[legacynl]

> European Union is coming after apple.... seems short sighted

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of the EU in this matter. The objective is not to keep both companies on even keel, but it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws. If this results in Google gaining a de-facto browser monopoly then those same laws can be used to break up that monopoly when we get to it.

What would be the alternative in your opinion? Allow Apple to break the monopoly laws in hope that they will be able to rein in the growth of the Google browser? What good is a law if it will not be enforced?

[JimDabell]

> What would be the alternative in your opinion?

Force Apple to allow alternative rendering engines, but only the ones with <50% market share. This would promote diversity in rendering engines without giving what is already by far the most dominant rendering engine the opportunity to get more of a stranglehold over the market.

People already mistake Blink-only APIs like Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web MIDI, etc. for web standards. The market is already dangerously close to where it was 20 years ago, where a vast number of web developers treat the most popular rendering engine as if it’s synonymous with the web. Handing more opportunities for market share to Blink is playing with fire.

You want Apple to allow Gecko or Ladybird? Sounds great! But the monopoly that threatens the web at the moment is Blink.

[jwells89]

Another thing the EU could do which would help is to prohibit cross-promotion of browsers, as Google has quite aggressively done since Chrome’s inception and Microsoft is returning to doing with Edge.

That means no more “download Chrome” prompts on Google search and YouTube, no pestering people to install Chrome when tapping links in Google iOS apps, no bundling of Chrome in installers of unrelated software (very common on Windows), etc.

Some sort of rule against favoring one’s own browser in web apps (as has happened with GSuite and YouTube on multiple occasions) would also be nice but unfortunately strikes me as unlikely.

[geon]

The main issue with the ie monopoly was that it was an absolute trash browser, and MS wouldn't update it. Chrome is actually good and gets updates regularly.

It would be nice if there were more alternatives, but I can't really expect anyone to spend the resources necessary. I don't think crippling chrome for some kind of sense of "fairness" is a productive solution.

[smaudet]

> Chrome is actually good

I'd like to take issue with this statement...its spyware, and its atrocious to modify. You can't slim down a chrome browser, and it can force you to do whatever it wants to...

It's actually really, really bad...

[paulddraper]

How is that a law?

That's just playing sides.

[JimDabell]

The rule is clearly based upon the ability to influence the market that the players have, which is exactly what is appropriate for an act to improve the state of the market. The rule is not based upon the identity of the players - nor is it just a proxy for that - so it’s not “playing sides”.

[oblio]

Playing sides for the small guy is fair.

[pennomi]

Blink isn’t dangerous, Chrome is. You can have a privacy focused Blink browser.

[redder23]

You fail to get it, YES Blink indeed is in fact dangerous because its controlled by Google and they dictate what they allow and what will be next things in the Browser and basically force everyone else to follow up with features they implement. They have a way to big control over browsers with the large market share they have. It has very little to do with with privacy. I use Brave myself. Using Blink as rendering option is cool and its cool that is open source but it does not change the control Google has over browsers. People could fork it of they disagree with things they do but if they are not as big as Apple the fork would disappear into meaningless and would never even come close to somehow influence and web standards ...

[smaudet]

This is far worse than the "you can just re-skin safari" on iOS nonsense. Blink is just another tool to force cash cow $$updates$$ onto users they didn't want or need.

[npunt]

> it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws

It's never ever that simple in politics, and this is about a new law (Digital Markets Act). Ask yourself:

- How were all the terms in the Digital Markets Act determined?

- Which players or initiatives were able to scoot by unnoticed (e.g. Chrome's grip on web standards)?

- What is the interpretation of what constitutes a gatekeeper? (note: its actually 'gatekeeper' not monopoly we're talking about).

- Who will decide whether Apple's changes are in compliance?

It can be true that their aims are generally to have more fairness in the market, but there's always going to be other factors at play in this kind of legislation. Note that the DMA was written in a way that allowed Europe-based Spotify and Booking.com to avoid being labeled gatekeepers.

[oblio]

Spotify has been losing money from day 1. It also would not even make the US top 50 for tech companies, by revenue.

Booking.com is registered in the US...

[npunt]

Ah you're right, though Booking.com started in and is headquartered in Netherlands, its part of Booking Holdings based in the US.

Spotify is definitely no money maker. That said, its market share alone would/should put it in the crosshairs of gatekeeping laws.