Apple and Google investigated by UK competition body(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Apple and Google investigated by UK competition body
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-57484720
47 comments
While I agree with almost all of your comment--particularly strongly with regards to the way Apple has hobbled the web as a competitor to their App Store platforms, but notably also with respect to Firefox being locked out here--given your first phrase, it is worth at least considering the argument that the only reason why there is currently any "competition in web browsers" at all is Apple being a stubborn asshole about the whole thing, as otherwise it feels highly likely that everyone, everywhere, on every single platform, would be using Chrome...
If apple was forced to allow competition in browser engines on iOS and wanted to keep some market share for Safari, then they would have to compete fairly with Chrome.
So maybe they would start investing some real money in Safari's development and add the features everyone is using Chrome for? Maybe they'd also develop Android and Windows versions of Safari, like a normal browser trying to get market share would do?
So maybe they would start investing some real money in Safari's development and add the features everyone is using Chrome for? Maybe they'd also develop Android and Windows versions of Safari, like a normal browser trying to get market share would do?
"So maybe they would start investing some real money in Safari's development and add the features everyone is using Chrome for?"
This sentence is interesting given that Safari is faster in virtually every single usage model. Safari is lighter on memory. Safari is far more efficient from a CPU cycle perspective (ergo battery life). Particularly notable, iOS web browsing is overrepresented on the web versus marketshare.
"Everyone" is using Chrome because it was the browser in the early 2000s that they used on their Windows box. Do you think Chrome has made a particularly compelling argument over the past five to ten years? It's the incumbent that has been coasting on inertia.
What "features" are people using Chrome for? What do you think iOS users are being deprived of?
Notifications from web apps? Yeah, no.
I have serious grievances with Apple's restrictions on their platforms, and some of these walls will fall at the hands of government demands, however iOS users are being deprived little by not having a full version of Chrome.
This sentence is interesting given that Safari is faster in virtually every single usage model. Safari is lighter on memory. Safari is far more efficient from a CPU cycle perspective (ergo battery life). Particularly notable, iOS web browsing is overrepresented on the web versus marketshare.
"Everyone" is using Chrome because it was the browser in the early 2000s that they used on their Windows box. Do you think Chrome has made a particularly compelling argument over the past five to ten years? It's the incumbent that has been coasting on inertia.
What "features" are people using Chrome for? What do you think iOS users are being deprived of?
Notifications from web apps? Yeah, no.
I have serious grievances with Apple's restrictions on their platforms, and some of these walls will fall at the hands of government demands, however iOS users are being deprived little by not having a full version of Chrome.
Chrome has the biggest market share (outside of iOS) because it has the more features (that is web APIs) and less bugs, making it the most reliable browser. It is very common to encounter websites or applications which do not work properly in Safari, and web companies and developers are encouraging users to use Chrome because of that.
Here is a rather exhaustive list of all the features that Safari is lacking and which prevent the development of web applications that could compete with native ones: https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/
A lot of companies are deprived access to iOS users because they don't have the financial means to develop applications specifically for iOS. A lot of companies which have the means to develop natives applications have to compromise on the features they develop because development cost is much higher. A lot of companies are losing money because they have to use the app store and give Apple 30% of their revenue while they could use web applications instead and use payment solutions taking less than 5% of commission.
Because of Apple anti-competitive behaviour, iOS users are deprived of applications that just can't exist, deprived of features that companies can't afford to develop because of the high cost of iOS specific development, deprived of applications that could be of better quality if the developers behind it could focus on one codebase, and deprived of cheaper applications and in-app purchases.
They are deprived of the benefit of competition, basically.
Here is a rather exhaustive list of all the features that Safari is lacking and which prevent the development of web applications that could compete with native ones: https://infrequently.org/2021/04/progress-delayed/
A lot of companies are deprived access to iOS users because they don't have the financial means to develop applications specifically for iOS. A lot of companies which have the means to develop natives applications have to compromise on the features they develop because development cost is much higher. A lot of companies are losing money because they have to use the app store and give Apple 30% of their revenue while they could use web applications instead and use payment solutions taking less than 5% of commission.
