[HN Gopher] Five Walled Gardens: Operating systems are holding b...
___________________________________________________________________
Five Walled Gardens: Operating systems are holding browsers back
[pdf]
Author : MikusR
Score : 127 points
Date : 2022-09-26 17:21 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (research.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (research.mozilla.org)
| pGuitar wrote:
| The main browser problems right now are Apple not allowing
| alternate engines, Google spamming Chrome on Google.com's search
| engine, Mozilla getting its money from Google and the default
| browser on Android.
| andrewparker wrote:
| echoes of United States v. Microsoft:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
|
| would be ironic if Mozilla played the next Netscape
| an1sotropy wrote:
| but you know that Mozilla _is_ the descendant of open-sourcing
| Netscape Navigator, right? It 's not ironic, it's depressing.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| iOS 15 will take up about 3.24 GB Windows 10 takes up about 15 GB
|
| Who would want to use iOS after it was Windowized for browser
| freedom?
| mcguire wrote:
| False dichotomy. Android also only takes up 3-4GB.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Mozilla is really complaining about pushy sales tactics, when
| they themselves push their paid Pocket service on me every time
| they can find an excuse to do so?
| neogodless wrote:
| Can you not simply remove the Pocket button, or install a
| different extension to keep track of sites for you?
|
| iOS does not allow you to install an alternate browser engine.
|
| Windows does not allow you to remove Edge.
|
| That's very different from an extension or toolbar button that
| you can easily turn off or replace.
| falcolas wrote:
| To use your comparison, Windows is fine with you pulling Edge
| off the taskbar.
|
| To abuse the comparison further, Firefox does not allow you
| to uninstall the pocket addon.
|
| Mozilla needs to be held to the same standards they're
| attempting to hold others too.
| layer8 wrote:
| > To use your comparison, Windows is fine with you pulling
| Edge off the taskbar.
|
| It seems you missed stuff like:
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/latest_windows_11_bu
| i...
|
| https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/microsoft-edge-protocol-
| competit...
| falcolas wrote:
| #1 appears to have been a bug. That's certainly not the
| behavior right now.
|
| Same with #2 apparently, because again, it happily opens
| links from other applications in Firefox for me.
|
| As of Windows 11 build 22000.978
| falcolas wrote:
| Not to mention the VPN and whatever other abandonware-in-
| potentia the Mozilla Foundation is funding. It's so damned
| frustrating.
| millzlane wrote:
| The news widget in the start menu for windows only opens using
| edge. I hate it.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| So remove the news widget.
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| ----> Open Google Search, or Gmail.
|
| >>> Try a fast, secure browser with updates built in.
|
| ----> Bing.com, or any other Microsoft service
|
| >>> Microsoft Recommends Edge Browser for Windows 11/10.
|
| ----> When setting a default browser
|
| >>> Microsoft recommends that you keep Edge as the default
| browser
|
| ----> Apple OSX
|
| >>> Try the new Safari - A fast, energy efficient, with a
| beautiful design.
|
| Ironically, all these 3 browsers have some serious shortcomings
| like heavy telemetry, tracking, or having a completely out-of-
| the-loop user experience.
|
| This is why we need to switch to non-profit OSS like Firefox.
| Brave is also a good choice but not a non-profit.
| oneplane wrote:
| > This is why we need to switch
|
| No it's not, as regardless of how bad all the commercial
| software is, when the general population just wants to go to
| Facebook, YouTube and watch porn, no browser switching of any
| kind is going to improve that. You can assume that most
| computer-users aren't in it for some ideological, privacy or
| security concept, they just want to consume some content and
| move on.
| pwinnski wrote:
| I think this is under-selling the value of something like
| Safari. I'm on Hacker News, not just a general population
| rando, and I still care more about usability than most
| ideological concepts. I don't like Chrome and would stay away
| from Edge for many reasons if it were even a viable option on
| MacOS, but I'm still not switching. Since Safari doesn't have
| "heavy telemetry" or "tracking," I assume the "completely
| out-of-the-loop user experience" was aimed at it, but I
| haven't found that to be the case either.
|
| If one cares more about OSS than UXP, then by all means, go
| full-Stallman. I just don't think there are very many people
| who care that much, which is why Chrome is as popular as it
| is.
| ouid wrote:
| All of those experiences are essentially unlivable without
| ublock origin.
| ouid wrote:
| Why would anyone consider brave to be a good choice of browser?
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I don't understand why are Google and Apple allowed to do what
| Microsoft was fined for in the _nineties_. Arguably, Microsoft
| did even less!
|
| And then again forced by EU to offer alternative browsers, on
| start.
|
| I guess what they say is that unlike MSFT in the 90s, they don't
| have a monopoly, which makes it fine?
| mid-kid wrote:
| This is unfortunately not about the technical details of
| operating systems that hold them back but rather user interface
| concerns (installing browsers, changing defaults).
| superkuh wrote:
| Mozilla has a very web-centric view of the internet for obvious
| reasons. The survey they do here about people's reluctance to
| install browsers themselves is useful in that context.
|
| But the web is not the internet. And every problem that Mozilla
| brings up in this report stems from them, and other browser
| developing corporations, treating web pages as applications
| instead of as documents.
| robgibbons wrote:
| Hypermedia in general, and specifically the World Wide Web, was
| never intended to be limited to displaying documents. What
| you're describing is essentially just Hypertext, but that's
| only one narrow aspect of hypermedia and the Web.
|
| Hypercard, NLS, and other systems that predated and informed
| the WWW were all envisioned to do so much more than display
| links and text, and it's a very myopic view in my opinion to
| suggest otherwise. I recommend anyone who shares this
| perspective look into the spiritual predecessors of the Web to
| better understand where we've been and where things are going.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Who cares about what was "intended" anyways? That ship has
| sailed! When a new technology is introduced, the intention is
| of no consequence; no one cares and they'll use it however
| they choose. The web is whatever we make it, and all we can
| do is try and direct it towards what we want it to be.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| > But the web is not the internet.
|
| The "web" is a joke. Other people here are taking issue with
| this comment, but there's a distinct truth to it. You can argue
| semantics, but web "browsers" were designed around navigating
| HTML. Now they are IDE's for runtime-compiled applications
| using HTML primitives, positioned by CSS, in place of an
| actual, useful, concrete widget system, like you get in Visual
| Basic. If this had been the development target for "browsers"
| 25 years ago, I wonder how much better we could have evolved
| this system than the morass of JS we have now, and all the
| problems that go with it.
| gregmac wrote:
| > every problem that Mozilla brings up in this report stems
| from them, and other browser developing corporations, treating
| web pages as applications instead of as documents.
|
| What do you mean by this?
|
| The problems they bring up essentially boil down to increasing
| user access to privacy, security, and new features. Locking
| people into default browsers put us back into the stagnant,
| horrible IE6 era.
|
| The only thing I can figure out is you're saying if client-side
| scripting didn't exist, some of these would be less pressing.
| Which is true, but it does exist, so the choice is
| abolish/avoid it (good luck getting mass user adoption!), or
| deal with it.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > Mozilla has a very web-centric view of the internet for
| obvious reasons.
|
| Which attitude I happen to find immensely frustrating because I
| think becoming a more all-inclusive Internet client, and
| especially combining services in interesting ways, would have
| been one viable path to maintaining relevance, differentiating
| themselves, and maintaining user-enthusiasm and evangelism, if
| they'd started 10-12 years ago.
| acomjean wrote:
| I get that, but web applications are getting pretty good. They
| are also cross platform which is great for us Linux users.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| The motivation to make the web an application platform is
| because the web is the only thing that could possibly displace
| Microsoft's stranglehold on non-server PC operating systems,
| and is the only workable alternative to apps on iOS.
| notriddle wrote:
| That's half the reason.
