Mozilla Urges Action To Unpick Platform Browser Lock-ins (techcrunch.com) 64
As antitrust regulators around the world dial up scrutiny of platform power, Mozilla has published a piece of research digging into the at times subtle yet always insidious ways operating systems exert influence to keep consumers locked to using their own-brand browsers rather than seeking out and switching to independent options -- while simultaneously warning that competition in the browser market is vital to ensure innovation and choice for consumers and, more broadly, protect the vitality of the open web against the commercial giants trying to wall it up. TechCrunch: "Billions of people across the globe are dependent on operating systems from the largest technology companies. Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft and Meta each provide their own browser on their operating systems and each of them uses their gatekeeper position provider to preference their own browsers over independent rivals. Whether it is Microsoft pushing Firefox users to switch their default on Windows computers, Apple restricting the functionality of rival browsers on iOS smartphones or Google failing to apply default browser settings across Android, there are countless examples of independent browsers being inhibited by the operating systems on which they are dependent," Mozilla writes in a summary of its findings. "This matters because American consumers and society as a whole suffer. Not only do people lose the ability to determine their own online experiences but they also receive less innovative and lower quality products. In addition, they can be forced to accept poorer privacy outcomes and even unfair contracts. By contrast, competition from independent browsers can help to drive new features, as well as innovation in areas like privacy and security."
Yep. (Score:2)
Once you've picked the company making your platform, that company has monopoly power.
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Mozilla isn't going to shut up shop and leave Windows and Android users with only a single option for a www browser.
But that's what I -want- (Score:3)
Re:But that's what I -want- (Score:4, Informative)
Who's forcing you? What are they forcing you to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Did you read even the summary of the article?
I read it. Sounds like they want to give you choice. So tell me again, how are you so hurt by the fact that someone else can chose something they want while you get 100% of what you already have?
What did you read?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm much less fussed about launching a particular browser. I'm much more worried about removing the restriction on apps embedding their own custom browser instead of using a Safari in
Re: But that's what I -want- (Score:1)
So it is ffine if that walled ecosystem tracked your every move in a more unified and uniformed manner and was exponentially more likely do more damage with every keystroke....? hypothetically speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't use apps that embed their own browser, if that worries you.
Push for iOS (Score:2)
I'm much more worried about removing the restriction on apps embedding their own custom browser instead of using a Safari instance.
Say a developer of a third-party web browser for iOS that uses a Safari instance wants to add an implementation of the standard Push API [mozilla.org] to the Safari instance. How would the developer go about doing so?
Re:But that's what I -want- (Score:5, Funny)
Gotcha.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to remove my choice. My choice is to have a walled ecosystem where standards are enforced system-wide.
You still have that choice, even when others do as well.
I'm much more worried about removing the restriction on apps embedding their own custom browser instead of using a Safari instance.
Why? Don't use that software. Trust that walled garden. Apple sanctioned that app, and you should thank them for it. Why are you concerned? Are you actually afraid your walled garden isn't anywhere near as good as you think?
Re: (Score:1)
I either take what ever they decide to put in the ass at what ever cost they decide, or be slightly annoyed that I have to install software.
Re: (Score:2)
If I wanted open, I would pick Android. I don't - for me, this walled approach is what I'm actively choosing. They make it sound as if I'm forced into it - I'm not, I could simply pick a platform that doesn't do it. I want this behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All Apple needs to do is force app makers to disclose whether or not they embed a browser rather than using Safari. Then you could make an informed decision about what apps to use, without forcing others who might have a different opinion from you to toe your line.
Re: (Score:2)
All Apple needs to do is force app makers to disclose whether or not they embed a browser rather than using Safari.
I think OP's point here is that if Apple is forced to allow app-makers to embed another browser - disclosed or not - then Apple no longer has the ability to implement a garden that is truly walled.
A walled garden can only have one gate-keeper; if there's more than one, it becomes a 'limited access' garden, where "limited" resides on a very slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
You will be bent over a barrel and reamed once they decide that all those nifty features are now subscription base.
