be a game changer is AI. But you can bet that at least Google Blink will be on top of that.

    Developers are blaming Apple for not allowing third party browser engines on iOS as the reason why they aren't developing new browser engines for iOS, when in reality they have no interest in developing a new browser engine ... period. There's no money in it. Not when the 3 most popular ones we have are open source. Apple developed WebKit to enhance privacy and security (while on the internet) on their devices as a means to attract more sales of hardware. Google developed Blink because the more people using free Google anything, the more data they have to mine. Mozilla is a non-profit organization. What motives would any other developers have for developing a new browser engine ... for any OS?  The only one I can think of would be Huawei. They recently developed their own mobile OS for their phones and I can see them wanting to develop their own browser engine to go with it. Just like Apple and Google.

    It would be more believable if there were a few browser engines on Android which combined to captured maybe 20 - 25% market share (on Android). Browser engines which can be on iOS, if Apple allowed it. But Blink (on Android) have over 99% market share, with Gecko coming in a distance 2nd with .5% market share. So why aren't all these developers that wants to develop new browser engines for iOS, developing new browser engines for Android? Why so desperate want to develop a new browser engine  for 23% of the mobile market when they aren't developing new browser engines for over 70% of it. It is very silly to argue that since Apple only allowing third party browser engines in the very small limited EU market, it's not feasible to develop a new browser engine for iOS at all, when they aren't developing new browser engines for Android. And if they can't compete with Blink on Android, how are they going to compete with Blink on iOS, if Apple were to allow third party browser engines.

    I didn't mean to say users were glad to use an open source browser engine. I meant to say that  Mac users were able to dump IE because website developers were glad to develop for an open source browser engine. A classic case of ...... 'I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.' Robert McCloskey



    The only reason why Safari succeeded was because website developers were willing to develop for a browser engine that had maybe 3% of the market. (of course Apple also provided all the developmental resources to make it as effortless as possible.)  Where as they had to develop for MS proprietary browser engine Trident, because IE had over 90% of the market. The same was true when they willingly developed for Mozilla FireFox and later Chrome. But that scenario don't exist today. Even though Blink has more market share than than Trident (IE browser engine) had, website developers seems more than happy to remain loyal to Blink. Any new browser engine for iOS will have to deal with Blink, not WebKit. It's not Apple not allowing third party browser engine on iOS that makes it impossible for a new browser engine, it's having to compete with Blink. The more Blink market share increases, the harder it'll be to convince website developers to develop for a new browser engine that registers as "other", in market share. And what browser developers want to use a browser engine that website developers don't really need to develop for?


    thtdanox
  • Apple still effectively blocks rival browser engines on iOS despite EU order

    How does a competing "browser engine" help me as a consumer when all of the value-added benefits of competing browsers is the rest of the stuff?

    Is it the extension support in Firefox? Extensions won't work in Firefox on iOS when WebKit is the browser engine? That seems like a stretch.

    Competition is good, but this seems like an odd battle. For years. Firefox had a sub-standard (slow and bloated) browser on Macs. Where was the wolf cry over that disconnect?

    There's nothing inherently wrong with WebKit. It is a near-equal engine alongside the other majors. So what are the major issues at stake?
    There is the obvious. We actually don’t know if WebKit is the best on iOS because nothing is allowed to compete with it.  For all we know another engine could run circles around it. 

    We all certainly understood what a better browser meant when Safari came out and we could dump I.E.  As a consumer I benefited from that competition. The same thing can’t happen on iOS. 

    But let's be realistic here. There are no "browser developers" that wants to develop another "browser engine" that competes with Blink, WebKit or Gecko. What these so call browser developers, that are bitching about no browser engine competition on iOS, want to do is to develop an iOS browser that uses the Blink browser engine.

    If there are browser engine developers that wants to develop a competing browser engine to WebKit on iOS, then where are their browser engines on Android? Nearly 100% of  the over dozen of different browsers on Android, uses Blink. Why in the name of Hell is the EU so concern about competition in the "browser engine" market on iOS, when there is no browser engine competition on Android? Not even Microsoft wants to develop their own browser engine for Edge (on Windows). They switched to Blink. There is no way that a browser engine can succeed by just being on iOS. It would also have to be on Android, before website developers develop for it. And they would rather not have to, just so that the  consumers have more choices of browser engines. Most consumers only care about the choice in browsers. 


