Well, two wrongs didn't make this a right. If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again.
That was basically my point?
> If Chrome does use this as a power grab, then we should expect EU injunction again.
Since this is behaviour Google is already doing and has been doing for a decade, it seems like the EU could just skip to the part of actually doing something.
How so? There are a number of features Apple dragged their feet on (WebRTC, push notifications, WebM support, AV1, the list goes on), it could be argued that Apple was intentionally stifling the capabilities of the browser to enforce the profitability of the App Store. I understand your concern, but Apple's failure to compete with Google is not Google's fault. Apple had a chance to make a browser that Chrome users switched to, but they didn't. Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Regulators can't see into the future. Thus-far, Chrome's behavior might be frustrating but totally fair game relative to the way Apple plays. Once Safari is competing on it's own merits, we'll see how things go and respond accordingly. If it's anything like the App Store, it'll take us ~8 years to observe the abuse and respond effectively.
In general Google has made no attempt for their browser to be competitive on feature dimensions that matter to many Apple hardware buyers; their share remains driven by residual tech influencer group-think still left over from the IE wars more than the value of, say, WebM over x265. (See also Duck Trumotion and Widevine for more of Google's motivation.)
The profitability motive is false, see Steam charging the same 30% despite e.g. Gog or Microsoft store. This is inconvenient for those making the argument Apple's fee is out of line.
> Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Clearly they need more help with this. Glad EU is looking out for them.
> The profitability motive is false, see Steam charging the same 30% despite e.g. Gog or Microsoft store.
No, it's pretty substantial. The App Store made 80 billion USD last year, which was one of their only businesses that approached hardware profitability. Ensuring that nobody can eschew Apple's software control is completely their directive. If Apple did become more like Steam (eg. had other software stores to compete with) things would be pretty fair I'd argue.
> Clearly they need more help with this. Glad EU is looking out for them.
Apparently Chrome is borderline-unusable on Apple products anyways, so Apple has nothing to worry about.
They 100% do. It's why software installation is as annoying as it is now. Did you do any tech support (even the unofficial kind) around the turn of the millennium, when computer ownership topped 50% (in the US) and Internet use was beginning to become widespread? It was a hellscape of unwanted shitware that users couldn't figure out how to get rid of, and viruses. More recently, I've seen normies install Chrome then wonder where their (Firefox, which they had because I'd installed it) bookmarks went and not know how to get them back (they didn't care at all whether they were using FF or Chrome, but ended up with Chrome anyway because "google said they needed it" on one of those ubiquitous "hey, this site works better in Chrome" ads they put everywhere whether it's true or not) and I've seen one end up paying for OneDrive, and have it totally fuck up their workflows, despite not knowing what OneDrive even does.
> then they shouldn't be trusted with a computer full-stop.
That is no longer an option and there's no chance at all we're going back to a time when it was. I wish we would! But we're not.
Given the number of apps these days that are basically nothing more than thin shims around a mobile site, they're not doing a good job then, are they?
> How so?
Using a different browser on google.com or youtube.com has many times shown me ads claiming that the web is better using Chrome.
Google Cloud's console frequently breaks for non-Chrome users.
YouTube for many years used a non-standard API which only Chrome optimized instead of the standard one which all three implemented, which meant that video playback used far more CPU on other browsers.
YouTube for many years favored WebM format at the expense of video quality and performance.
Google Meet for years would drop sessions for Firefox or Safari. No other WebRTC service had problems with those browsers.
> Chrome's market share destroys every Webkit-based browser combined.
Yes, that's the point. Chrome would not have gotten so far ahead of Firefox and WebKit without both a huge financial push and heavy promotion on Google's most popular web properties.
We'll have to see where things go after Apple starts playing nice. I support legislation that restricts Chrome only if Apple doesn't stand to directly profit from it.
If Apple doesn't want to build a Chrome competitor, then that's not Google's fault. Both companies are refusing to give up their strangleholds, and should be prosecuted accordingly.
First and foremost though, Apple needs to be litigated. The rights of the user should supercede the petty combat between browser developers.
It would help if you argued on the facts, not on your emotion.
Why would you connect how these two different companies should be treated? Sculpting regulation to attempt to engineer an outcome institutionalizing the current market balance between two oligarchs is just about the opposite of what I want any regulator doing.
I'm not sure what the EU could do here; it's not like Chrome is coming pre-installed on iPhones or on Windows. Can the EU breakup Google?
It comes pre-installed on Android; isn't that enough?
Nowadays I believe Samsung at least has their own Samsung Browser, so that's already a large chunk of Android phones that don't have Chrome default.