You must log in or # to comment.
smells like legally actionable monopolistic behavior. apple clearly needs to be broken upā¦ when was the last time we did that?
That was literally the point of this ruling. The EU only has the power to enforce things in the EU and they canāt force Apple to act differently outside of it.
Bit the EU could still go nuclear and just refuse to let apple trade I the EU. Itās not an EU company and it doesnāt make products in the EU.
Financially it doesnāt care about apple being able to sell there
Great point.
This is why Americans have no consumer protections; theyāre the ones fucking everyone.
Theyāre fucking themselves. In the EU the EU, not the US, is sovereign. Apple has to follow EU rules, but again, only with the EU.
Ughā¦ I mean, they could, but the fact is I guarentee you many members of the EU commission and parliament themselves use these products, and they are popular in the EU, just not as overwhelmingly so as in the US. Ultimately, that wouldnāt really fly in a democracy and, as much as I may hate apple, for good reasons.
Yeah, I donāt think they read the articleā¦ Sovereignty only applies, well, in the bloc or nation.
Probably like 15-20 years ago when Microsoft was forced to de-bundle IE with Windows.
Serious dumb question, how is it considered a monopoly? What forms the monopoly?
The company? If so, what is the proposal? Apple HW team is separate company from SW team? Apple phones and Apple computers are separated?
The app store? Thereās only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldnāt make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
What is constitutes the monopoly and whatās the proposed fix?
Iād say that forcing Apple to make it easy to install other operative systems in their hardware would be a good start. And yes, making firmware available for those.
If Apple were to be splitted, Iād separate the whole iPhone branch from the rest of the company.
The app store? Thereās only one Xbox store on the Xbox, one Nintendo shop on the switch or Wii. It wouldnāt make sense to require supporting competition on your hardware. Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
those had enough competitors and werenāt the richest companies in the world. Although if it was my decision, Iād force them to open the hardware up too and allow third party software not approved by the manufacturer.
People are paying for the hardware, they should own it and not be imposed artificial limitations.
Did N64 games work on the Sega Genesis?
No, but Playstation games did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleem!#Bleemcast! And Sony sued them but failed
Hereās the section for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Bleemcast! is an independently developed commercial emulator by Bleem! that allows one to load and play PlayStation discs on the Sega Dreamcast. It is compatible with most Dreamcast controllers and steering wheels, and leverages the Dreamcastās superior processing power for enhanced graphics. It was created by using the MIL-CD security hole found in the Dreamcast BIOS.
Good bot!
Thatās a fucking great bot!
Indeed, never seen it do that trick before, very cool
This is so sad to readā¦ It makes me so angry that even when they won several lawsuits, Sony could just drive them out of business by suing them some more, and threatening stores that wanted to sell their software.
Apple doesnāt have a monopoly they have a platform that a lot of other organisations (including Mozilla) depend on. The EU has legislated restrictions for any platform that is in that position.
They drew a line in the sand for what size a platform needs to be for this new legislation to apply and Xbox isnāt big enough.
It doesnāt, the poster just doesnāt like Apple (neither do I) and those are apparently magic words for āstop this company I donāt like.ā
Allowing different markets seems like the only alternative to side loading/homebrew. It was easier to develop games back in the day when you didnāt have too grovel to the device company overlords, this regulation just takes us back to that (sort of).
Well, not really, because you could use android, and it commands 70% of the global market share
Also, the way the law is, you have to have both a monopoly & also be causing substantial harm to the public. I.e. you can have a monopoly if itās really nice and more like a public utility. So after the Microsoft antitrust case (for basically same thing), itās been very hard to justify breaking up tech companies or banks
If a company acquires its monopoly by using business acumen, innovation and superior products, it is regarded to be legal; if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern
For example, business can defense that its business conducts bring merits for consumers
(Wikipedia)
What happened with Microsoft browser tie ins antitrust?
Ultimately, the Circuit Court overturned Jacksonās holding that Microsoft should be broken up as an illegal monopoly. However, the Circuit Court did not overturn Jacksonās findings of fact, and held that traditional antitrust analysis was not equipped to consider software-related practices like browser tie-ins
So in short, Appleās legal / business strategy here is totally solid. Arguably helps users, defended by precedent, and doesnāt dominate market share. Of course they have to debate all this
if a firm achieves monopoly through predatory or exclusionary acts, then it leads to anti-trust concern
Hey, ChatGPT ā¦?
