- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
It has now emerged that after being informed that Safari was likely to fall under the DMA’s regulations, Apple filed formal a response to the European Union claiming that Safari is, in fact, “three distinct web browsers.” The company’s claim is based on the argument that Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are entirely different and serve different purposes.
On example cited by Apple is Safari’s sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history. Since this feature is unavailable in the version of Safari for iOS, Apple claimed that it is a distinctly different browser. The company added that each version of Safari serves different purposes for users depending on the device upon which it is accessed.
The European Commission went on to point out that Safari’s functionality and underlying technologies are near-identical across platforms. The Commission even highlights Apple’s own marketing materials for its Continuity feature, which appear to contradict the company’s claims, touting the tag line “Same Safari. Different device.” As a result, the Commission rejected Apple’s claim and insists that “Safari qualifies as a single web browser, irrespective of the device through which that service is accessed.”
I think this is why Safari is one browser. In my eyes, Chromium-based browsers are distinct enough. Yet if Safari’s difference is mere sidebar… you don’t claim those three to be distinct browsers.
All chromium browsers are simply settings and UI tweeks. Some have additional features, but how they operate and how they render websites is the same.
If they were separate and distinct, they would fork chromium. Developing the core of the web browser separately.
They don’t. The take the new chromium build and merge it with their browser software. If safari used different UI design, logos and removed the shared history and settings features from each platform. It would have the same practical distinctions as chromium variants.
All Linux distos use the same kernel, are they all the same?
The Linux kernel isn’t in a position that it can manipulate the market through imposed standards. For most Linux distros their distribution and installation is controlled by the end user. There isn’t a default distro - except for pre-installed which is marginal.
The user of a Linux distro has a choice in the one they choose. They actively have to seek it out in most cases. So they impart agree to the UI, default apps and package management system.
Where as people buying windows, apple, android and chrome os. Are presented with a default browser and in either can’t or are heavily discouraged from choosing an alternative. Users may also have to use a certain browser to access a website, which happens with chrome.
The types of user are also different.
Again this doesn’t become relevant unless an operating system is in a position to exploit (and has ambitions or has exploited) its large/monopolistic market share. The Linux kernel hasn’t approached this. Not even in the server market, as Microsoft remain a powerful player and the operators are highly informed non commercial users.
What makes the distinction on linux distro’s is the package manager, you could make the argument that Debian and Ubuntu are the same but you cannot make the same claim about Slackware and Arch.
You also call them Chromium browsers, btw. They are different browsers in the usual sense of the word.
Safari has been always Safari regardless of the variant, in comparison.
This is branding of web standards. It dangerous in part because of the illusion of choice. You don’t seem to realise all these browsers reinforce Google’s control over the internet. None of the teams making chromium browsers are able to make a web browser - except Google. They are completely dependent on Google to give them 98% of their product.
They aren’t web browser developers working on edge and brave. It’s UI, UX and tracking developers.
I know everything you mentioned. It’s also more geeky to say Edge is Chromium. But I’m talking about the linguistics. You won’t convince me.
Do you even have a single fucking source that called them a single browser!?
Before this issue, Edge, Chrome and Opera were each a Chromium-based browser. If you call them a single browser, it’s you who are re-defining (or, in that regard, re-branding) the word.
Although G Chrome and Edge are very close to Chromium, Chromium is the base of such a diverse set of software.
You don’t call an Electron app a Chromium, do you? Qt also offers Chromium as a widget, where you can basically do whatever you want. This is why just using Chromium as the base doesn’t qualify as the same browser for me. That’s like mistaking the engine as the browser.
These are all just repacked websites. Its just a browser for a web service. It’s also an issue as you no longer get to choose the browser you use.
The web engine isn’t the same as a car engine. Web engines define how the road is built, it’s direction, it’s speed and it’s destination. Leaving this up to Google or apple is bad news for everyone. Just like it was bad to leave it up to Microsoft with internet explorer.
A big problem is how chrome has been masked to appear as different browsers and services. Even desktop app like you mention, as well as web views for android apps all running on chromium where you like it or not.