|
| The other half of the reason is that Web applications are way
| easier to deploy, even if 100% of your users are on Windows,
| because the second-order-effect of being locked-down is less
| gatekeeping and less scare screens. If a web app is able to
| see stuff that it hasn't been explicitly granted access to,
| that's considered the Browser's fault for allowing it instead
| of it being the User's fault for installing an untrusted app.
| unwind wrote:
| Meta: a bit unfortunate editing in the title, "OS" stands for
| "operating systems", not "open source" as you would expect.
|
| Suggested quick fix: make it "OS:s" if it fits.
|
| Edit: closed qoute.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| I think "OS are" tips it off as Operating System(s). If it were
| Open Source, it would say "OS is".
| MikusR wrote:
| The title was too long
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| I'm fairly certain quite a few of us did expect "operating
| systems".
| ajot wrote:
| I've never seen OS as open source, always as operating system.
| FOSS or FLOSS is how I commonly see open source used inside an
| acronym.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Yeah, this is the same response I had as well. iOS and macOS
| being the literal name of 2 popular operating systems.
| s17n wrote:
| I think "OS" for "operating system" and "OSS" for "open source
| software" are quite standard.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| I understood Operating Systems.
| howenterprisey wrote:
| Regardless of what it stands for (although it's always
| "operating systems"), grammatically speaking it should be OS's
| or something similar, not just "OS".
| djbusby wrote:
| "OS Vendors"
| ThunderSizzle wrote:
| In the context of the title, I understood it as "operating
| systems". This may be due to a few things, but from grammar
| alone, "are" typically requires a plural noun, an "Open
| Sources" makes no sense, so if I was confused by "OS", the
| "Are" clued it into "Operating Systems" since the plural there
| makes a lot more sense.
|
| "Why Browsers Are Essential to the Internet and How Operating
| Systems Are Holding Them Back"
|
| "Why Browsers Are Essential to the Internet and How Open
| Sources Are Holding Them Back"
| porcoda wrote:
| Not sure who would expect that. Usually open source is "OSS"
| (Open source software) "FOSS" (Free ...) or "FLOSS" (Free Libre
| ....). OS pretty much always has meant Operating System.
| throw7 wrote:
| Part of the problem is non-technical users that know how to
| switch are switching to chrome because they hit small
| issues/niggles that "just work" in chrome. That's been happening
| slowly over time; mozilla hasn't helped itself by taking, let's
| say, detours into non-browser related stuff.
|
| It's not just OS vendors, it hasn't helped that more and more
| companies are just targeting/supporting chrome. They'll ship &
| test on chrome as tier1, not firefox... not that it wouldn't
| work, but again, it'll be "should or might work".
| throwaway787544 wrote:
| trollied wrote:
| I'd argue that the browser is trying to _be_ the Operating
| System, and we 're living in some strange intermediary time
| before the hellscape that is "Chrome becoming a kernel & OS"
| happens.
|
| Good* plot for a sci-fi book, that.
| layer8 wrote:
| Right, in a sense it's OS-native apps that suffer from the
| focus on browsers.
| TheRealDunkirk wrote:
| It's an IDE for a runtime-compiled-at-download application
| environment, with a really crappy widget system. And I've
| wondered the same thing. How far are we from someone writing a
| "bare metal" browser that would run on hardware without an OS,
| even if that hardware were just a Raspberry Pi?
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| turtle_kid wrote:
| therealmarv wrote:
| Looking and pointing at you iOS and Apple. It's unacceptable that
| other browser engines are forbidden on the phone or tablet YOU
| are supposed to own. Imagine Microsoft would do something like
| this...
| xcrunner529 wrote:
| I mean Mozilla refuses to implement WebSerial just like Apple.
| They're both holding back functions just because "they" feel
| they get to define what we should do instead of us.
| coldtea wrote:
| If Apple allowed other browsers there would be even less
| competition overall in browsers - as Chrome would also dominate
| there too (and third parties force its use to be compatible
| with them).
|
| At the monent, iOS being Safari/Webkit only is what keeps us
| having two engines with both having any real market share.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| What competition is "this brand of smartphone is stuck with
| Safari"? It's not competition if there are no advantages to
| be gained from the choices you make. If Safari were better
| than the competition, Apple wouldn't be so afraid of opening
| up the ecosystem.
|
| Safari would still be big on iOS because it has some very
| useful features and integrations that the competition doesn't
| offer. Apple's pseudo-TOR and lockdown mode are just two
| examples from the top of my head of things the competition
| isn't putting too much effort into. Microsoft has super-duper
| secure mode, but I don't think Edge users really care.
| diegof79 wrote:
| I have a contrarian point of view regarding Safari and app
| installation in iOS.
|
| It will be cool if Apple opens the browser and app
| installation options allowing PWAs to run like iOS Apps
| (and all the people working with web apps will be happy).
|
| My biggest concern with PWAs is that only ads are a viable
| business model for small utility apps.
|
| The App Store rules are terrible (and give Apple too much
| power). But, it allows selling small utilities. In a world
| of PWAs, your monetization options are subscription,
| donation, or ads.
|
| A subscription for a small tool doesn't make sense.
| Donations don't scale. Hence, the most probable option will
| be ads.
|
| I agree with you. Having Safari as the only option for iOS
| is anti-competitive. But, honestly, the competition
| (Google) will love to have a world of apps relying on their
| ads infra. The first thing I'll do if I were Google is to
| add all the missing APIs to Chrome PWAs, so devs don't have
| a good reason to continue using the App Store. I don't love
| the idea of having ads and tracking in every little app.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Then don't use them instead of telling everyone else what
| they can or cannot use. There are plenty of apps that
| never get made because of anti-competitive App Store
| policies and fees. Nobody is forcing you to use any
| competition that flourishes when anti-competitive app
| distribution policies that artificially restrict consumer
| choice are dropped.
|
| I always find it interesting that Facebook and Google get
| trotted out as potential boogeymen whenever the topic of
| greater consumer choice on all computing platforms is
| brought up, because such arguments conveniently downplay
| the very real and actually present enemy to user freedom
| that is Apple literally dictating what products consumers
| are allowed to use on their own devices.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _What competition is "this brand of smartphone is stuck
| with Safari"? It's not competition if there are no
| advantages to be gained from the choices you make._
|
| It's not about competition in browser choices as an iOS
| user. I'm talking about more diversity across platforms, as
| opposed to a single engine everywhere, and especially about
| who'd control that engine (if the single engine was some
| FOSS one, created by strong community or cross-industry
| collaboration, I'd might be ok with that).
|
| So, iOS being Webkit only, means it's still more
| competition than Chrome/Google dictating everything about
| the web, and taking it into whatever direction it pleased
| it.
|
| At least now websites NEED to be compatible with iOS, and
| Google still needs to at least somewhat pretend to care for
| web standards, and it also means whatever Google unilatery
| pushes as a new web API or feature doesn't just get adopted
| by everybody.
| opportune wrote:
| I understand why they don't want to allow just any browser
| implementation from a security/user trust perspective. Even if
| technically it does nothing to make their device more secure,
| it really reduces their security surface area to only expose
| higher level primitives they control.
|
| It's not clear what they gain from allowing other engines
| because probably nobody is eschewing iOS/iPhone because of
| having to use webkit.
|
| Apple could still easily introduce a very rigorous review
| process for browsers that would likely result in Chromium and
| maybe "actual" Firefox being approved. But, until a court
| forces them to, they don't have any reason to create that
| headache for themselves.
|
| They probably never expected to be able to get away with this
| for as long as they have.
| [deleted]
| afavour wrote:
| > It's not clear what they gain from allowing other engines
|
| Apple gain nothing. That precisely why they don't do it.
| However, we all suffer from a web platform that gets held
| back by there being zero competition on iOS.