Because of Apple anti-competitive behaviour, iOS users are deprived of applications that just can't exist, deprived of features that companies can't afford to develop because of the high cost of iOS specific development, deprived of applications that could be of better quality if the developers behind it could focus on one codebase, and deprived of cheaper applications and in-app purchases.
They are deprived of the benefit of competition, basically.
Chrome has a large marketshare, in part, because Google paid to have it installed along with free software (such as free antivirus utilities) through the use of dark patterns.
Users who do not pay attention during software install wizards ended up with Chrome installed and changed to their default browser without knowing how it happened.
Users who do not pay attention during software install wizards ended up with Chrome installed and changed to their default browser without knowing how it happened.
"Chrome has the biggest market share (outside of iOS) because it has the more features (that is web APIs) and less bugs, making it the most reliable browser"
ROFL. Chrome has the biggest market share because it rose while IE was a pile of dogshit and Firefox was going through a massive rewrite. It became the Microsoft of browsers, and turned lazy and fat as a result.
"It is very common to encounter websites or applications which do not work properly in Safari, and web companies and developers are encouraging users to use Chrome because of that."
Extremely uncommon, and generally a good sign that something is trash because it has a development team following the "IE" model.
Sure there is competition. Buy an Android device. But you know what's super weird? Android users leverage their browsers far less than iOS users. They're underrepresented online. Shouldn't they be enjoying that remarkable panacea afforded by such competition? You know, the competition where Chrome on Android is terrible, doesn't support extensions, etc?
ROFL. Chrome has the biggest market share because it rose while IE was a pile of dogshit and Firefox was going through a massive rewrite. It became the Microsoft of browsers, and turned lazy and fat as a result.
"It is very common to encounter websites or applications which do not work properly in Safari, and web companies and developers are encouraging users to use Chrome because of that."
Extremely uncommon, and generally a good sign that something is trash because it has a development team following the "IE" model.
Sure there is competition. Buy an Android device. But you know what's super weird? Android users leverage their browsers far less than iOS users. They're underrepresented online. Shouldn't they be enjoying that remarkable panacea afforded by such competition? You know, the competition where Chrome on Android is terrible, doesn't support extensions, etc?
Not so sure about that last bit, Android is by far the most popular OS according to StatCounter, a global web analytics service: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
Which part aren't you sure about?
Two facts-
-Android is the most popular mobile OS by a long ways
-But in every jurisdiction its representation among web visitors lags, usually significantly, its marketshare. iOS users, despite the horseshit that appears from Apple detractors, use their browser more than they do on alternatives. They are over-represented online.
Two facts-
-Android is the most popular mobile OS by a long ways
-But in every jurisdiction its representation among web visitors lags, usually significantly, its marketshare. iOS users, despite the horseshit that appears from Apple detractors, use their browser more than they do on alternatives. They are over-represented online.
> Chrome has the biggest market share (outside of iOS) because it has the more features
Most users don't care. Chrome is the dominant browser because Google anti-competitively used their monopoly in search engines (and eventually their market power in phones). They're no better than Microsoft in using Windows to push IE/Edge on users. They're just far more successful at it.
Most users don't care. Chrome is the dominant browser because Google anti-competitively used their monopoly in search engines (and eventually their market power in phones). They're no better than Microsoft in using Windows to push IE/Edge on users. They're just far more successful at it.
>What "features" are people using Chrome for? What do you think iOS users are being deprived of?
I'm not a chrome user(I prefer Firefox) but viewing WEBMs for one. Proper ublock origin support as well.
I'm not a chrome user(I prefer Firefox) but viewing WEBMs for one. Proper ublock origin support as well.
