ProtonMail vs Apple

Fri Aug 14 12:56:38 EDT 2020

Sean,

> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there.
I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)

I am talking specifically about iOS and about the fact that every single
browser on iOS is running the same engine as Safari, even Firefox. Believe
me, I know browsers more than most people on this list. I know Brave
founders; we had beers together last year. I actually met and in some cases
even collaborated with engineers from every single major browser. Heck, a
feature I made for Firefox became so popular that Google adopted the same
feature and came to tell me that in person during the DWeb Summit 2018.

Apple doesn't allow any other engine on iOS, every single browser is
WebKit. Chrome, Brave, Firefox, they are all WebKit on iOS. You can add
features on top of it, but you can't replace the engine with your engine.
So Google can't ship Blink and Mozilla can't ship Gecko on iOS. We used to
joke that Firefox for iOS should be called MozSafari. The reason those
companies are shipping browsers on iOS even though they are prohibited from
shipping their own engines is because they want to:

1 - They have a presence in the platform. This is a marketing/strategic
reason to keep your brand awareness strong with that platform users.
2 - So they can add their own services on top such as bookmark
synchronizing. This is beneficial for the users and the vendor. The fear
vendors have that the users might migrate to full Safari on mobile and then
on Desktop as well is reason enough to compell them to work even with these
limitations.

It used to be worse. Not long ago Apple had an engine that you were allowed
to use for your apps and used a more modern one for Safari on iOS. That
caused every single other browser to perform worse than Safari on iOS. That
is no longer the case but it was true up to not a couple years ago. As for
engines, Apple took KHTML from the KDE project and created WebKit and
Safari. Google picked WebKit and had a divergence with Apple, so they
created Blink. With the exception of Firefox which uses Gecko, and Safari
that uses WebKit, most of the other browsers are all Blink based, that
means that Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, Samsung Internet, are
all running the same engine. I wrote about it in 2018:

  https://andregarzia.com/2018/12/while-we-blink-we-lose-the-web.html

This is a problem and it plays a role in the whole antitrust and fair play
conversation regarding iOS. Reading things like "It is their platform, you
can either agree or go somewhere else" is naive. The lives of millions are
passing through these devices, we need better legal tools to make companies
accountable. If Microsoft tried to pull such a stunt of not allowing any
other browser engine on Windows, the EU commission would wrath would be
upon them as fast as lightning, iOS shouldn't be different.

Best
Andre

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:46, Sean Cole (Pi) via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It's all a pointless debate. Apple can do what it likes with THEIR
> *platform*! if YOU _choose_ not to agree with their policies for use on
> THEIR platform, YOU can _choose_ to go elsewhere.
>
> The same or similar issues come up with ALL brands! Google, Samsung, Nike,
> AT&T, Ford, Cadbury, so on and so on and so on.
>
> If EPIC follow the rules they lose 30% income but gain millions of
> potential users. If they choose not to, they get kicked off and gain
> nothing! They're just being dumb while thinking they are winning some moral
> high-ground (which does not exist).
>
> Andre, What on earth are you talking about regards browsers? There is a
> crapload of other browsers to choose from on ALL platforms, including iOS.
> They all play happily by the rules. Which ones are you talking about that
> can't get onto Apple because they choose not to follow the rules of that
> one low market share platform? 'Brave' is a new one that offers in-app
> purchase following the rules. All of the other 'top players' are there. I'm
> sure any you are talking about are run by juveniles that have a pile of
> rattles laying around their prams. ;)
>
> Myself, I'd be glad to see the back of ALL of them. But in this 'world
> order' that won't happen. Someone else will just rise up in their place.
> Better the 'devils' you know for now!
>
> Sean
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 15:04, Kee Nethery via use-livecode <
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
>
> > Bypassing Apple in app purchasing is technically trivial, plenty of apps
> > have done it for years and they have followed the App Store rules when
> > doing so. Physical services (eg Plumbers) and physical products (eg
> Amazon)
> > they cannot use Apple IAP. Digital goods and services (eg Epic) are
> > required to use IAP. Those are the terms of service. Of course Epic got
> > booted. Nothing surprising about it other than that they thought they
> would
> > get away with it.
> >
> > Kee Nethery
> >
> > > On Aug 14, 2020, at 2:32 AM, JeeJeeStudio via use-livecode <
> > use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Waaah, now even EPIC with Fortnite has been kicked off the appstore,
> > > because they found a way to sell things past the appstore. And then
> Apple
> > > don't get 30%....
> >
>
>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > >>
> > >> Yes it does. There is a ton of innovation that is user friendly that
> is
> > >> prevented from being present in iOS due to Apples practices. A simple
> > >> example is new browser engines, you can't have them. Which means you
> > can't
> > >> have more private engines than what Safari uses. This also makes it
> > harder
> > >> to bring lots of API innovation to iOS which would benefit users
> > because it
> > >> would allow for better and more powerful web apps.
> >
>
>
> > >> On Sat, 8 Aug 2020 at 22:16, Jim Lambert via use-livecode <
> > >> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> BrianM wrote:
> > >>>> One thing that seems to be missing in this discussion is the point
> of
> > >>> view of the ?client?, the one who downloads the app and pays for it
> > >>>
> > >>> True.
> > >>> In the U.S. the laws against monopoly (the Sherman Act of 1890, the
> > >>> Clayton Act of 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) are
> > >> there
> > >>> to promote competition amongst companies for the benefit of
> consumers.
> > >> Or
> > >>> our end users.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do Apple's actions and policies monopolistically harm consumers?
> > Consumer
> > >>> behavior itself argues against that. Quite the contrary, consumers
> are
> > >>> willing to pay a premium for Apple products and services.
> > >>>
> > >>> Andre notes that Apple exercises a monopoly WITHIN the iOS system.
> But
> > >>> that is a misnomer. Apple has a proprietary system not a monopolistic
> > >> one.
> > >>> And they strictly control it. It's simply not true that "there is
> > nothing
> > >>> iOS users can do about that." Yes, there is. Consumers who don't want
> > to
> > >>> buy into Apple’s closed system are free to buy elsewhere. Consumers
> can
> > >>> choose Android or any other alternative products. No one is forcing
> > >>> consumers to buy and use Apple products, which is what would happen
> if
> > >>> Apple had an actual monopoly. In fact, some consumers prefer Apple's
> > >> strict
> > >>> proprietary control and are willing to pay mucho dinero for it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Now look at it from the developers' point of view. Apple makes us
> jump
> > >>> through many more hoops than Android developers do. Apple constantly
> > >>> changes these hoops which can seem inexplicably capricious. But is
> it?
> > Or
> > >>> is it a constant effort to assure safe computing for their consumers?
> > >>>
> > >>> There seems to be an assumption that the 30% cut Apple takes is
> > >>> outrageous. But what does a developer get for that Apple %? If you
> > think
> > >>> you can replace what Apple offers for less money, then just sell your
> > app
> > >>> on Android and rake in the extra bucks. What's stopping you?
> > >>>
> > >>> The reality is that the vast majority of smartphone apps make little
> or
> > >> no
> > >>> money, regardless of OS.
> > >>> So is it painful to surrender 30% of nothing? ;)
> > >>>
> > >>> But back to the purpose of this list, aren't we lucky to have
> > LiveCode, a
> > >>> development platform that gives us the power to develop for whatever
> > >>> platforms make sense for us?
> >
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>

-- 
https://www.andregarzia.com <http://www.andregarzia.com>
Want to support me? Buy me a coffee at https://ko-fi.com/andregarzia