| opportune wrote:
| I guess what I'm saying is that unless legislation or a
| court make Apple support other browsers, expect nothing.
| Apple won't acquiesce just because technical users and
| developers don't like having to use WebKit.
|
| Despite it being a terrible decision, I don't think it
| affects Apple's bottom line positively at all to support
| other browser engines: they won't make any money off it,
| will create headaches for themselves since they need to
| expand their security surface and do some technical work to
| support it, and cede control to competitors. Approximately
| nobody (weighted by financial impact to Apple - whether
| Firefox uses WebKit or not is, as far as I can tell,
| completely irrelevant to Apple's bottom line) is deciding
| not to release on iOS because of WebKit.
| wizofaus wrote:
| They risk losing market share if another unsupported
| browser is seen as sufficiently superior that users avoid
| choosing Apple products on that basis. I don't even mind
| Safari, but I'm still in no hurry to lock myself into the
| iPhone ecosystem, partly due to those sorts of
| restrictions.
| throwaway82388 wrote:
| Other browsers are allowed, just not other browser engines.
| The reasons for this are technical, not arbitrary or
| business related. Google, Firefox, Brave et al still get
| the market advantages of having iOS users on their
| platforms, and they can and do ship their own unique
| browser interface features. That should count as
| competition.
| afavour wrote:
| I strongly disagree. The browser engine is hugely
| important. It took Apple years and years to implement
| features like WebGL and WebRTC, those simply cannot be
| grafted onto an existing engine by a wrapper app. Without
| any meaningful competition Apple were happy to sit on
| those features and implement at their own leisure. That
| isn't real competition.
|
| Another example: earlier this year it was revealed that
| Safari had a huge security hole in its IndexedDB
| implementation:
|
| https://safarileaks.com
|
| There's absolutely nothing that a web browser maker could
| do about it. They fall victim to the exact same bugs that
| Safari does because they have to way to avoid it. Again,
| not real competition. They also broke localStorage in iOS
| 14.1 and took three months to fix it. Because there's
| nothing forcing their hand.
|
| > The reasons for this are technical, not arbitrary or
| business related.
|
| Oh my sweet summer child. Apple has many business
| incentives to push native solutions over web-based ones.
| We'll never know exactly what motivates them or why but
| to totally dismiss any business incentives at work here
| seems naive.
| [deleted]
| hkt wrote:
| I'd wonder if EU antitrust laws could give them something
| to gain: namely, not being fined. There's a concept of
| market fairness in EU antitrust law that isn't present in
| the equivalent US rules, such that price is not the only
| consideration.
|
| I'd be surprised if this couldn't be turned towards pushing
| for greater user choice as it was when MS was bundling
| internet explorer for years. If memory serves, it was
| competition law which was used to undo that.
| asveikau wrote:
| You're starting from the perspective that these restrictions
| are warranted.
|
| High performance browsers never could have been written in
| the first place if PCs had these restrictions in the '90s
| through mid 2000s.
|
| Who knows what "application of the future" will not be viable
| on iOS etc. because they're _afraid of writable executable
| pages_ or any other undue restrictions.
| opportune wrote:
| I don't think they're warranted at all technically. It
| would just be a lot of work for Apple to now allow new
| browser engines with no clear benefit to Apple.
|
| I do believe what I am saying about security is true, and
| it would be a non-trivial cost for Apple to have to start
| worrying about what happens if Chromium ships with a
| security bug, but at Apple scale it's less about that cost
| and more about the complexity it introduces for no benefit
| to Apple.
|
| To clarify I am not saying Apple's decision is good. I
| think it's very bad. I am just trying to see it from their
| perspective, and have to admit, it makes complete sense
| scarface74 wrote:
| And those high performance browsers also do things that if
| Apple allowed could result in security vulnerabilities.
| Even Apple disables those capabilities in its own browser
| in the new high security mode.
|
| Besides, you can say a lot of things about Firefox and
| Chrome - but high performance and memory and power
| efficient aren't traits you assign to Chrome.
| [deleted]
| prewett wrote:
| PC's also had an unending stream of viruses. I don't want
| to have to deal with exploits on my phone.
|
| And from a technical standpoint, high performance browsers
| enabled the world to misuse HTML + JS to create
| applications, instead of being limited to documents like it
| was designed to do. As a developer, building native
| applications is a lot more fun trying to coerce the browser
| into doing what I want, because the underlying design
| actually does what you need it to. Unless "native" means
| "Windows", though, that has always been painful unless you
| use something like Qt.
| asveikau wrote:
| > PC's also had an unending stream of viruses. I don't
| want to have to deal with exploits on my phone.
|
| This is a false choice. How many of those viruses existed
| because you could, as a concept (not as a default), mark
| a page as executable at runtime? I'm going to say
| precisely none of them.
| worik wrote:
| > PC's also had an unending stream of viruses
|
| Back in the 1990s,, when I used them, Macs had an
| "unending stream of viruses" too. DO they not these days?
| Does windoews still?
| therealmarv wrote:
| I consider the browser Safari the bigger security risk
| because of the delay of security updates. They push security
| updates together with OS updates very unfrequently. Firefox,
| Chromium etc. push out security updates much more frequently.
| Would feel much safer on more regular smaller security
| updates on every security bug.
| fabrice_d wrote:
| Not only that, but it means that a vulnerability in webkit
| or Safari impacts _all_ iOS users. It 's a gift to
| attackers.
| mcguire wrote:
| Imagine Microsoft making that argument back in 2000...
| supernovae wrote:
| 1990s was a long time ago.. why would Microsoft do something
| like this? They're all in on Chromium and choice. When you
| change your default browser, its actually changing the default
| browser, not the skin with the forced widget inside.
| therealmarv wrote:
| yes it is a long time ago. And there was a big debate about
| Microsoft (including discussions of splitting up Microsoft
| because of bundling the browser). And Apple is doing things
| way beyond that for many years and nobody blinks an eye
| nowadays.
| shagie wrote:
| The issue is that Microsoft was using its market dominance
| to compel its OEM partners to include Internet Explorer and
| not include 3rd party browsers.
|
| Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd party
| browsers.
|
| If Microsoft made its own hardware and packaged IE with its
| version of the OS sold on its hardware - there wouldn't be
| an issue.
|
| The big difference is that Apple doesn't license its
| software to 3rd parties.
|
| On the other hand, if Google were to compel its OEM
| partners to include software, then Google would likely be
| facing various government bodies that have issue with this
| process and possibly facing fines.
| supernovae wrote:
| Apple has NO OEM. You can only buy completely integrated
| products period. The new M1s are SOCs, so there isn't
| even a 3rd party market unless you restrict that to USB
| and fashion accessories.
|
| Microsoft does make its own hardware. The Surface line of
| products are pretty amazing. They didn't break any OEM
| 3rd party market nor dictate anything. In fact, they have
| a "signature system" policy for their first party
| hardware that it won't be full of bloatware like 3rd
| party OEMs used to do.
|
| Google has slowly been destroying its 3rd parties and 3rd
| parties playing in its ecosystem have been moving towards
| forking for a while which is why there is always the
| complaint of unsupported devices after a single cycle
| there. (and so many community roms/hacks/installers
| floating around to address this)
| vinceguidry wrote:
| > The Surface line of products are pretty amazing.
|
| Really wish they hadn't gone and invented yet another
| kind of charge port.
| shagie wrote:
| That's the point. Except with some attempts back in the
| mid 90s, Apple hasn't licensed their software and have
| instead done a vertical integration of their products and
| are selling a product.