Chrome on Android doesn't support extensions at all, so that kind of invalidates that. Indeed, Chrome on Android is rather a piece of shit, so it's remarkable reading a thread by someone claiming that if only they could bring this to iOS they'd be winning.
As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. WebM was Google trying to boot-stomp a codec that offered virtually no compelling story for their own reasons, while offering a worse experience for the vast majority of users (e.g. worse energy profile given that little hardware has full hardware support).
As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM. WebM was Google trying to boot-stomp a codec that offered virtually no compelling story for their own reasons, while offering a worse experience for the vast majority of users (e.g. worse energy profile given that little hardware has full hardware support).
This is somewhat ahistorical. The concern was patent licensing fees and it impacted way more than just Google.
H.264 is (and pretty much all MPEG standards are) a patent-encumbered format. Anyone who encodes, decodes, or otherwise uses the format needs to pay licensing fees to a confusingly-named patent pool called MPEG-LA. Google is entirely capable of paying those fees; random webmasters and Free Software hackers are not.
The only reason why this didn't become as much of a problem as I'm making it out to be is because the H.264 pool had a very affordable or zero-royalty tier (can't remember which) for free Internet video distribution. At one point it looked like MPEG-LA was going to shitcan this tier, which would have basically killed every video site at the time except for YouTube. This wasn't an empty threat: previous ISO-standard formats like MPEG-4 Part 2 didn't come to an agreement on web video, so it was never used on the web. Macromedia wound up licensing On2 VP6 (WebM's predecessor) in Flash specifically because it had no known patent encumbrance.
Today, we have H.265, which is a licensing nightmare even for premium video providers and hardware manufacturers that are ordinarily used to paying licensing fees. AFAIK it's something like 3 patent pools and a bunch of other companies now?
H.264 is (and pretty much all MPEG standards are) a patent-encumbered format. Anyone who encodes, decodes, or otherwise uses the format needs to pay licensing fees to a confusingly-named patent pool called MPEG-LA. Google is entirely capable of paying those fees; random webmasters and Free Software hackers are not.
The only reason why this didn't become as much of a problem as I'm making it out to be is because the H.264 pool had a very affordable or zero-royalty tier (can't remember which) for free Internet video distribution. At one point it looked like MPEG-LA was going to shitcan this tier, which would have basically killed every video site at the time except for YouTube. This wasn't an empty threat: previous ISO-standard formats like MPEG-4 Part 2 didn't come to an agreement on web video, so it was never used on the web. Macromedia wound up licensing On2 VP6 (WebM's predecessor) in Flash specifically because it had no known patent encumbrance.
Today, we have H.265, which is a licensing nightmare even for premium video providers and hardware manufacturers that are ordinarily used to paying licensing fees. AFAIK it's something like 3 patent pools and a bunch of other companies now?
I don't care about Chrome. Firefox on Android supports extensions.
>As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM.
Let's just say pretty major platform I'm using daily uses webms extensively and the lack of support on iOS is a huge pain for me.
>As to WebM, zero users are missing the lack of WebM.
Let's just say pretty major platform I'm using daily uses webms extensively and the lack of support on iOS is a huge pain for me.
"I don't care about Chrome"
Neat. Only you replied with that refutation when I specifically asked what people are missing on iOS vis-a-vis Chrome. Neat that Firefox supports those features, but that seems to be so little of a competitive story that its usage on mobile is absolutely minuscule.
Which "major platform" is causing huge pain by the lack of WebM on iOS? LOL.
Neat. Only you replied with that refutation when I specifically asked what people are missing on iOS vis-a-vis Chrome. Neat that Firefox supports those features, but that seems to be so little of a competitive story that its usage on mobile is absolutely minuscule.
Which "major platform" is causing huge pain by the lack of WebM on iOS? LOL.
>This sentence is interesting given that Safari is faster in virtually every single usage model.