Thanks, but I rather not pay a second phone bill.
If you have money to burn I guess, but that is part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But today we do have standards, and MS lost, to some degree, Apple and Google rule. What we are seeing, and what Mozilla fails to understand, is we donâ(TM)t need a cross platfo
Re: (Score:2)
We are seeing it happen. Chrome is available cross platform. As is Edge. Safari used to be.
No, what happened is Mozilla is griping about Firefox losing market share over and over again and failing to understand why that is. As in, why people are giving up on Firefox and switching to Chrome and others.
It's important, because Firefox had a vibrant community of users who advocated for it and installed i
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla is a critical player because Gecko is the only other engine other than WebKit out there.
But the point still stands. No one really is concerned about a cross platform. Rowsey, just that web pages behave generally as expected. Chrome is the default browser for MS products because Edge does not work, there are any number of warnings not to
Re: (Score:2)
Came to say this, but you said it better and more completely than I would have. Thanks.
It still blows my mind just how blind, stubborn, and deluded Mozilla became. I'm even more blown away by how they kept doubling down on their own BS as their market share continued to plummet.
Re: (Score:2)
Can these people please stop making claims on my behalf? I bought an iPhone because I want system-wide standards and enforcement of those.
So buy and use stuff only from the official iStore instead of any 3rd-party store. Problem solved.
Well, assuming 3rd-party stores were available.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought an iPhone because I want system-wide standards and enforcement of those. If I don't want that, I have a choice - I can buy Android instead.
This leaves people who want both freedom to choose applications and ability to communicate with people who use iMessage and FaceTime in a bind. How practical have people found it to buy and carry two phones, one for iMessage and FaceTime and one for everything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Can these people please stop making claims on my behalf? I bought an iPhone because I want system-wide standards and enforcement of those.
So why do you want your OS vendor to force an inferior browser engine on you? You just hate choice? All your decisions are bad so you want someone else to make some of them for you?
I already have a choice, stop forcing me to do things I explicitly chose not to be a part of.
Yeah, taxation is theft!11!!1
amusing (Score:2)
removing firefox is the first thing I do when installing linux
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What are you talking about. The last time I installed Linux (last week) it came with Chromium.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the round n, where n is a very large number of "what is the correct distro" fight begin.
Re: (Score:2)
No Linux I have ever installed ever came with Chromium. Every Linux I have ever installed since Slackware 2.0 has come with Firefox. (I put Netscape 2.0 on Slackware myself.)
I'm not doubting your story, only its relevance.
Firefox is broken ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... on many sites I use, so I'm forced to use chrome
What's even worse is that it used to work fine.
So I wonder, did they introduce bugs? or are sites changing to only work with chrome?
Re:Firefox is broken ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... on many sites I use, so I'm forced to use chrome What's even worse is that it used to work fine. So I wonder, did they introduce bugs? or are sites changing to only work with chrome?
Unfortunately, its a combination of both. Many years ago, a lot of websites were specifically designed to work with Internet Explorer and other browsers were ignored. If you used something other than IE, it might work, or it might not.
Chrome has now become the new Internet Explorer and many websites are specifically designed for Chrome, and if you don't use Chrome you can just fuck off.
As an extra added bonus, the "developers" working on Firefox are mostly incompetent. Constant tinkering, constant pointless changes, and lots of stupid new "features".
Re: Firefox is broken ... (Score:5, Insightful)
These baseless assertions are half the reason to come to /.
Firefox is *pretty fucking good*.
Re: (Score:2)
These baseless assertions are half the reason to come to /.
Firefox is *pretty fucking good*.
The rendering engine and javascript interpreter are pretty good, although it's a bummer they dropped PPC support for javascript because when they did that it really consigned a whole generation of still useful Macs to the trash heap. But the interface is total fucking garbage and the UX has gone into the toilet. Pocket is grossly inferior to Scrapbook+ (which doesn't work in the new plugin model, because they retired functionality that thousands of people were using) and exists only to collect your PII, and
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that.