|
| Tangent to this is that Safari isn't the dominant market
| browser in any space. * Mobile
| worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
| share/mobile/worldwide * Desktop worldwide
| https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
| share/desktop/worldwide * Mobile US
| https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
| share/mobile/united-states-of-america * Desktop
| US https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
| share/desktop/united-states-of-america
|
| One can't say that Apple's bundling of Safari within iOS
| is letting them abuse their market dominant position to
| force other companies to install software that they don't
| want to.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Apple is not forcing its OEM partners to exclude 3rd
| party browsers._ "
|
| Apple has OEM partners? :-)
|
| Seriously, the lawsuit against Microsoft involved anti-
| competitive behavior, not anti-consumer behavior. In this
| case, other businesses have better legal protections than
| customers.
| shagie wrote:
| I believe that is because it is easier to show damages
| against a company where they can put a numeric value on
| it (and it is one company) rather than trying to wrangle
| a class action where the damages are more nebulous (if at
| all).
|
| As noted in the complaint, there were several parts to it
| relevant to a browser (
| https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp
| ). The first three:
|
| ------
|
| 16. First, Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of
| dollars to develop, test, and promote Internet Explorer,
| a product which it distributes without separate charge.
| As Paul Maritz, Microsoft's Group Vice President in
| charge of the Platforms Group, was quoted in the New York
| Times as telling industry executives: "We are going to
| cut off their air supply. Everything they're selling,
| we're going to give away for free." As reported in the
| Financial Times, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates likewise warned
| Netscape (and other potential Microsoft challengers) in
| June 1996: "Our business model works even if all Internet
| software is free. . . . We are still selling operating
| systems. What does Netscape's business model look like?
| Not very good."
|
| 17. But Mr. Gates did not stop at free distribution.
| Rather, Microsoft purposefully set out to do whatever it
| took to make sure significant market participants
| distributed and used Internet Explorer instead of
| Netscape's browser -- including paying some customers to
| take IE and using its unique control over Windows to
| induce others to do so. For example, in seeking the
| support of Intuit, a significant application software
| developer, Mr. Gates was blunt, as he reported in a July
| 1996 internal e-mail:
|
| I was quite frank with him [Scott Cook, CEO of Intuit]
| that if he had a favor we could do for him that would
| cost us something like $1M to do that in return for
| switching browsers in the next few months I would be open
| to doing that. (MS6 6007642).
|
| 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC
| manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for
| the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license,
| preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every
| Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the
| monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial
| necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a
| result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer
| -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft
| thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to
| the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system
| and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to
| require PC manufacturers to license and distribute
| Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with
| Windows.
|
| 19. Third, Microsoft intends now unlawfully to tie its
| Internet browser software to its new Windows 98 operating
| system, the successor to Windows 95. Microsoft has made
| clear that, unless restrained, it will continue to misuse
| its operating system monopoly to artificially exclude
| browser competition and deprive customers of a free
| choice between browsers.
|
| ------
|
| You can go through these complaints (and the other three
| - down to paragraph 32) and ask "is Apple doing these
| things?"
|
| Is apple going out and trying to squash Chrome on windows
| machines (remember, Microsoft released IE for OS 6 or was
| it 7?). Is Apple trying to call up Amazon and have them
| replace Chrome with Safari on their Kindle devices?
|
| The things that Microsoft got in trouble with for its
| anti-competitive practices with IE are completely
| separate and distinct from the things that people accuse
| Apple with for being anti-consumer.
|
| Apple _has_ gotten their wrist slapped for being anti-
| competitive with books in the past.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| First time I'm hearing about 3rd parties being compelled.
| Realistically given the target audience, why _wouldn 't_
| most 3rd parties take the easy way out and keep the pre-
| installed IE?
|
| At some point Microsoft was forced to include a browser
| choice program on installation and it had marginal
| effects on the IE user base. Likewise, despite the heavy
| shilling, Edge can barely get a foot in. Realistically
| all that changed is we now have to boot Edge or IE to get
| another browser again (from average user PoV).
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp
|
| > 18. Second, Microsoft unlawfully required PC
| manufacturers, as a condition of obtaining licenses for
| the Windows 95 operating system, to agree to license,
| preinstall, and distribute Internet Explorer on every
| Windows PC such manufacturers shipped. By virtue of the
| monopoly position Windows enjoys, it was a commercial
| necessity for OEMs to preinstall Windows 95 -- and, as a
| result of Microsoft's illegal tie-in, Internet Explorer
| -- on virtually all of the PCs they sold. Microsoft
| thereby unlawfully tied its Internet Explorer software to
| the Windows 95 version of its monopoly operating system
| and unlawfully leveraged its operating system monopoly to
| require PC manufacturers to license and distribute
| Internet Explorer on every PC those OEMs shipped with
| Windows.
| scarface74 wrote:
| They were only forced to have the browser choice in the
| EU. Absolutely nothing changed with respect to IE and
| Windows in the US
| fpoling wrote:
| Apple only forbids alternative rendering engines, one can still
| use own networking stack. This alone allows to differentiate a
| browser a lot especially regarding ad blocking.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The vast majority of what makes a browser is the HTML/CSS
| rendering and JavaScript interpreter. Everything else is
| pretty much just glue to make it all work.
| fpoling wrote:
| From an end-user point of view rendering engines are mostly
| indistinguishable. On the other hand the whole UI and speed
| of loading of pages are very much noticeable and this a
| developer can directly control.
|
| Note I agree that what Apple does is bad, but claiming that
| it prevents differentiation where it matters is simply not
| true.
| wlindley wrote:
| Can anyone explain why any technically aware person, especially
| free software advocates, would willingly use, much less pay
| for, a computer (even one disguised as a "telephone" which it
| is not) that someone else controls? It beggars belief.
| daxelrod wrote:
| See Cory Doctorow's article about the feudalism of digital
| platforms (an expansion of Bruce Schneier's idea). The gist
| is that digital security and compatibility is difficult
| enough to keep up with that most people conclude serfdom to a
| platform warlord is worth it.
|
| https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-
| and-...
| pedro2 wrote:
| Same way a farmer can't use the techniques from a thousand
| years ago if he wants to stay in business?
| [deleted]
| btilly wrote:
| If iOS allowed other browsers, then parental controls as
| described in https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201304 will
| obviously not work. Which eliminates a feature that many
| parents like.
|
| Yes, yes. I'm well aware that there are many workarounds. Kids
| get around it. But, like the lock on your front door, its
| purpose is to give you a feeling of safety. And not to actually
| be safe.
| smoldesu wrote:
| The XNU kernel has great network filtering capabilities, and
| any modern OS can filter traffic on the kernel level. Apple
| could force all third-party browsers to use an entitlement
| that simply designates them as a browsing application, and
| then extend the firewall/screen time rules to those apps.
| It's not rocket science, content blockers have been doing
| this since the early 2000s.
| jaywalk wrote:
| iOS Parental Controls already allow restricting app installs.
| Apple could easily add an additional option to restrict
| installing third-party web browsers while allowing other
| types of apps to be installed.
|
| I'm not willing to give Apple a pass on this major issue just
| because they'd have to slightly rework their Parental
| Controls.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Um, in my imagination, they did this very thing. They paid a
| slap on the wrist fine, were not monopolistically broken up,
| and have gone back towards doing the same thing.
| hollerith wrote:
| Not the same thing because Microsoft never tried to prevent
| the user from installing Firefox or Chrome.
| ok_dad wrote:
| Netscape Navigator, probably. I don't think Mozilla was
| around quite yet, certainly not Chrome.
| squarefoot wrote:
| From their position of power they don't need anymore to
| prevent users from installing other browsers; it's enough
| for them to continuously pester the user with annoying
| requests to make their own the default one until the user
| surrenders. For 99.999% of users, a browser that doesn't
| load by default and a browser that is not installed are
| essentially the same thing.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Any push back against allowing a user to do whatever the
| user wants is the same thing in my book. Microsoft has
| recently made it harder to use non-MS browsers.
