Apple's Browser Engine Ban Persists, Even Under the DMA

If you receive an address in an iMessage, clicking/long-holding will always open in Apple Maps. There is no way to share to Google Maps (it doesn't appear in the list), and the default setting to use Google Maps doesn't affect iMessage.

You have to copy the address, switch to Google Maps, paste it in, and search. I would much prefer clicking the address to open in the app of my choice.

I assume it's so they can track what option you choose.

I'm using Android, with my default browser set to Firefox Focus, and I found:

- Every few months, the default browser gets reset to Chrome. I don't know this has happened until I realise I'm looking at something in Chrome. Then I look at the default browser setting, see it changed to Chrome (without my consent, and as far as I know, no notification), and I change it back to Firefox Focus. This has happened at least twice in the last year.

- For a while, when opening things from Google Search it opened them in Chrome. However I'm unable to replicate that now.

Setting a default browser means when I open a link it should always use that browser without prompting.

Facebook/Messenger are another case of not respecting default browser, and always open with their own in-app browser.

I can’t believe that their search deal with apple allows that.

When I click on a Google Maps link, I get asked by the OS if I want to open it using an app from the store (GMaps). I say no, go to google.com/maps and then get asked if I want to use the app or "Keep using Web". And of course at each stage, it could remember my choice, but it does not.

Bing's mobile UI is highly annoying, covering half the map by default with "recommendations". I still use it rather than Google whenever possible. Though I do use Waze when driving.

Curious which Android flavour this is on. I'm running stock Android & I've found:

1. Chrome app can be set to "Disabled", but cannot be entirely uninstalled

2. When modifying any system settings that involve choosing defaults from a list of apps that could include Chrome, Chrome still appears (despite being "Disabled") & if chosen for that action opens up Chrome surprisingly fast & is magically suddenly no longer "Disabled".

On the contrary, I have not had the issue you describe with Google apps (I mainly use Gmail & Maps & both always open Firefox for me with no reversions). I also have an iPhone (for work) & Apple's complete disregard for browser defaults for links opened from most apps (including 3rd-party) drives me insane. Slack opens in Firefox but most other apps give me a popup with only Safari & (ironically) Chrome as options - clicking Chrome brings me to the App Store.

Penalties:

• Up to €15 million or 2.5 % of global turnover for essential requirement failures.

• €10 million or 2 % turnover for other obligations.

• €5 million or 1 % turnover for misleading or incomplete documents

On the one hand, these are important standards. On the other, it seems impossible for small shops to adhere to a lot of this.

Surely that's the point - a collusive oligopoly making end runs around the "free market". Just look at all the other replies, rich with apologia.

> (93) In relation to microenterprises and small enterprises, in order to ensure proportionality, it is appropriate to alleviate administrative costs without affecting the level of cybersecurity protection [...] It is therefore appropriate for the Commission to establish a simplified technical documentation form targeted at the needs of microenterprises and small enterprises. [...] In doing so, the form would contribute to alleviating the administrative compliance burden by providing the enterprises concerned with legal certainty about the extent and detail of information to be provided. [...]

> (96) In order to ensure proportionality, conformity assessment bodies, when setting the fees for conformity assessment procedures, should take into account the specific interests and needs of microenterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises, including start-ups. In particular, conformity assessment bodies should apply the relevant examination procedure and tests provided for in this Regulation only where appropriate and following a risk-based approach

> (97) The objectives of regulatory sandboxes should be to foster innovation and competitiveness for businesses by establishing controlled testing environments before the placing on the market of products with digital elements. Regulatory sandboxes should contribute to improve legal certainty for all actors that fall within the scope of this Regulation and facilitate and accelerate access to the Union market for products with digital elements, in particular when provided by microenterprises and small enterprises, including start-ups.

> (118) [...] specify the simplified documentation form targeted at the needs of microenterprises and small enterprises, and decide on corrective or restrictive measures at Union level in exceptional circumstances which justify an immediate intervention [...]

> (120) [...] When deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case, all relevant circumstances of the specific situation should be taken into account [...], including whether the manufacturer is a microenterprise or a small or medium-sized enterprise, including a start-up [...]. Given that administrative fines do not apply to microenterprises or small enterprises for a failure to meet the 24-hour deadline for the early warning notification of actively exploited vulnerabilities or severe incidents having an impact on the security of the product with digital elements, nor to open-source software stewards for any infringement of this Regulation, and subject to the principle that penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, Member States should not impose other kinds of penalties with pecuniary character on those entities.

Hindsight is 20/20, but remember that Google has paid Mozilla 3.8 BILLION DOLLARS in the past 10 years alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances

You could do a lot with 3.8 billion dollars, if you spent it on your core mission and not chasing Bay Area trendy shit. Mitchell Baker is still there, making phat bank, she's just the chair of the Mozilla Foundation instead of being the CEO of Mozilla Corporation.