Closed Ecosystem: Apple is known for its closed ecosystem, which can limit usersā choices. For instance, iOS users can only download apps from the App Store, and Apple tightly controls the app approval process.
Proprietary Connectors: Apple often uses proprietary connectors and cables, such as the Lightning port, which can be inconvenient for users who want more universal standards like USB-C.
Repairability Issues: Apple products are often criticized for being difficult to repair. For example, the company discourages third-party repairs and designs its products with components that are challenging to replace.
To be fair, USB-C didnāt exist when Lightning was introduced, and it was vastly superior to Micro-USB.
It doesnāt really have any reason to exist nowā¦
Agreed with your other points though!
I have an old iPad that I try to reuse for another purpose and all the locks to stop me to keep using it make it such a pain in the butt, when the alternative is simply to enable developer mode on an Android tablet.
Thankfully I remembered when buying a laptop and skipped the very enticing M-series hardware, because in 5-7 years that thing is a brick destined for the landfill.
To be fair, USB-C didnāt exist when Lightning was introduced
Hmm, I wonder why that was?
Lightning is a proprietary computer bus and power connector, created and designed by Apple Inc. It was introduced on September 12, 2012
Design for the USB-C connector was initially developed in 2012 by Apple Inc. and Intel.
So Apple helped develop USB-C but failed to integrate it into their products for a decade. Now, why would they do that?
Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_(connector)
Because itās not a superior connector. Lightning is better as a purely charging port. Itās less fragile and doesnāt have a million competing implementations. One of the most frustrating things about USB-C is you canāt be sure if a cable is actually going to work.
Hereās the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Lightning is a proprietary computer bus and power connector, created and designed by Apple Inc. It was introduced on September 12, 2012, in conjunction with the iPhone 5, to replace its predecessor, the 30-pin dock connector. The Lightning connector is used to connect Apple mobile devices like iPhones, iPads, and iPods to host computers, external monitors, cameras, USB battery chargers, and other peripherals. Using 8 pins instead of 30, Lightning is much smaller than its predecessor. The Lightning connector is reversible.
deleted by creator
Its USB 2 speeds, so no
deleted by creator
Obviously it would be updated? Why would it be obvious when Apple hasnāt updated it at all, it was introduced in the Iphone 5 where it had USB 2 speeds, the Iphone 14 also has lightning connection and hasā¦ USB 2 speeds.
10 years and no update. Seems more like you liking Apple to mucb to think rather then us hating them too much.
Ah right, obviously you would change the core specs, how stupid of me
it feels better
thatās based on nothing. technically, itās inferior in every way.
deleted by creator
So basically you would want every device to use a nonexistent updated lightning just because āit feels betterā? Are you aware that lightning is a proprietary connector?
Additionally, USB-C debuted only two years later than lightning, so age is no excuse here.
deleted by creator
see, apples a hard oneā¦ i usually agree with breaking companies up, but most of apples value comes from their extremely tight integration. would that be possible if they were separate? i donāt know - i wouldnāt want to lose the value that i get from apple products
like, how would that work?
youād usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely
or iphone, mac, homepod? airdrop between devices, airplay, etc is pretty seamless and iām not sure how well thatād work if they were separatedā¦ and again the m series chips are there because they planned for scaling up an iphone to mac size quite a while ago
retail maybe - that could be a good option, but honestly probably a drop in the ocean and wouldnāt solve anything
perhaps if they separated app store from the rest of apple, or music - like a services division? theyāre not so tightly integrated (yet)
or perhaps they should just be separated and be made to deal with it - then we would hope they donāt get a bunch of shit business majors in to run them who donāt understand apple and want to make their turf as profitable as possibleā¦ but that always ends up happening eventuallly
youād usually split like hardware and software, but we have m series chips and macos working so damn well because they collaborated really closely
You donāt need to split the OS, itās the App store that needs to be split out, and web browser to be free to choose like in Windows and Android. Microsoft had a judgement on that when they were a monopoly, so they were legally required to offer alternative web browsers equal access on Windows.
And yet, Microsoft is trying to push Edge down windows usersā throatā¦
Itās not quite as bad as effectively not allowing other browsers but itās not far behind. Apple is less obnoxious than that on macOS. They wonāt beg for you to use Safari
If only theyād cut the shit with iMessage
When does Apple beg you use iMessage?
