Rival coders must have Europe-based staff to build and test non-WebKit surfing
The Register has learned from those involved in the browser trade that Apple has limited the development and testing of third-party browser engines to devices physically located in the EU. That requirement adds an additional barrier to anyone planning to develop and support a browser with an alternative engine in the EU.
It effectively geofences the development team. Browser-makers whose dev teams are located in the US will only be able to work on simulators. While some testing can be done in a simulator, there's no substitute for testing on device – which means developers will have to work within Apple's prescribed geographical boundary.
... as Mozilla put it – to make it "as painful as possible for others to provide competitive alternatives to Safari."
Can they do that? I'd love it, but I don't think they can really force Apple, or any company to do something globally can they? (USB C was probably managed this way because of logistic and pricing matters).
they can make whatever laws they like really - the EU punishes corporate infringement with percentage of global revenue for example
whether they can enforce them or not is questionable in most cases, but unless apple wants to pull out of europe, the EU can kinda do whatever it likes
I could be wrong, but I believe he meant that other countries themselves should pass similar laws; not that the EU should make laws mandating what Apple does in other countries
no, but on android you have firefox.. and you have f-droid with tons of OSS applications - and a lot of them are really good, so you can ignore everything made by google.
I'll de-apple when we get a viable alternative to Android. As is Google has far too much control over the entirety of that ecosystem to call it workably open, and if I'm going to choose between two proprietary vendors I'm going to choose the more reliable one with a business built around consumer interest instead of ad-company interests.
And of course with First-past-the-post even if they appear it is harmful to vote for them because you are better to strategically vote for a party that actually has a chance of winning even if they are only marginally better than the other party that is expected to win.
The system is really fucked up top-to-bottom. Very likely on purpose.
I assume they are doing checks of other things. Local software is not the same as a web service that is checking your IP for your location.
They could use location services, your registration country for your Apple ID, the sale location of your device, and other things. They could even aggregate indicators and use that.
This is worse that USB-C connectors. They did launch Lightning first and it wasn't significantly worse that USB-C for a long time. Sure, they dragged their feet for longer than they probably should have (I think the iPad switched at a relatively reasonable time) but making their users switch connectors is a big change and it made sense to make sure that USB-C was here to stay and whatnot.
This is just 100% user hostile. They are doing more work to keep features from their users. Features that the user can just not use if they don't want them.
Apple's designation under Europe's Digital Markets Act (DMA) as a gatekeeper for the App Store, iOS, Safari, and just recently iPadOS forced Cupertino to make concessions.
Parisa Tabriz, VP of engineering and general manager of Chrome at Google, dismissed Apple's rule changes earlier this year.
When Apple announced its plan to make changes in response to DMA in January, developers expressed concern that supporting a separate EU browser might be a problem.
"The contract terms are bonkers and almost no vendor I'm aware of will agree to them," lamented one industry veteran familiar with the making of browsers in response to an inquiry from The Register.
In March, the European Commission opened an investigation into Apple based on concerns that Cupertino's "steering" rules and browser choice screen fell short of DMA requirements.
Asked about Apple's geofencing of devices for development, an Opera spokesperson replied that it hadn't heard about the issue – but that's not surprising given that the organization is headquartered in the EU.
The original article contains 817 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I don’t see third party engines making it to the market unless the US also slams down some regulations. How many Firefox users are there in the EU? How many use iOS, and how many of those are likely to use the iOS version of Firefox?
Is it worth maintaining two to four separate apps for this?
Well I suppose the question really is; how many Firefox iOS/iPad OS are there in the EU and does that amount of users make it worth maintaining another 1-2 apps for the EU market, while dealing with Apple's shenanigans? Like Firefox Browser for iOS and iPad, as well as Firefox Focus are already 2 apps, if you want to replace the back-end specifically for the EU you'd have to maintain that back-end, deal with Apple working against you, and maintain separate versions of those apps specifically for the EU.
It's worth noting that Firefox for iOS is already leaps and bounds behind Firefox for Android in terms of UX. There are features missing that they could add regardless of whether they are using WKWebView or not, but they haven't, either because Apple doesn't want competition, or because they don't consider the Firefox browser on iOS to be particularly high priority.
If the latter, why on Earth would they port Gecko to iOS/iPad OS when a vanishingly small subset of users might use it? I am a European Firefox user, but I don't use Firefox on iOS because the UX compared to Safari is incredibly lacklustre. Switching the back-end to Gecko wouldn't do anything to fix that.
It's guaranteed that Google will create a version of chrome of the EU market as well. Yea it's another big tech, but app devs having the same browser engine working on iOS and droid will be a boon. Since ff has the android app already, it's also not like they will have a new greenfield development for it.
Google has infinite money to throw at shitty projects, and the more marketshare they control the better for them since that just means more data that they can sell, so I can see that happening. I don't think Mozilla has the same luxury. I'd sooner stick to Safari than use Chrome.