|
| If you want to play a game of semantics, then sure, point
| to you. If you want to just have a normal conversation
| about users doing what they want, then I'd say you're
| outside of the lines on that last shot.
| neogodless wrote:
| No, they did not do "this very thing."
|
| They _bundled_ Internet Explorer with Windows, and yes, they
| did some dirty tricks to try to keep users on IE rather than
| use alternate browsers. But "other browser engines are
| forbidden on the phone or tablet" was not something they did.
|
| They still are not "doing the same thing" as that.
|
| Then again, I'm not in your imagination.
| AussieWog93 wrote:
| >Then again, I'm not in your imagination.
|
| Something something don't be snarky something something HN
| rules.
| batty_alex wrote:
| > They bundled Internet Explorer with Windows
|
| Yeah... this wasn't what actually got them in trouble and
| is a gross oversimplification. They were actively working
| against Netscape by making other browsers *not work* on the
| OS. It also wasn't standards-compliant and had all sorts of
| proprietary tech (VBScript, JScript, OCX, and MSHTML) that
| would only work with their browser
| bigdollopenergy wrote:
| If the company supplies the hardware and software as a
| bundled unit, they are much more able to arbitrarily restrict
| and wall-in the device. It's just how the law works. This is
| how Apple seems to get away with a lot of super anti-
| competitive stuff that Microsoft simply could never with it's
| Windows OS (Microsoft being crucified for favoring IE being a
| prime example, while Apple blatantly does the same thing with
| Safari). That said, Microsoft can and does do all the same
| stuff on their Xbox or surface tablets, because in that case
| they do supply both the hardware and software. There's no
| "good" or "bad" company when it comes to this issue, as they
| both willing to do this in every scenario when they can get
| away with it.
|
| Why it's structured this way, I've no idea. I don't think
| supplying the hardware should be the distinguishing factor
| that allows them to wall-in the device. It's one thing to
| force them to support and integrate devices/software into
| their product, which is probably not fair on the company, but
| it's another thing to actively get in the way. It's a thin
| line with a lot of grey area, but the way it's setup
| currently probably isn't right.
| [deleted]
| Nextgrid wrote:
| While I agree with them about the blanket ban on alternative
| browser engines on iOS, when it comes to desktop, Microsoft did
| anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet
| Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare
| _despite_ that.
|
| Their secret at the time? Making an actually _good_ browser
| that offered features the incumbent didn 't have, something
| Mozilla has absolutely given up on in pursuit of making a
| Chrome lookalike, up to the point of removing certain features
| (that power users - their only marketshare at this point - very
| much miss) and even implementing arbitrary restrictions on the
| add-ons you can install on Android (you have to use a complex
| workaround to install unapproved ones). The thing is, people
| who want Chrome will just use the real thing and have no reason
| to use a slower lookalike with poor compatibility.
|
| Here's an easy idea to sell Firefox on the desktop to the
| masses: _built-in_ uBlock Origin, out of the box. Nobody I know
| that has tried an ad blocker ever switched back, and if they do
| fall for a dark pattern and switch back to an alternative
| browser, ads will be a persistent reminder telling them to go
| back to Firefox. Actually give non-technical users a real,
| tangible reason to use Firefox.
| causi wrote:
| _Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day
| too_
|
| Did Microsoft do anything worse than bundling IE with Windows
| and integrating it into the file manager? Frankly Windows
| _now_ is much worse than it was then, taking note of the
| hissy fit Windows 10 /11 throws when you go to switch your
| default browser away from Edge.
| diegof79 wrote:
| MS lost the trial about IE and had to include a UI to allow
| switching the default[1] (1998-2001). Firefox v1 launched 3
| yrs after that trial[2] (2004).
|
| The idea that Firefox was able to get market share besides MS
| anti-competitive actions is incorrect. Firefox was better
| than IE in many areas, but the history will be different if
| users cannot switch the default browser.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
| _Cor.... [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history
| scarface74 wrote:
| This never happened in the US.
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| If Mozilla bundled uBO into Firefox, I imagine they would
| lose Google as a search partner overnight, and tens of
| millions of dollars in funding as a result.
| ndiddy wrote:
| Google, an advertising company, pays for the vast majority of
| Firefox development in exchange for being the default search
| engine. Bundling an ad blocker with Firefox seems like a
| pretty bad idea in this situation.
| hkt wrote:
| And yet, Firefox is an antitrust fig leaf for chrome. EU
| regulators won't take kindly to Google having an effective
| monopoly on web browsers, all the more so since MS adopted
| the same browser engine. If the choices became chrome or
| WebKit, said regulators would likely be at least curious
| enough to look.
| opportune wrote:
| Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you'll see why
| they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship
| product.
|
| Firefox does have Firefox Focus on mobile with built in ad
| blocking/tracker blocking. I use it all the time yet I'm
| still not sure whether it allows "acceptable" ads due to
| general ad blindness, though I know it doesn't block
| everything (which could just be due to lack of community
| reports for that ad type, or something).
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you'll see why
| they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their
| flagship product.
|
| Great, then it means it's time to actually build a
| profitable business, or at least own up to their conflict
| of interest instead of blaming everyone for their inability
| to run a business without relying on handouts.
| therealmarv wrote:
| Actually Brave solved that part. It has a working
| business model with its opt in ad users. Actually
| impressive they solved it.
| fabrice_d wrote:
| I like Brave a lot, but their business model is not
| providing enough revenue to build a full web runtime +
| browser either since they are a Chrome fork.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Seriously. It seems like the only "innovation" coming out
| of Mozilla these days involves finding new ways to
| complain about their marketshare dwindling that don't
| involve their browser being inferior to their major
| competitors in many ways.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's
| anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what
| code you could run on it.
|
| Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment
| talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed
| much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive
| tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers
| and _may_ do so if you give them a tangible reason to do
| so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn
| 't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible
| reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| You're not wrong, but every thread about browsers like
| this turns into people armchair running mozilla and
| complaining about their personal pet peeves.
|
| I don't disagree that there's probably things Mozilla
| could do better in their desktop browser.
|
| I do think it's an off topic distraction in a comment
| thread sparked by a report of how operating systems are
| abusing their position to limit competition in web
| browsers.
| echelon wrote:
| Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for
| Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox.
| They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking
| economy they built.
|
| The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly
| platform.
|
| Both companies deserve DOJ slaps.
|
| If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping
| you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're
| unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest
| of us.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has
| 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome.
|
| Do you think Firefox would have a significant
| marketshare, and if so, why?
|
| I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-
| technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it _can_ be made
| significantly better than Chrome with specific
| configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-
| technical users aren 't aware of that and will not try
| (and those who are _already_ use Firefox).
| echelon wrote:
| That isn't even an even playing field!
|
| Google defaults you to Chrome on Android. That's 49% of
| users, and most won't know to switch.
|
| Google assaults you with Chrome ads on their search page
| if you use a default browser without adblock.
|
| Google pays for default search status on Apple. Then
| pulls you in.
|
| Google is currently running a nationwide "better on
| Chrome" ad campaign. Billboards and murals everywhere.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Why are you intentionally avoiding the question? Tell me
| why a non-technical user should prefer even a
| hypothetical, 100%-compatible Firefox over Chrome.
|
| Remember that they are non-technical, they aren't aware
| of FOSS or the history of Mozilla and have no ideological
| reason to pick Firefox, so the decision has to be made
| purely on functionality.
|
| What groundbreaking, relevant-to-the-average-user
| functionality (dev tools and advanced, off-by-default
| privacy options don't count) does Firefox have out of the
| box that Chrome doesn't?
| echelon wrote:
| I'm not avoiding your question - I'm pointing to _why_
| Chrome is in the lead.