Both Chrome and Firefox made tremendous improvement. Safari 12 being the best and efficient making headlines meant Google and Firefox spend in the last 2+ years optimising. All while Safari 13 and later Safari 14 added quite a lot more Web features and made it slower.
Not sure about Safari 15 yet.
Both Chrome and Firefox made tremendous improvement. Safari 12 being the best and efficient making headlines meant Google and Firefox spend in the last 2+ years optimising. All while Safari 13 and later Safari 14 added quite a lot more Web features and made it slower.
Not sure about Safari 15 yet.
I'm not sure what the conclusion of your statement is, but Safari is still head and shoulders faster than both Chrome and Firefox on macOS. Both on macOS 11.4 and Safari 14.1.1, and macOS 12 and Safari 15.
Safari never got slower. Chrome got embarrassed into effectively cleaning up its act a bit and managing the catastrophic memory usage, but it's still slower and less efficient. And it's still a memory disaster compared to its contemporaries.
Safari never got slower. Chrome got embarrassed into effectively cleaning up its act a bit and managing the catastrophic memory usage, but it's still slower and less efficient. And it's still a memory disaster compared to its contemporaries.
Let's see Safari/Chrome market share on macOS.
Safari is just Webkit like Chrome and Edge. The only real competition is Firefox.
> Safari is just Webkit like Chrome and Edge
This incorrect, Blink (chromium) forked from webkit in 2013.
Blink has significantly diverged from webkit over the last decade, they are very different layout engines today. Also this only applies to the layout engine, the JS engines and web APIs are entirely different. They are pretty much completely different browser engines today.
This incorrect, Blink (chromium) forked from webkit in 2013.
Blink has significantly diverged from webkit over the last decade, they are very different layout engines today. Also this only applies to the layout engine, the JS engines and web APIs are entirely different. They are pretty much completely different browser engines today.
Any web developer would tell you that nowadays Blink (Google's WebKit fork) and WebKit are very different. Blink has more features than WebKit, and less bugs. So with Gecko (Firefox's engine) we really have three different browser engines nowadays.
Firefox' engine is called Quantum nowadays. Not sure how much of the original Gecko code still exists in its depths though.
The engine is still called Gecko. Quantum was the project name that try ( and succeeded ) to bring components from Servo to Gecko. Where Servo was the experimental engine written in Rust.
Technically Chrome forked off WebKit a few years back and Edge (and most other browsers) use that. I do wonder how different Blink and WebKit are at this point considering there’s quite a bit of manpower behind Blink.
Blink gets many times more manpower than WebKit, it is also used by new IE, which assures Google the veto power on any new browser API.
With Google providing Firefox with life-support.
It might seem stupid and petty, but this was my single biggest gripe with the year I spent on an iPhone which led to my going back to Android after that phone (like all the others in my life) expired.
The web browser is my single-most used piece of software, and I'd really like to choose which one I use, thanks (Firefox, in case you're wondering).
That and not simply being able to drag and drop mp3s to listen to.
The web browser is my single-most used piece of software, and I'd really like to choose which one I use, thanks (Firefox, in case you're wondering).
That and not simply being able to drag and drop mp3s to listen to.
> That and not simply being able to drag and drop mp3s to listen to.
Doesn't Apple Music support this? I have many MP3s I've dragged and dropped into Apple Music and then played them on my phone.
Doesn't Apple Music support this? I have many MP3s I've dragged and dropped into Apple Music and then played them on my phone.
Perhaps, i more meant just plugging into a computer and dragging over files using the OS's file manager.
These days that seems more hassle than doing it over the cloud though - I'd have to go and dig out some kind of physical cable!
I "use" Chrome on my iOS/iPadOS devices periodically. I use it for the integration with Google services, the shared state with Chrome on my other devices -- bookmarks, currently open pages, passwords, etc. I jump between devices and this integration is critical. This is mostly between my iOS and my Windows existence.
I use Safari in a similar way, albeit mostly between my iOS and macOS existence.
