Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by millstone on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @04:06PM
(#21588517)
I think there's an excellent case for Safari. It had private browsing in 2005, before Chrome even existed. It was the first to block third party cookies by default, and today only Chrome still allows them. It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by rgovostes on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @04:18PM
(#21588628)
> It had private browsing in 2005
I stand corrected.
> It added DDG as an option in 2014, while Chrome added it only this year.
There's a nuance here. Apple's list of search engines comes from a cryptographically signed file which only they can modify. Chrome allowed you to manually configure DDG, but omitted it from the pre-configured list of search engines that included Bing and Yahoo!.
Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by saagarjha on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @04:20PM
(#21588646)
Interestingly, the ability to add a new search engine has been removed from Safari with the deprecation of legacy extensions.
Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by millstone on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @04:41PM
(#21588848)
It's true that you couldn't add it as an option to the fixed list, but in practice there were extensions that enabled it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3770958 is a fun trip down memory lane.
Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by Despegar on Wednesday November 20, 2019 @04:43PM
(#21588880)
>It was the first to block third party cookies by default
Which led to the FTC collecting a scalp for it.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/googl...
Re:Apple Antitrust Probe – Responses to Congress [pdf]
by colejohnson66 on Thursday November 21, 2019 @08:05AM
(#21593618)
Should mention that that’s Google paying a fine, not Apple. Your wording makes it sound like it’s the latter.