|
| If Chrome didn't have Google backing it and Apple didn't
| mandate Safari, Firefox would likely have significant
| market share.
|
| This isn't a battle over functionality, it's monopolistic
| invasion of an open ecosystem by giants that control all
| of the ingress points. They're turning the entirety of
| the web itself into an ad/product funnel for giants.
|
| I don't care if Mozilla wins. I just don't think the
| world is healthy with two OS/mobile/search vendors
| controlling every major piece of technology.
|
| The technology sector will be healthier if these
| companies are forced to break up. There will be more
| competition and more innovation as less is spent fighting
| for the last 1% of growth.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Firefox usurped the then-incumbent IE6 despite all odds.
| Chrome can be usurped likewise.
|
| Unfortunately for the Mozilla fanbois, though, Firefox
| won't be an usurper a second time because as already
| mentioned it's degenerated into simply a Chrome ripoff.
|
| A new competitor can usurp the throne, but it needs to be
| a genuinely better product to do that and Firefox today
| is not a genuinely better product.
| worik wrote:
| > I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a
| non-technical user compared to Chrome.
|
| Respecting privacy.
|
| I urge non-technical people to switch to Firefox
| constantly. People understand, often cannot be bothered.
|
| Times change and more and more people are realising that
| in the twenty first century we need to protect ourselves
| not so much government oppression as corporate dominance
| and surveillance. So they bother
|
| Part of that is using Firefox. In my experience, people
| get it. Be they computer programmers or plumbers.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > Respecting privacy.
|
| Firefox in its default configuration does nothing about
| privacy because just the IP address and user-agent are
| unique enough to track you. It may actually make it even
| worse because Firefox' marketshare is so small that the
| user-agent sticks out like a sore thumb.
|
| You need uBlock Origin to have any chance at privacy.
| hkt wrote:
| What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm
| curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable
| difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a
| Google account.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also
| doesn't have any compelling features (for the average
| user) to switch either.
|
| When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also
| quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit
| to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.
| btilly wrote:
| That isn't how this works.
|
| Google is investing a lot in making websites run better
| on user computers, while protecting the users from
| malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to
| sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to
| make a good website.
|
| If Google was actually sucking air out of the ecosystem,
| all of the VCs would stop investing in websites because
| no money could be made. But they invest because Google
| isn't doing that, and there is a ton of air in the
| economy.
|
| For a contrast, look at what happened to Windows
| applications in the 1990s. Microsoft really did suck the
| air out of the system. Startups really did die en masse.
| And VC stopped investing in Windows applications because
| your viable outcomes were fail, be bought out by
| Microsoft cheaply, or be wiped out by Microsoft's
| anticompetitive behavior. None of which made money for
| the VC.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| > Google is investing a lot in making websites run better
| on user computers, while protecting the users from
| malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to
| sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to
| make a good website.
|
| Google is also investing a lot into gulping up large
| chunks of the market too, they're investing heavily into
| spying on user behavior and collecting as much info as
| possible. All in the name of improving usability.
|
| Not saying only Google is the culprit here, all big
| players do it. What I am pointing out is that a lot of
| these are really hurting the user in the name of making
| things better for the user.
| loudmax wrote:
| In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software
| that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances
| where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to
| run an operating system other than Windows because so much
| of the software world is built around it.
|
| There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near
| the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people
| using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product.
| For most Windows users, this was never a choice.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own
| the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they
| wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the
| platform they built. Not the same situation.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Apple can do no wrong!
| jaywalk wrote:
| Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the
| platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the
| software _and_ the hardware? Or because you can only run
| software that they approve?
|
| The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed
| Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-
| competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also
| anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also
| built the hardware.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > Because they build the software and the hardware?
|
| Yes
|
| > Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive
|
| Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's
| to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations?
| That's competition, not anticompetitive.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that
| they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt
| comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why
| Microsoft would be in the wrong.
| kkfx wrote:
| Since modern browsers should be named WebVMs and they consider
| OSes as a mere bootloader for the real third-party someone else
| computer OS (the modern web, named cloud) it's normal that some
| surveillance capitalism business who happen to be the
| aforementioned someone else computer OS for the masses do like
| their personal surveilled gardens...
|
| The modern web is the issue and the proof that Xerox time Desktop
| systems were the best solution we have ever created.
| skadamat wrote:
| Let's bring back HyperCard and NLS, why do we even have these
| bloated, super limited web browsers?
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup, with the benefit of hindsight, it sure seems that allowing
| browsers to be fully programmable was a massive error. Instead
| of a web allowing instant browsing jumping from reference to
| reference, we have pages that take tens of seconds to load on
| machines with massive processors & RAM with 100+Mb connections.
|
| Perhaps it should be bifurcated into a HyperCard-like browser
| and a fully functional client. Of course the HC-like version
| would likely die the same death as the 5kb website contest [0].
|
| [0] https://www.the5k.org/
| turtle_kid wrote:
| pwinnski wrote:
| Chrome is holding on to a 67% market share on desktops[0] despite
| not being pre-installed on either of the two most popular desktop
| operating systems.
|
| I see the polls, I understand the concern, but Mozilla probably
| should focus on why the 46% of people who _do_ know how to
| replace their default browser almost universally choose to
| replace it with Chrome, rather than Firefox.
|
| 0. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-
| share/desktop/worl...
| uses wrote:
| One is a core strategic element of a trillion dollar company,
| the other is donationware?
|
| In any case Chrome's dominance is more about Microsoft's
| failings than Mozilla's.
| notriddle wrote:
| > Chrome is holding on to a 67% market share on desktops[0]
| despite not being pre-installed on either of the two most
| popular desktop operating systems.
|
| 1. It's advertised on the two most popular search engines.
|
| 2. Microsoft doesn't include Chrome in Windows, but a lot of
| Windows OEMs pre-install Chrome.
| oneplane wrote:
| Windows includes Edge, which is essentially chromium.
| notriddle wrote:
| Since Edgium isn't part of that 67% number, it doesn't
| matter.
| politician wrote:
| That's easy. Google.com prompts you to install Chrome if you're
| not running Chrome when you visit. There's not equivalent site
| for Mozilla (MDN doesn't have the same reach as "Google it").
| witnesser2 wrote:
| just two cents here, as far as I know, all browsers need GPU
| acceleration. you can try to turn it off see how fast you can
| browse. so without OS, how can browser drive GPU?
| cronix wrote:
| I believe that's mainly for video. Does HN slow down if you
| turn it off?
| witnesser2 wrote:
| Based on my previous knowledge, text, UI controls, video
| frames all have to go through the render pipeline. Should
| be no exception. This is community talk, just fyi.
| falcolas wrote:
| > Crucially, people raise concerns about privacy and security,
| but they similarly fail to act on these concerns.
|
| People who throw rocks shouldn't live in glass houses.
|
| Mobile client ads on the home screen, heavily pushed VPN service,
| forced integration with networked bookmark services,
| "experiments" that don't check for privacy issues, default search
| using Google, and a long history of being reactive, not
| proactive, when it comes to privacy issues - these are just a
| handful of the problems that Firefox is currently mishandling.
|
| Firefox is in many ways better than Chrome, Safari, and Edge, but
| it's not exactly a shining paragon of privacy and ethics either.
| I'd personally prefer that you clean up your house first, please.
| it_citizen wrote:
| One does not exclude the other. Asking participants of a
| discussion to be beyond most criticism before emitting an
| opinion would just maintain the status quo longer and kill the
| debate.
| falcolas wrote:
| Hardly. A comparison and contrast of issues for all the
| primary browsers - and ranking what the biggest issues are
| within and between each platform - would be immensely
| valuable.
|
| The only thing that will kill the debate is if - like modern
| US politics - we're all too firmly entrenched in our own
| camps to accept another camp's point of view.