    On MacOS, we have mainly WebKit, Blink and Gecko (FireFox). Blink don't come close to "running circles" around Safari or even FireFox, on MacOS. So far, most Mac users prefers Safari. But I imagine that if one was using an Android phone, they might prefer Chrome. Not because Blink runs circles around Safari but because Chrome is the browser Android phone owners are use to using. The same with Chrome on iOS. Even though iOS Chrome uses WebKit, PC users rather use Chrome on their iPhones because it's what they are use to using on their Windows PC. For the average consumers, it makes no real difference. Each has its advantages, along with its disadvantages. Blink enjoy advantages on Android, the same way WebKit enjoy advantages on iOS (and MacOS), vertical integration with the OS, as both (engine and OS) are developed by the same company. It is very hard for any competing browser engine to overcome those "vertical integrated" advantages. (Of course in the EU, they could force Apple to give those "vertical integrated"  advantages to competing browser engines.)

    So far, from what i have read, the biggest crybaby about not being able to develop a Blink browser on iOS is Meta. From what I understand, what Meta want to do is to put a browser inside their Facebook app, so users don't have to exit their Facebook app to get on the internet. Why? Because the browser inside their app would still be consider "first party" and not subject to Apple ATT.  They can data mine the Hell out of it, without informing their users. (And Spotify might be thinking along the same line, which is why the EU might be so concern about "browser engine" competition on iOS.) And Meta wants to use Blink because it offers less user privacy and more ways to mine users data. (Though there might be other technical advantages.) After all Blink was developed by Google, as a fork of WebKit.

    I think you failed to understand why Mac users "dumped" IE for Safari. It was mainly because Safari browser engine was open source while IE had a proprietary MS engine. IE for Macs even had a different browser engine than IE for Windows. Website developers got tire of MS proprietary shit that kept changing with little notice and no choice but to comply as IE had an over 90% market share at the time. Mac users "dumping" IE for Safari came at the same time PC users were dumping IE for Mozilla FireFox. Developers made the difference by jumping at the opportunity to develop for browser engines that were open source.   


    danox
  • Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...

    davidw said:

    Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".

    I guarantee that the Chinese companies aren’t paying Masimo a single cent, since Masimo has no way to sue them in China to stop them.

    Your guarantee is worthless.

    This from 2002, but it shows that even back then,  Masimo is not ignoring the China market.


    >Irvine, California, December 19, 2002, Masimo, the innovator of motion and low perfusion-tolerant pulse oximetry technology, announced today that it has formed a strategic alliance with leading Chinese medical device manufacturer, Shenzhen Mindray Bio-Medical Electronics Co., Ltd. (Mindray) of Shenzhen, China. Mindray, the largest domestic manufacturer of patient monitoring products in China, will incorporate Masimo SET® motion and low perfusion tolerant pulse oximetry as its primary pulse oximetry technology for its patient monitoring products.<




    tiredskillsronn
  • Apple Watch blood oxygen ban should never have been put in place, and Apple wants it overt...

    Fred257 said:
    You can get this feature on 30 dollar smartwatches from China. Not sure why this still stands..

    Most likely these China smartwatch companies are paying Masimo a small licensing fee for the use of their patents, as a form of ...... "go away money".

    Apple on the other hand, do not believe on principle, that they should be paying a dime in licensing patents that they think Masimo do not deserve to own or they are not infringing on. Remember, Masimo was willing to settle for what probably would had amounted to pocket change for Apple.

    In the course of this lawsuit, Apple managed to dispute and invalidate most of the 10 patents Masimo claimed to own and were using to sue Apple. Apple won jury verdicts that they were not infringing on nearly all of remaining patents.  And the 1 patent where Apple loss the infringement suit, they loss by just 1 vote. (Where they needed 7 jury votes to prove non-infringement, they only got 6.) It was this one patent infringement that got their Apple Watch banned. What should had happen was that Apple should had had to put up a bond to cover any licensing fee as a result of losing the appeal, instead of having to disable the blood monitoring function in the watch.  

    Masimo don't even have enough brains to be a patent troll. What they should had done was to let Apple continue to use the "infringing" patent that is in dispute. This way, if Apple loses the appeal, Apple will have to pay a large sum for the infringing use of their patents. But if Apple cease using the patent in dispute during the appeal, Masimo will only get any licensing money going forward (if Apple were to lose the appeal.) With the possibility of new tech replacing their patents by the time the appeal process is done.

    My thinking is that Masimo was thinking that Apple would surely settle with some "go away money", rather than to have their Apple Watch banned in the US. 
    SmittyWronn