At least with Edge itās not disrupting the market by pushing an inferior rendering engine, like they did in the IE era. That by itself held the web back a good couple of years, and they were fined for abuse of their monopoly.
But at any rate, all of this is whataboutism - the issue is with Appleās abuse of their position right now.
Oh yea, they absolutely do and Iām glad the EU is forcing them to open up. I personally prefer Safari, so Iām mainly looking forward to the sideloading but that didnāt mean that the rest of the world shouldnāt be able to install a real firefox or chrome.
In all honesty, I can understand the browser engine lockdown less than the appstore lockdown. Thereās some point to the argument, that sideloading might open the door to viruses, etc. but the browser argument is based on battery life. Itās not 2010 anymore, phones can handle chromeā¦
Integration between products can be done well through standards and public apis. Apple just doesnāt expose this functionality to other developers because they want you stuck in their system because of the benefits of the integration between products.
deleted by creator
Because they have counter arguments or because they like stuff that you donāt?
deleted by creator
they come up with all sorts of egregious and nonsensical arguments
In the first sentence, and then
if an apple product was killing babies
in the very nextā¦
If Apple users are horrible, logic like this ensures that āfanboyā haters remain a tier worse.
deleted by creator
They didnāt bend over at all. You literally made a ridiculous argument while complaining about other people doing that.
You really think if Apple killed babies people would be ok with that? Of course you donāt.
I mean, yeah, turns out that when you are in a quasi monopolistic position in many different markets and you get to decide the rules for all of your competitors you can absolutely integrate your āecosystemā very smoothly. Go figure.
Their stubbornness on this makes the software/hardware divide the most obvious and a good place to start. Right now theyāre keeping the hardware hostage to benefit first party software and exclude everyone elseās. That clearly has to change.
has anyone attempted using right-to-repair laws to gain direct access to the hardware they purchase? i like the idea of purchasing a phone i can do whateverthefuck i want with
What right to repair laws? The oneās weāve been trying to make are barely even there yet.
yeah, the u.s. didnt even force them into a standard port.
other places than the u.s.
Just an opinion, but if they were forced to use open standards between products then it would still be easy to tightly integrate features between the various ācompaniesā. The problem is this would also allow everyone else to play alongside them, meaning Apple would no longer have a monopoly on such things, and the open standards might even gasp be used by other operating systems. But what do I know about Apple products, they may already be using open standards?
āTight integrationā means the companyās software works well with their other software. It doesnāt mean locking out all others, whether they integrate well or not.
This argument is dumb, open up the specs, APIs, etc and allow integration with their products. Thereās no reason only Apple should be able to write software for these products. The specification makes the product appear seamless, thereās no reason it couldnāt remain so if others developed or manufactured for the platform.
If thereās any company that doesnāt need to be broken up, itās Apple. They only really have 3 core functions: hardware, software, and cloud services. And the cloud services really only matter to people using their hardware and software.
A better approach for Apple specifically are pro-consumer regulations. Breaking them up seems unnecessary to me.
Breaking up the music, tv, news, arcade, banking, and possibly cloud storage branches makes more sense to me than simply divorcing hardware from software. Not that I see any reason to do that since competition for those services already thrives on Mac/iOS.
You seem to have forgotten that there were Safari and iTunes for Windows, and QuickTime player (for whatever reason everything was associated with that on our PC in my childhood, so I didnāt know itās Apple) too.
Thereās nothing in any of their services which would make them useless outside of the ecosystem, provided Apple doesnāt intentionally kill itself with behaving stupid.
Actually if that breakup happens, then maybe in like 10 years something decent may come out of it.
Iām fine with Apple retaining interoperability between their first party software products, they just need a way to bypass the walled garden. If they have sideloading (everywhere and without restrictions) and ideally also bootloader unlocking, they provide a sanctioned path around the walls of their ecosystem and now itās up to the user to choose to leave that garden. If the user is comfortable there, they can stay. Trying to fuck over sideloading is the issue here. Iām fine with the App Store being restrictive if thereās a way around it, and simply sideloading an app shouldnāt break the rest of the OSās capabilities.
separate the phone branch from the desktop computer branch. thatād be a good start.
I understand the logic behind not wanting to separate hardware and software, thatās the only selling point Apple has over any other manufacturer. So just make the iPhone a different company.