| make3 wrote:
| isn't that whataboutism, they're still massively better in
| every aspect than all of their competitors, & are the only
| mobile browser that allows blocking ads
| codehalo wrote:
| Brave?
| falcolas wrote:
| > isn't that whataboutism
|
| Perhaps, but I find it deeply hypocritical for them to be
| attacking others when they behave nearly as badly as well
| (tell me how I can uninstall pocket, not just hide it).
|
| > they're still massively better in every aspect than all of
| their competitors
|
| "in every aspect" Not in power consumption on MacOS, and not
| in development tools, when compared to Chrome. Just to name
| two.
|
| Plus, even if they were on top, being on top should never
| exclude them from criticism.
|
| > are the only mobile browser that allows blocking ads
|
| They are not, in particular on iOS. Safari, and by
| association all browsers on IOS, can block ads via content
| blockers.
| unwise-exe wrote:
| "Browser vendor says that browsers are _so important_ that
| browser vendors should get special legal privileges that other
| application vendors don 't get."
| an1sotropy wrote:
| I'm guessing that I'm not the only reader here old enough to
| remember 1999-2001 US vs Microsoft [1], and who celebrated when
| Judge Jackson colorfully told MS to stop beating a dead horse
| [2], and who was sad at the successful appeal of the verdict
| against MS. We rooted for the small upstart fighting entrenched
| big tech, and later cheered with Netscape Navigator was open-
| sourced, starting the path to Firefox.
|
| I admit that I'm not using Firefox by default now (when I've used
| it, it worked fine), but it seems that many others here have real
| gripes with how Firefox works as a default browser, and are
| basically saying "Mozilla can blame themselves for being
| marginal".
|
| Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision?
|
| Also MDN is an awesome and invaluable resource [3].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
|
| [2]
| https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19990217&slug...
|
| [3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision?
|
| Mozilla told its core audience to go away.
| throwaquestion5 wrote:
| >Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision?
|
| I would say its because Mozilla isn't the incorruptible
| champion of web browsing. Yes, they have done bad decisions,
| bad(and good) products have been axed that are unrelated to a
| browser, and they have being influenced by political issues
| because, well, people work at Mozilla and people get to be
| influenced by that. So bad impressions triumph over any
| campaign they have done, like the ones quoted from the article
| below.
|
| Browsers and the Quest for More Private Advertising
|
| - 2009 - Mozilla leads the Do-Not-Track ("DNT") Working Group
| at W3C. This is a signal sent by the browser to websites
| indicating that the user does not wish to be tracked online.
| All major browsers implement DNT. The advertising industry
| fails to adopt DNT and the initiative ultimately fails.
|
| - 2015 - Firefox launches "Tracking Protection." This was an
| important but small step. It is off by default and blocks ads
| that track. 2018 - Firefox launches Facebook Container based on
| several months of work to isolate first party cookies.96 This
| is another small step forward against tracking.
|
| - 2019 - Firefox launches with Enhanced Tracking Protection
| ("ETP") based on learnings from earlier efforts alongside an
| "anti-tracking policy".97 ETP is a success, and drives all
| major browsers except Chrome to implement similar features.
|
| - 2020 - Firefox blocks third-party fingerprinting resources98
| and includes pro- tections against redirect tracking.99 Mozilla
| leads the formation of the Privacy Community Group at the
| W3C.100
|
| - 2021 - Firefox takes on supercookies,101 introduces Total
| Cookie Protection,102 and trims HTTP Referrers to protect
| privacy.103 Mozilla leads the formation of the Privacy
| Advertising Technology Community Group at the W3C.104
|
| - 2022 - Firefox launches Total Cookie Protection by default105
| and adds manual protections against link decoration.106 Mozilla
| continues work on Privacy Pre- serving Advertising107 through
| both criticism of and collaboration with Google, Apple, Meta
| and others.
| david2ndaccount wrote:
| I'm not sure why browsers are treated differently than other
| pieces of software. Operating systems ship a bundled calculator,
| text editor, email software, basic rich text editing, photo
| viewer, pdf viewer, etc. All of these are used much more than
| their quality would indicate simply because they are installed by
| default. Should an OS be required to interview the user on
| install for what their preferred choice of all of these products
| are?
| vlunkr wrote:
| Well, you can install a different calculator. On iOS, you can
| install a different "browser," but under the hood they all have
| to be safari.
| bskan wrote:
| And the user doesn't even notice.
| tgv wrote:
| What's the problem? The only people that complain about it
| are some web devs and companies that would love to get their
| grubby data collecting hands on your device's battery and
| gyroscope data.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _What 's the problem?_
|
| If you're not asking rhetorically, that's one of the
| primary subjects of this report.
| afavour wrote:
| > The only people that complain about it are some web devs
| and companies that would love to get their grubby data
| collecting hands on your device's battery and gyroscope
| data.
|
| Why would allowing more browser engines have even the
| slightest impact on that? Those are APIs available to all
| native apps they have literally nothing to do with
| underlying browser engines.
| altairprime wrote:
| Native apps go through App Store review, and can be
| permanently banned for misuse for tracking purposes
| without express user consent.
|
| Allowing more browser engines would require granting
| those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order
| for them to display per-site permission dialogs.
|
| This problem is unique to browser engines and no other
| kind of app, as browser engines are uniquely the only
| kind of app that needs this sort of permissions-granting
| per-site passthrough.
|
| Apple likely does not consider it interesting or relevant
| to their users to invest in validating the security
| models of third-party browser engines for their adherence
| to App Store standards, nor in providing a public API for
| third party engines to do so, and so closes off the
| entire problem space by refusing third-party engines
| altogether.
| afavour wrote:
| > Allowing more browser engines would require granting
| those engines your battery and gyroscope data in order
| for them to display per-site permission dialogs.
|
| ...a process which could be reviewed as part of the App
| Store review process.
|
| There isn't really any difference here. If your app reads
| gyroscope data App Store review will (theoretically!)
| make sure you're not doing anything nefarious with it.
| They could just as easily verify whether a browser passes
| data through correctly.
| altairprime wrote:
| Correct: they are not doing something that is possible to
| do. What benefits to their users result from that choice?
|
| (I'm aware of what drawbacks result from it, but that's
| been explained to death in a thousand replies in a
| hundred posts about this already, so no need to derail
| into them here.)
| Beached wrote:
| I complain about it as a user, and I take my money to
| android (reluctantly) as a result. I would love to run
| apple hardware for my phone, but their over the top control
| over the whole closed wall ecosystem is why I don't.
| neogodless wrote:
| That's a bit of a false dichotomy don't you think?
|
| You're looking at one extreme where the OS must hold the user's
| hand to get them to install alternatives. But that's not what
| users deserve. They just deserve to have the ability to choose
| to install what they want, rather than it being blocked, or
| deceptively hidden.
|
| See this from the article:
|
| > Operating systems regularly design their systems to undermine
| rather than facilitate consumer choice: they can make it
| difficult to change default settings; they can make it hard to
| install new browsers; they can deploy nudges and deceptive
| messaging to push consumers to their own products.
| smoldesu wrote:
| This is a good example. If Apple treated their bundled
| calculators, text editors, email software, photo viewers and
| PDF viewers like they treated their browser, nobody would use
| MacOS.
| pwinnski wrote:
| One of us is clearly confused. As far as I can tell, Apple
| _does_ treat those bundled apps on MacOS exactly as they
| treat Safari. Any can be replaced, but all are good enough
| that most people don 't bother. The most likely to be
| replaced is probably Safari (with Chrome).
|
| Are you perhaps thinking of iOS?
|
| Or are you trying to make some point I'm missing?