Yup. It's a lose-lose situation

FF's real threat, as open source software, is either:

1. further capture of mozilla and intentional degradation by google to the point of obscurity

2. organizational implosion followed by google deliberating requiring changes to web standards that break firefox in a way that open source contributions struggle to keep up with

3. a paradigm shift in how we use the internet (i.e. people transition to interacting with AI 98% of the time)

VM is EU. Heck, it can be an ephemeral instance on EC2, so it would only cost money while in use, probably tens of cents or something.

If there's a will, there's a way.

Apple may or (more likely) may not be complying in terms of allowing third party browser engines, but I don't see how you can argue that not implementing this _outside_ the EU fails to comply with EU law (which applies _inside_ the EU).

That's not to say they shouldn't allow this elsewhere (although it will just cement the Chrome monopoly - actually _decreasing_ competition and solidifying the incumbent's position) but I don't think you can argue that this law requires them to do that.

Is that surprising in any way?

They've been asked to not reject third party browser engines in the EU. Check.

Google has plenty of developers in the EU so I'm not even sure what people want exactly.

noo, that how law works

EU make an law that forces Apple to adhere, apple make changes that suit the new law

if its works in EU only then its working as intended

I do also think there are a lot of downsides to letting big tech companies exercise tight control over stuff, especially when it is anti-competitive. The slowing of Chrome is a good outcome, but there are plenty of other downsides that come along with allowing Apple (and others) to have these policies.

The status quo has all of the problems of a monopoly. Doing this or not doing this won't change that. But it will remove another barrier to consumers being able to do what they want.

Google also has bad incentives (Android, ads) but Safari is the IE6 of modern web.

On MacOS, where there has long been engine choice, Safari market share is >50%. Defaults are powerful and many users are happy with the real and perceived benefits of the first-party brand.

Safari has >90% market share on iOS today. If engine competition were permitted, they might lose a few percent initially, but would be highly motivated to close any gaps.

There's no world in which WebKit usage among the world's wealthiest consumers drops low enough that web developers can target a chromium monoculture. The purpose of engine choice is to create real competition in order to motivate Apple to do better.

But the US's system certainly doesn't allow that (and, of course, there isn't going to be any serious antitrust in the US for the foreseeable future anymore). I have no idea if the EU's does, but I really don't think they have sufficient jurisdiction to do things like break up Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Which is definitely necessary to address these problems.

Make no mistake: the reason we are here is because of the morally- and intellectually-bankrupt shift to the Chicago School-backed philosophy of antitrust under Reagan, coupled with a government—at all levels, in all branches—that didn't understand technology, and collectively refused to learn, for decades.

Might as well get it over with quickly.

In case it's not obvious, these crutches should be removed.

Treat Google paying Apple for the use of Google's search engine and Mozilla for the same thing, as anti-competitive (they're token gestures propping up the monopoly).

And break Google up in multiple companies. Not sure along which lines but I would steer towards platforms (Android + Chrome + Search + Docs + Cloud; banned from entering advertising), Play Store, Ads.

The same thing should be done to Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. Nobody has the guts anymore.

Consider adding this to your website:

    <script src="https://eff.org/defend_the_web.js"></script>

Apple's WebKit is renowned to be lagging behind, refusing to implement crucial features and being rigged with bugs, hence limiting the capabilities and quality of web apps, and effectively preventing them to compete with native apps.

Getting other browser engines on iOS would be beneficial for developers, businesses and end user by making mobile web apps viable.

Without healthy browser diversity, the web might as well be renamed the Chrome Protocol and the "browser choice" you care about so much is gone.

I don't think you are correct to assume games can't go to the web. Any feature they need from native APIs can be added to the web. Full screen, gyro, vibration, multi touch, payment APIs, notifications, WASM and GPU support are already on the web!

2. Many of those games could be rewritten in WebGPU/WebGL2.. if it saved them 30% appstore tax, and the install process was decent and they had frictionless payments, they'd move.

3. Because Apple is the primary target market, and if you've already built native for iOS, what's the advantage of doing web for Android if your not making the cost savings of only having to build one app. 70% of Desktop usage is now the web/web apps... that tells you what's possible if browsers can compete.

Simple. Apple doesn't want you to use Windows. They want you to buy an expensive Apple computer instead.

Safari is actually a pretty great browser, both technically and from a user perspective, and the complaints often levied on sites like this usually boil down to "Why do alternatives to Chrome exist? So annoying! I'm incredibly lazy and want to just deploy whatever half-baked non-standard ad-benefiting nonsense Google threw into Chrome this month". There was a Safari for Windows for some time but they had a small enough uptake that they abandoned it.

So true. It didn’t occur to me that I had naturally assumed Safari to be worse, when it would have been better in a more competitive market. So by relying on monopolistic behavior, Apple is also partly responsible for the Chromium monopoly (that this law will help solidify).