The number of times I've missed a Chrome engine feature is somewhere approximating zero.
So saying "most of their value" seems pretty specious. If Chrome were faster, used less power, or had some value proposition rather than integration, sure, but it isn't. Here's a fun hottake - Chrome forced to use webkit on iOS is almost certainly better than Chrome would be if it used Google's own engine.
"because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification"
There is always something that becomes the critical missing ingredient. Yet uptake of web apps on Android and the desktop is somewhere in the proximity of non-existent (but always explained away by shaking one's fist at Apple). The suite of features in web apps has grown spectacularly, and now encompasses high performance graphics, a massive VM, game controllers, gyroscopes and cameras and microphones, but there is always just one more thing that Apple is always to blame for.
This is another futile thread that is going to be brigaded by the anti-Apple crew, so please enjoy downvoting to try to assuage whatever hangups you have.
I use Safari in a similar way, albeit mostly between my iOS and macOS existence.
The number of times I've missed a Chrome engine feature is somewhere approximating zero.
So saying "most of their value" seems pretty specious. If Chrome were faster, used less power, or had some value proposition rather than integration, sure, but it isn't. Here's a fun hottake - Chrome forced to use webkit on iOS is almost certainly better than Chrome would be if it used Google's own engine.
"because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification"
There is always something that becomes the critical missing ingredient. Yet uptake of web apps on Android and the desktop is somewhere in the proximity of non-existent (but always explained away by shaking one's fist at Apple). The suite of features in web apps has grown spectacularly, and now encompasses high performance graphics, a massive VM, game controllers, gyroscopes and cameras and microphones, but there is always just one more thing that Apple is always to blame for.
This is another futile thread that is going to be brigaded by the anti-Apple crew, so please enjoy downvoting to try to assuage whatever hangups you have.
It's not anti Apple, your view is just severely departed from reality.
Thanks for the valuable insights.
I've always wondered that in a theoretical pure market economy where success ultimately leads to domination of one or more competitors, and failure for everyone else, will always result in a more restrictive market economy afterwards.
Apple succeeded (and almost died first, I know, I was there at the time) in integrating hardware and software and Google succeeded in building a better search engine and dominating ads, plus buying Android, yet today there are basically no alternatives to iPhones and Android phones, and search is still majorally dominated by Google. Economically speaking, the market economy allowed them to become dominant in their categories. If you throttle competition to avoid mono/duopolies, do you throttle success for everyone? If you clamp down after successful domination, does that really increase competition? Is there a balance somewhere, or is this basically always going to happen?
Apple succeeded (and almost died first, I know, I was there at the time) in integrating hardware and software and Google succeeded in building a better search engine and dominating ads, plus buying Android, yet today there are basically no alternatives to iPhones and Android phones, and search is still majorally dominated by Google. Economically speaking, the market economy allowed them to become dominant in their categories. If you throttle competition to avoid mono/duopolies, do you throttle success for everyone? If you clamp down after successful domination, does that really increase competition? Is there a balance somewhere, or is this basically always going to happen?
>or is this basically always going to happen?
High Barrier of Entry is always going to create monopoly. Who wants to invest tens of billions every year just to stay on top of leading edge Node and try to compete with TSMC? Even Global foundry being bankrolled by Saudi couldn't afford it.
>do you throttle success for everyone?
It isn't about market monopoly, it is about the abuse of its power once you reach that status. It has to be fair and just.
High Barrier of Entry is always going to create monopoly. Who wants to invest tens of billions every year just to stay on top of leading edge Node and try to compete with TSMC? Even Global foundry being bankrolled by Saudi couldn't afford it.
>do you throttle success for everyone?
It isn't about market monopoly, it is about the abuse of its power once you reach that status. It has to be fair and just.
> Is there a balance somewhere, or is this basically always going to happen?
I do not see any other possible result in a market for products with near zero marginal costs and high barriers to entry.
I do not see any other possible result in a market for products with near zero marginal costs and high barriers to entry.