Thatād ruin what makes Apple products so good. The fact is, people like Apple because everything is connected. Itās one of the largest draw points of apple and would only piss 90% of the users off for no tangible benefit to anyone else.
yep, you have great points. also everythings cloud-y, so no geographic lines to draw ala ma bell. not a ton of diversification.
theyre building a car though?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Thereās no monopoly. Use an Android.
When a companyā website doesnāt work on Firefox I donāt get angry at Firefox, I just donāt use the site. When a company makes their cookie popups are a pain in the ass I donāt get angry at the EU, I get angry at the company that made the popup. I use Firefox as a Canary that dies when a website is a piece of shit.
Maybe itās a win-win, I donāt have to deal with Appleās bullshit and Apple doesnāt have to waste resources on me, for me to block all their shady shit.
I feel the same but I also cannot avoid some sites. Ohioās unemployment and job board only works with Chrome based sites and I have to use those when Iām in between jobs.
This brings up an interesting thought though. Should governments and states be able to prefer you to use a certain browser or should they be required to make the website function on allā¦
If the government cared at all about accessibility, then youād be able to do your taxes in an HTML form.
Yeah. Now that we have a functioning FCC again we might see some progress.
But then how will congress give taxpayer dollars to a private company to do a terrible job?
I mean, we COULD have a government run agency that retains skilled engineers and keeps a good talent and knowledge pool of people specialized at delivering services that hundreds of millions of people rely on OR we could give money to the lowest bidder and blame āgovernment inefficiencyā for the contractorās fuckups.
Pretty sure the old fuckers in the legislature arenāt writing that into the contracts. If you ask them what browser theyāre using theyāll probably say āinternet.ā
You would have to find a good definition of āall browsersā, and I think that would be nearly impossible.
I absolutely agree that governments should support Firefox, thatās a reasonable claim. But do they need to support the earliest version of netscape? Or the browser I made as a hobby project last week and published as open source? Thereās a limit to whatās reasonable and workable.
Specific versions of basic standards would do. HTML forms, as another comment says. With tables and CSS which doesnāt make it unusable if your browser doesnāt support CSS.
As the others have mentioned, itās about following standards. Like if you specify a design for a plug using standard measurement units, people can then make plugs that plug into that using whatever measurement and calibration tools they want because they all generally follow standards.
It would be like if the government released some device that was meant to be repaired by anyone but used some proprietary Apple screw head for all the screws. Thatās not repairable by anyone, thatās only repairable by Apple customers.
Conforms to a specific revision of HTML with a specific revision of JavaScript and css, also requiring it to not use any proprietary extensions of either HTML or JavaScript.
Or the government could just use PDFs and email, I think that might be able to accomplish all the functionality of most websites.
Most government sites must be accessible to individuals with disabilities such as low vision or other imapirments. You canāt require a blind person to use chrome to apply for a job.
They just ignore it, even if itās law somewhere, because āare you nuts, everybodyās using Chrome, you are a luddite boomer, weāll do things the normal wayā.
Well, it would be nice to be enlightened about countries where government sites really are usable with screenreaders and\or Lynx.
It would be reasonable for a govt to tell Google that actions taken on their platform which force users to use a certain browser to access a govt website are violating some equal opportunity law or something.
Thatās not really where the problem lies. It lies in the choices made when developing the site. āDo we use a framework or feature that isnāt part of the HTML standard to force users to use the subset of browsers that support that or do we use one of the many other options that do follow the standard?ā
It wouldnāt surprise me if those choices are being made by some web devs because those high up donāt even think about it and those implementing it donāt think much about the standards and just do it the way they do it because itās easy or thatās just the way they know how to do it.
Governments (and their agents) shouldnāt be choosing proprietary options that force people to use a specific companyās resources.
can you send fake device headers using a plug in?
Or can you use a stripped down version of Chromium?
I just use Chromium or Edge. Itās too much effort to be stubborn otherwise.
deleted by creator
Presumably rejecting them? Itās the legitimate toggle that gets me though. How do 400 partners require access to my browsing information in order for your site to run?
Thatās the obvious bullshit lol, exactly
deleted by creator
Until Chrome starts doing its bullshit āattestorā stuff thatāll essentially make websites not work on Chrome if they allow Firefox and other browsers that respect privacy.
Pretty much zero websites will choose Chrome over Firefox.
Firefox has add-ons that automatically reject all on cookie pop ups. It works great and sometimes you see it working which is really satisfying.