They won people's hearts by giving the user power over their browser functionality and looks. And they lost it by taking it away. I still like and use Firefox too but they'd do so much better if they stopped trying to be Chrome. They're already small enough to afford acting like a 'niche' browser for power-users again.
Why cater to users who 'might get confused because of complex features' when all those users are already using Chrome anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
It is because Chrome is the new IE. We'll be stuck with Chrome for a while.
Mandate the use of public standards. (Score:3)
Any website that has over X users or does Y dollars in monetary transactions should be required to follow established and publicly defined standards. No hacks for browser XYZ to work better/faster, just follow the standards.
I know standards are a wacky concept but it has a lot to do enabling accessibility as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't tell me how to design my products. It's my products and if I want to give the middle finger to my users that's my right. "Mandatory" should be reserved for matters of public health and safety.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many things that are mandatory because they are for the public good. Mandating standards would enable more accessibility software to work properly which is in the interest of the public. It's the same reason that we require businesses to be wheelchair accessible. Now, if you are against requiring businesses to be wheelchair accessible then you should reevaluate your life.
Re: (Score:1)
There are many things that are mandatory because they are for the public good.
Indeed they are. And precisely none of them have the absurdly low bar as mandating a private company's website work with a certain product.
Mandating standards would enable more accessibility software to work properly which is in the interest of the public.
But that's not what you said, you're now moving the goalposts. If you want to mandate the use of accessibility tags for accessibility software then say so, it's an admirable thing to do which has a real material impact on disabled people. You didn't. You said "No hacks for browser XYZ to work better/faster".
Now, if you are against requiring businesses to be wheelchair accessible then you should reevaluate your life.
I'm all for a low IQ post moving the goalposts to try and save a
Re: (Score:2)
And precisely none of them have the absurdly low bar as mandating a private company's website work with a certain product.
You have it backwards, I don't want a website to work with a certain product/browser, I want it to work with every product/browser.
If you want to mandate the use of accessibility tags for accessibility software then say so,
That's not it. Sites made using standards are intrinsically more accessible because standards remove incompatibilities.
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards, I don't want a website to work with a certain product/browser, I want it to work with every product/browser.
And what someone's site works with is not up to you to decide. A website working on every browser is not a significant issue relevant to society to an extent where it needs regulating. You want to focus on something that matters, force compatibility on your government and tax department websites. If Pornhub only works on Wankbrowser, that's their choice and not one that should ever have government intervention.
That's not it. Sites made using standards are intrinsically more accessible because standards remove incompatibilities.
If you want to talk about standards for accessibility then talk about standards for accessibility.
Re: (Score:2)
And what someone's site works with is not up to you to decide.
See, that's the point of the regulation.
A website working on every browser is not a significant issue relevant to society to an extent where it needs regulating.
Considering the amount of online commerce that happens, that's definitely wrong.
And no simply being 100% standards complaint does not in any way shape or form mean a screen reader or other accessibility tools actually function.
You're not wrong but it does mean that entities that write screen readers wont have to keep up with the code churn of modern browsers. Having to test and release a new build of a screen reader because the browser it's based on is updated weekly will increase the development time, thereby being an undue burden for the development of a screen reading browser. They have mostly worked around t
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone hates that.
But ... everyone hates monopolies and duopolies too, and what we have in the Desktop market is a de-facto monopoly. In the phone market it's a duopoly.
They particularly hate it when it removes their ability do something. For example COVID denial hate being banned by Facebook and so we have Republicans rabbiting on about crippling Facebook's ability to determine was does and doesn't appears on their platform because of "free speech" , and equally
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings us to a rule of thumb Mozilla is calling to be applied here - when they are powerful enough to behave like governments, it's time for governments to start regulating them.