| smoldesu wrote:
| The point I'm making is that if they treated their
| professionals the same way they treat iOS users, their
| professionals would no longer work with them.
| adolph wrote:
| > if they treated their professionals the same way they
| treat iOS users
|
| They seem to treat "professionals" and "users" the same
| in iOS. Maybe there is a counterfactual world where Apple
| does even better by treating "professionals" differently?
| If anything people, "professionals" or not, have long
| pulled iOS into enterprise contexts despite lagging and
| lackluster IT management support and Apple coop with corp
| IT.
| Beached wrote:
| he means if apple did the same garbo on osx, people would
| leave.
|
| if you couldn't install cs suite or final cut or
| whatever, because apple comes with its own default stuff,
| no one would use osx.
|
| I can't install my own browsers, my own antivirus, my own
| file explorer, my own shell, or my own applications in
| iOS as I see fit. but they do allow this on osx.
| adolph wrote:
| That if/then is a counterfactual that deserves thought.
| I'm sure someone in Cupertino is tasked with measuring
| out the win/loss if MacOS goes full iOS. I wouldn't like
| that MacOS either, but that isn't relevant to a good
| decision. Pro: 1. MS Office is
| basically completely a web app now. No binary install
| needed. iOS binaries are already present and optimized.
| 2. Adobe subscription software is not far behind and iOS
| versions are present. 3. Antivirus what? in the iOS
| model. NB. You can install your own iOS shell (if
| it connects to something other than localhost).
| Con: 1. Apple has a relatively small business
| selling FCP etc. 2. Apple has a larger
| business/ecosystem selling App Store shovels/lotto
| tickets that need dev environments. 3. Apple's high
| end use is a halo for lower end Mac sales. If
| restrictions cripple high end use and they lose the halo,
| then the aspirational crowd goes.
| pwinnski wrote:
| Your comment, I understand. I still don't think GP's
| comment makes any sense.
|
| > If Apple treated their bundled calculators, text
| editors, email software, photo viewers and PDF viewers
| like they treated their browser, nobody would use MacOS.
|
| Clearly some words must be missing.
| wtetzner wrote:
| It's not about bundling software with the OS, but _preventing
| other pieces of software from being installed_. iOS disallows
| alternative browser engines. When you install Chrome or Firefox
| on iOS, it's just a wrapper around the Safari browser engine.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Ok Moz if browsers are essential why are you complicit in making
| them even more complex all the time, and push for entire new
| runtimes such as WASM even? If browsers were commodity items,
| we'd see more innovation and participation than we do now. The
| same "gatekeeper" argument brought against OSs in the report also
| works against browsers which, with the exception of Safari, are
| produced by an unhealthy browser cartel.
|
| (comment copied from when this was posted the first time a couple
| days ago)
| protoster wrote:
| Firefox is no position to make these kinds of moves (7% of
| desktop users, ~0% of mobile). Taking activist stances on how
| they want to see the web will serve to do nothing but drive
| more users away from Firefox.
| elforce002 wrote:
| I stopped using Firefox and went with Brave. No regrets here.
| smoldesu wrote:
| > why are you complicit in making them even more complex all
| the time, and push for entire new runtimes such as WASM even?
|
| Because we're out of options. Apple pushed us all here by
| crying "there's no other way" when people question their
| monopoly over app distribution. If you want browsers to be less
| complex, then you should advocate for the free distribution of
| software so the web isn't the only viable place to deliver you
| content.
| pwinnski wrote:
| In 2022, I'm looking at the plethora of browsers available
| for MacOS, and sticking with Safari. Chrome would be my
| second choice, and in fact I have it installed, but only use
| it once a month or so on average. Nothing from Mozilla or
| Brave or anyone else is even installed.
|
| You can say the complexity is required to compete, but I
| stick with Safari because it is simple, and fast, and doesn't
| gorge itself on system memory.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Go for it. Safari (rather WebKit) is an option on all sorts
| of platforms, but nobody uses it where it isn't
| preinstalled. Safari is free to be as simple as it wants,
| but that doesn't excuse them for blocking browser
| innovation on iOS.
| pwinnski wrote:
| It's been some number of months, so I thought, hey, I'll
| take this opportunity to see what I'm missing out on with
| Firefox. And I'll even start with whatever Firefox says
| for the comparison. Fortunately, there's a handy page for
| that[0].
|
| Under "Security and Privacy," it looks like both do fine.
| Firefox pledges to "Block cryptomining scripts," which...
| I have Ghostery installed, so I think I'm probably safe
| there. Other than that there are some sister-products I
| could install, and Firefox is cross-platform, but I have
| MacOS and iOS, so I guess no win there.
|
| Under "Utility," I'm missing "Autoplay blocking,"
| except... no, that's in Safari as well. I can "Allow All
| Auto-Play," "Stop Media with Sound," or "Never Auto-
| Play," and set that per website, too. Maybe that's just
| out-of-date. (Ah yes, comparison is based on Safari 14, I
| am running 15.5) For the rest, Firefox seems to
| begrudgingly give a nod to Safari here, suggesting
| extensions to try to make up for functionality Firefox
| lacks natively. But it does suggest Firefox's screenshots
| feature, which... MacOS has handy keyboard shortcuts for
| screenshots already, and lots of options about where and
| how to save the results, so I'm not sure why I'd want to
| use something _different_ for Firefox than I use for
| everything else.
|
| Next up is "Portability," but since I'm already in the
| Apple ecosystem for both work and home, this does nothing
| for me.
|
| So nope, still nothing that suggests I should try again.
|
| It's funny, the thing I remember most from when I last
| used Firefox a couple of years ago was "Multi-Account
| Containers," but I see now that was an add-on, not native
| to the browser proper.
|
| In any case, I'm glad Firefox exists, because more choice
| is always good! I mean, would I now have tab groups in
| Safari if some other company hadn't done something
| similar first? So carry on, Firefox, Brave, etc.
| Meanwhile, I'll stick with Safari to help ensure that at
| least _one_ browser survives against Chrome.
|
| 0. https://www.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/browsers/compare/safar...
| ezfe wrote:
| Well, it isn't even available anywhere it isn't
| preinstalled. lol.
| adolph wrote:
| > If browsers were commodity items, we'd see more innovation
| and participation than we do now
|
| commodity != competitive
|
| If anything the low margin of a commodity market freezes
| innovation and participation. If anything the period leading up
| to monopoly is the best for innovation and participation. The
| monopoly company takes its winnings for a time and then loses
| its shine as it matures and a new paradigm takes over.
|
| Like you said, Mozilla has an unhealthy revenue model from the
| cartel. If anything they act as sock puppet competition for
| Google, a subsidiary save in name out of monopsony.
|
| _Still, in 2020, Mozilla Corporation's revenue was $466
| million from its search partnerships (largely driven by its
| search deal with Google), subscriptions and advertising
| revenue._
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/13/mozilla-expects-to-generat...
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Hmm I think you're right wrt commodity markets and lack of
| incentives for innovation. What I meant was that if the specs
| for the "web stack" would set any kind of reasonable target
| for implementation, then we could've seen new browser
| projects, especially F/OSS user and privacy-focussed ones;
| but they don't, making them mere instruments for pulling up
| the ladder. Despite of this, folks cheer at eg bits of
| inessential yet complex CSS additions and bloating JavaScript
| the language with inessential features.
| adolph wrote:
| What is the scope of what you call the "web stack?" Is DNS,
| TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a
| standard/target already?
|
| I think the challenge for F/OSS user and privacy-focussed
| browsers is an environment where a living can't be made
| with it through licensing/subscriptions. Pureblood Gnu is
| fine for folks with academic sinecures, but without cash,
| the bazaar is bare. Brave is making an effort as is the
| Neeva search engine, probably others too.
|
| https://neeva.com/index
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-26 23:01 UTC)