I use it. Sometimes it canāt though, which is my cue to leave.
I use Firefox as a Canary
You shouldnāt capitalize canary, itās like saying goose or pigeon.
But, itās the CanaryĀ®ā¢ā¦ of coal mine fame.
Got to buy material for house renovation, several hundreds ā¬ of saving if I bought on one website that didnāt work with Firefox. Guess what I did.
Almost everyone choose money and commodity over everything else. Firefox is doomed to fail, and I say that as Firefox user.
You could have said the same for Internet Explorer some years ago, and they got their lunch eaten despite being free AND the default owned by a monopoly
Yes but Internet Explorer had massive issue, nowadays itās Firefox that has compatibility issue, doesnāt have a platform where its default (Microsoft has windows/edge, android/chrome, iPhone/safari) and no meaningfull advantage on the other.
The cards are stacked against it, if only they could use Google money to get some advantage, like a better design. Right now if I open Firefox there is 3 row of sponsored clickbait articles. The reason I paid money for Mac is because I was fed up of the very same bullshit on windows, make something lean, sleek that works well and people might use it but here itās a kind of dinosaur software that is even filled with sponsored articles.
The difference is that Google had the capital and a monopoly itself. Mozilla doesnāt have shit.
Except and arguably better product in the browser space?
Both Mozilla and Opera had better browsers.
Mozilla has a regular income from Google.
Yeah, theyāre pretty much owned by Google, thus not a competitor.
Google paying Firefox explicitly to make Google the default search engine. That doesnāt mean they own Firefox in any way shape or form. Firefox routinely makes anti Google decisions, and acts against googles interest. Itās pretty clear they arenāt googles bitch.
Most of the revenue of Mozilla Corporation comes from Google (81% in 2022). They have influence.
The excuse of search engine funding is a fig leaf for the US and monopoly laws.
But youāre forgetting something important: Firefox is open-source, meaning that it is literally impossible for it to fail. Even if the Mozilla org goes down in flames tomorrow.
If Mozilla dies, someone else will become a maintainer for the Firefox open-source project. If they are compromised or bought out, someone will fork the project (again). If 100% of websites make some code change that forces them to only work on a Chromium rendering engine, the developers of one of the Firefox forks (or, more likely, all of them) will implement a fix within days that spoofs whatever signal the lock-in code requires. If some form of online DRM is implemented, it will be cracked and the solution will be made available online. Or the relevant chunk of Chromium will be copied and modified to generate that verification key on Firefox without telemetry.
The browser may never achieve market dominance, but it doesnāt have to. Itās on the Internet, and on the Internet nothing ever truly goes away.
Sure nothing goes away on the internet but things get deprecated. Keeping up with a browser development must require highly technical engineer, who often donāt work for free. If Mozilla were to disappear or get 80% of its budget removed (Google) one can doubt they would be able to keep up with the evolution of internet.
I mean just look at Linux desktop, people working on it for free is great but itās slow, innefective and it goes to all direction at the same time. Without million of $ behind it, Firefox would be gone in a year or two whatever the amount of fork happening.
Thatās justā¦not true on any level at all. Of course things get deprecated, but engineers work for free on open source projects all the time.
And you understand nothing about Linux development if you think its development is slow; the kernel already has stable support for Intelās Meteor Lake graphics, which were released only 43 days ago at the time of this comment.
The idea that Firefox would be āgone in a year or twoā without Googleās money ignores the reality that there are thousands of large, successful open-source projects without massive financial endowments, projects that are still continuously updated over years and even decades for no other reason than that the maintainers want to use them.
Misunderstanding, I was speaking of Linux desktop environment. You think I speak of Linux. Linux is backed by dozen of companies like Google, Microsoft, Meta. It sure doesnāt lack any fund. Now compare it to the Linux desktop environment where this is mostly people working for free, shit doesnāt get done in 43 days. For instance, Wayland has been out for several years and many environment still doesnāt work with it or have not even started working on it.
The closest open source project I can think of is libreoffice. Just check it, it lacks tons of functions compared to ms but most important is that it barely improved at all in years. Now doc document arenāt going to change drastically , file from the 90ās are still compatible but the web foundation it improves very fast. When I say 2 years Iām generous, its already half dead (3.14% user !), breaking compatibility would be the nail in the coffin.