If the only barrier to entry was money, that would be understandable, but facing artificial roadblocks like those Tile faced seems pretty avoidable with better anti-trust regulation.
I also don't think making software or making a platform is "near zero marginal cost." Sure someone can hack something together with off the shelf components in a short time, but building a sustainable product or service isn't easy and takes a lot of resources. Copycat products or making the nth widget might be things which are low marginal cost, but then those who don't innovate die off.
I also don't think making software or making a platform is "near zero marginal cost." Sure someone can hack something together with off the shelf components in a short time, but building a sustainable product or service isn't easy and takes a lot of resources. Copycat products or making the nth widget might be things which are low marginal cost, but then those who don't innovate die off.
The zero marginal cost is for copies of the same software. Whereas physical goods have to continuously deal with suppliers, commodities costs, quality of said suppliers and commodities, efficiencies in manufacturing, etc., there is comparatively near zero of that with software. Once it is made, selling it to 1, 10, or 100 buyers makes no difference which lets you drive the price down in case any competitor should try to come around.
As an example, Microsoft bundling Teams with its other software at nearly no cost to Microsoft versus Slack. In a physical product business, a seller does not have as much freedom to bundle in extras at no cost to prevent competitors.
As an example, Microsoft bundling Teams with its other software at nearly no cost to Microsoft versus Slack. In a physical product business, a seller does not have as much freedom to bundle in extras at no cost to prevent competitors.
This is a meaningless argument, like I said, innovation and upkeep isn't free. Software requires just as much infrastructure, tooling, and optimization as making a physical good. Your code will bit rot in weeks or months if you don't keep up with changes. Nobody is going to want the 100th copy if someone else has added a popular feature that I don't have. Lowering the price to build a user base is one thing, doing it just to get a sale is temporary and can't last. (edit: If I'm making a game I need art, if it's an App that uses ML/AI, I need data, and if it's an OS, I need hardware docs. None of these things are easier or harder to get than say wood or metal.)
Those wanting to use something other than Teams are still free to choose, the switching costs are the barrier to entry in this case and anti-trust can ensure it's not made artificially higher by platforms.
Those wanting to use something other than Teams are still free to choose, the switching costs are the barrier to entry in this case and anti-trust can ensure it's not made artificially higher by platforms.
This will go nowhere and everyone involved will be working for Apple and Google in a few years' time.
A more cynical version. This will go nowhere after the Conservative party in the UK receives a number of large political donations from business leaders who do not work for Apple and Google, but do play golf with them.
The UK wants to show it has teeth post Brexit, but will find out shortly it can't tackle FAANG without broad political support from other countries.
The UK wants to show it has teeth post Brexit, but will find out shortly it can't tackle FAANG without broad political support from other countries.
>but will find out shortly it can't tackle FAANG without broad political support from other countries.
EU? Even Japan is opening a case on it. Where iPhone has nearly 70% market shares it is ridiculous.
EU? Even Japan is opening a case on it. Where iPhone has nearly 70% market shares it is ridiculous.
Agree with point about the torries, but UK remains a lucrative market on its own. They aren’t as powerful outside the block as within it, but no global company wants to leave the UK market.
The question is if there remains a loop-hole, for example operating from Ireland.
Google lobbying for devo max our outright independence for Scotland just for market access...
This is what they said about GDPR, and yet here we are. The UK may not have the heavyweight political importance that the EU has, but it's a key market; we can only hope things change because as they stand it's only going to get worse and worse.
Apple is actually doing evil monopolistic tactics. At least you can compile your own Android or Chrome. I do this.
This is very important because Apple is preventing competition in web browsers engines, forcing competitor browsers (like Chrome and Firefox) to use the engine under Safari (WebKit), which they fully control. By doing so they deprive other browsers of most of their value, and prevent the development of web applications capable of competing with native applications, because they do not implement crucial features in WebKit, like push notification.