I agree with everything you said in your post, including this last part. I'd just like to point out that Mozilla may be pissed at missing this boat themselves. They misjudged their position and started behaving toward their supporters as though they were "powerful enough to behave like governments" when in fact they weren't that powerful. Now they have almost no power; yet oddly enough, it seems that they still hold and defend their delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Mandate the use of public standards
I am genuinely curious about who would enforce that mandate across the planet.
One country at a time (Score:2)
(Possible nirvana fallacy detected)
A global regulation from day one is not necessary. It's a useful start to mandate some level of interoperability with published web standards one country at a time, starting with the most populous industrialized country that tolerates constructive criticism of politicians. (Namely the United States.)
Re: (Score:2)
I am genuinely curious about who would enforce that mandate across the planet.
No, you are being disingenuous. You might as well ask who will enforce preventing sites from serving up child pornography.
Get bent.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about web standards, this is about the OS making it difficult to switch to another browser.
On Windows you can't change the way certain links always open in Microsoft Edge. Mozilla found a work-around and Microsoft blocked it.
On iOS all non-Safari browsers are crippled. They must use Apple's HTML renderer, which is slower than the Safari one. I understand there are other limitations too.
On Android you can mostly replace whatever default browser your device came with, with one exception. The OS pro
Re: (Score:2)
On Android you can mostly replace whatever default browser your device came with, with one exception. The OS provides an HTML renderer that apps can use to display web pages, and it can't be replaced.
wat [bromite.org]
There is only one replacement, and it is based on chromium, but that is because the Mozilla foundation doesn't think it's important and so they don't bother to produce a Firefox-based replacement. It's not because you can't replace it. You can, and it's as easy as installing an app.
Re: (Score:2)
https://github.com/bromite/bro... [github.com]
It requires there to be no signature lock on the SystemWebView component. On most devices that have not been rooted or had their OS replaced, the lock is in place for the security reasons I outlined in my post.
Mozilla needs its own OS then. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 4 Lyfe (Score:3)
The first thing I do when I am on a new Windows system is to put on Portable Firefox and go to town. I don't mind Windows and know how what I need to do to make it stable. IE/Edge doesn't bother me because I don't use them and I pretty much put them to sleep.
However, I can understand why Mozilla feels this way since Microsoft does have a pretty wicked hand of "encouraging' users to use Edge and crowd out the competition whenever it suits their needs.
Every vendor wants you to use their own products (Score:2)
If you buy a GM car, it's probably going to have an OEM AC Delco radio. GM isn't in the radio business, just like Microsoft isn't in the browser business. But vendor lock-in leads to profit. GM and Microsoft and Apple and everyone...want you to stay in their own ecosystem.
Windows annoys me with this (Score:2)
They make the OS, they get to include a browser, you need one, it's important. (IE's purpose in life is to install other browsers).
However it really annoys me being like "OH ITS SECURE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO SWITCH? TRY IE ANYWAY?"
and when I search for another browser "OH YOU DONT NEED TO YOU ARE USING EDGE ITS FANTASTIC DONT GET ANOTHER BROWSER"
Like seriously tickets me off. I will use the damn browser I want, get out of my face. The fact that YOUR browser makes me choose options about GIVING YOU MORE OF MY
A more insidious issue (Score:2)
I think a more insidious issue is what we experienced with Microsoft and their use of control over browser selection in Windows. That led to IE being the dominant browser to such an extent that web sites were written specifically for IE6 (the current version at the time) and depended on IE6-specific features (and sometimes bugs) for correct viewing. That in turn led to a situation where "what IE6 does" became a de-facto standard and it was virtually impossible to introduce new features into HTML, CSS and JS
Yet FF Mobile Removed Bookmarks to Force Search (Score:2)
Nope (Score:2)
There are three browser engines now
- Blink
- Gecko
- Webkit
That's two too many.
if a engine developer is less than vigilant, they will slow development and the other engines will blow past. There is no option to catch up.
We have had far too many issues over the years where users pay the price for browser engines being out of sync.
The browser engine should be an automatically updated system component and all browser makers should wrap that. And if some ven