Actually, LibreOffice is the perfect example, thank you. After OOo development went in a direction the community didnāt agree with, the Document Foundation was formed and the project was immediately forked. 13Ā½ years later, the project is still updated every six months. It has every necessary feature and supports all formats. A browser would be similar; web standards donāt change that much. Wayland, by comparison, is currently a niche product for a niche product; it doesnāt need the same support, and so it doesnāt get it.
Well I admire your optimism, personally I donāt have much faith into open source project because their is often very little or no money for the developer.
I absolutely love how Mozilla has been calling out Apple, Google, and Microsoft. So good.
Sad thing is they donāt have enough pull to make people listen.
Well they recently got people to get scared of what car manufacturers want to do with all sensitive data they get access to, who knows
Yeah, normies went from IE straight to Chrome.
Theyāll never admit when they were wrong.
They still gladly accept Googleās sweet money (while asking for donations). So brave of them! /s
Bluntly, where would Mozilla be without Googleās funding?
Gone, probably.
So while I agree that it is poisonous and there is something very wrong with Mozilla corporate structure, it is a necessary evil.
Who cares? Nobody needs Mozilla anyway.
You appear to be lost, corporate deepthroaters anonymous is down the hall on the left.
Get lost.
Tis you who seems lost
Get lost you too.
Isnāt it just for the default search engine which you change without any difficulty?
The point is, donations barely cover the āsalaryā of its president (7-something millions dollar) and funds allocated to dev dwindle each year. Which is plainly stated in their yearly reports. The google money is a large part of what makes it possible to do anything else than pay the board; the donations are the cherry on the cake at this point.
Just? You call someone out and still accept money from them? Highly hypocritical behavior, if you ask me.
Moreover, here it comes the cognitive dissonance of Mozillaās fans: they say āthe default search engine can be changed easilyā, while a the same time they blame āChrome/Edge being the defaultā for the low FF market share, when in reality installing a different app is easier for tech illiterates than changing the default search engine.
Doublethink can be amazing.
Your vitriol is pathetic and exhausting. Take all this energy you have and maybe advocate for what you think is a better browser rather than berating people. You may live in Spain and not be American, but your attitude and the way you present yourself, at least in comments, is glaringly American.
āI vehemently hate dancing, to the point I can get upset even if someone just suggests it to me.ā
Holy shit, you lack the self control to keep composure at the fucking mention of dancing? I thoroughly pity your child.
Take your fuckinā meds, dude. Get help.
Just block me, just as Iām going to do with you. Goodbye.
Good advice. Bye!
So brave!
Of course, they want to make it as complicated as possible so that people donāt actually do it.
This is why I support Linux and open source stuff whenever I can. Always used Firefox. Linux on the server and desktop. Doesnāt work for everyone but itās the last free open thing weāve got. Whatās been great about Linux is now that basically everything is a Web app Linux is the perfect OS. But now we are dealing with bullshit browser wars. Uhg. Firefox will be the Linux if browsers in no time.
deleted by creator
Yeah I last booted windows consistently to play elden ring. Iām back now and playing other games in my library without issue. Proton has seen strides in improvement year over year. Itās amazing.
deleted by creator
I feel like of a group of dedicated Firefox engineers should fork the source code and start their own company.
If they would focus on adding really useful features at a rapid pace, people would be willing to pay for it.
Similiar to Kagi, if you make a really good software, you will get a group of dedicated people to support you.
Just a tech company without these super expensive CEOs that are not needed in a smaller company.
Servo is a fork of a Mozilla research project, itās moved to the Linux foundation.
They are rebuilding a web engine built for the internet today, rather than adapting the older web engines of yesterday. Mozilla already uses some of their components in Firefox.
But they are only building a web engine, for other people to turn into browsers, we views, electron alternatives etc.
Arenāt there already a bunch of forks of Firefox already? How will one more help anything?
There is a difference between forks made by other people to tweak a project/do something specific for it, and the base projectās dev team moving away from whatever it became.
Iām usually not in favor of such fork because the reason for moving away is sometime dubious; some project just rename themselves to āstart fresh and drop legacy compatibility issueā. But in the case of Firefox, Mozilla is the thing holding back features while adding bloat. Since it canāt change to a saner structure with more long-term sustainability plans, devs/engineers could move into a fork to not be bound to that anymore.
Of course itās not that easy; for all the bad Mozilla (foundation or other, I donāt care much that they are two entities at this point since one is owned by the other) is doing to the actual software, they do provide salaries. At least, for now.
Lol. Firefox cost of development is $500 milions a year. Stop bs. No one can develop a browser anymore, even Microsoft. And the salary of CEO is not the problem.
Cost of development was 221 mio in 2022
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf
Same magnitude. We can not fork firefox with serious support
Yeah, I guess your point stands. But also, itās 221 mio for Mozilla as a whole. Firefox might again be a fraction of this. While e.g. the Linux foundation has a lower budget, with all the contributed work hours of volunteers / corporations, a fork of Firefox is more realistic than the 500 mio make it out to be.
It is not the same software. A lot of drivers are developed externally for Linux. You can not do that with Firefox. Firefox is the main project of Mozilla
I donāt think your idea is bad but remember that the reason that small companies (like the one that makes arc) can maintain a browser is that theyāre using chromium, and maintaining a browser engine is the hard part
How many people know why CEOās get paid what they do?
A lot of it is they are actually worth more than me and you.
But the main thing that made CEO wages increase is that a law was passed for CEOs wages to be made public to discourage high wages. When that happened they competed against each other and the wage inflated.
Currently the negotiating position of businesses is far higher than that of workers because they are scared of not having a job/ donāt know what they are worth. The workers need public salaries. But like a lot of things in this world the workers vote against their own interests.
Iām not really sure how to fix that. But Iām starting to feel like someone really needs to try.
deleted by creator
Iām pretty sure any CEO will try squeeze as much money out of their company whether they are doing well or not. Thatās irrelevant.
I actually talked to a (small) CEO last week he said all CEOās either do it for ego or for money. Thatās all it is to them.
But thatās not really the point you are making. The board chooses the rules of the game and its up to the CEO to win it, thatās their job. In this case the board wasnāt rewarding market share as that didnāt interest them, they were rewarding other metrics which Mozilla improved on. I donāt know anything about this company other than its my desktop browser but here is an article I just found
Iād take lunduke with a bowl of salt. That dude has had a hate boner against Mozilla for over a decade.
deleted by creator
I donāt understand. What makes you say that?
deleted by creator
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Appleās new rules in the European Union mean browsers like Firefox can finally use their own engines on iOS.
Although this may seem like a welcome change, Mozilla spokespersonĀ Damiano DeMonte tells The Verge itās āextremely disappointedā with the way things turned out.
āWe are still reviewing the technical details but are extremely disappointed with Appleās proposed plan to restrict the newly-announced BrowserEngineKit to EU-specific apps,ā DeMonte says.
In iOS 17.4, Apple will no longer force browsers in the EU to use WebKit, the underlying engine that powers Safari.
āAppleās proposals fail to give consumers viable choices by making it as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari,ā DeMonte adds.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the new terms a āhorror show,ā while Spotify said the changes are a āfarce.ā Appleās guidelines are still pending approval by the EU Commission.
The original article contains 285 words, the summary contains 142 words. Saved 50%. Iām a bot and Iām open source!
Bro legit question, why canāt all the app developers pull their app from apple store. Within no time apple will change its tune
Because app developers have to jump through a lot of hoops to get into the app store, and even if every single app was pulled then the developers would have to jump through all those hoops again. And this time, Apple wonāt make it easy. Meanwhile, they are hemorrhaging money for every minute their app is not on the app store. On the other hand, Apple would give incentives to new applicants to replace everything that was pulled, and the app store returns to relatively normal within 24 hours since there are tons of apps out there that just arenāt popular enough to be on the app store at the moment. Would you want to be the first developer to pull their app?
It would take a google or a Meta to pull out for Apple to actually care. Which is why they already have special deals around the general rules anyway
Would you pay for the missed income then? Who would?
Apple only has this power because its users are a major source of income for developers.
The 30% fee developers keep complaining about has been in place from the start, so they really should have protested the app store at launch. Now theyāre too dependent on app revenue for any kind of protest.
Apple recently became the number one smart phone manufacturer in the world (not just NA), and have 61% of the US market.
Nobody with a brain is pulling out of that.
Lmao i was calling apple out earlier in a thread for this exact reason!!!
Keep us informed!
deleted by creator
Fuck Apple
More people should buy apple products. Letās end humanityā¦woohooo I am going crazy living in this shitty world.
Is anyone really surprised by this?
Apple: hold my beer!
deleted by creator
