Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by jedberg on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @06:09PM
(#26173112)
Of course they would be. OP said they wrote their own browser. The app store specifically disallows this. You must use the Safari render engine.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by zepto on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @06:30PM
(#26173306)
> headless browsers available. So I wrote half of my own browser
The OP said - headless browser, I.e: network and parsing the Dom, but not rendering.
Perfectly allowed. Please stop saying otherwise.
Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by xxs on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @08:32PM
(#26174343)
Rendering engine is not the issue. It's the JIT - firefox could publish a browser, it would just need to have interpreted javascript and it'd be useless.
Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by benibela on Thursday February 18, 2021 @08:59AM
(#26179846)
Well, then it is good, I did not make a JIT (only XPath AST, not even bytecode)
Although I have been thinking about making a JIT. Building on for x86 is easy enough, but then it is useless for ARM. I would not want to build two JITs. Or four with 32/64-bits.
Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by zepto on Thursday February 18, 2021 @10:57AM
(#26181329)
If you needed Jit for JavaScript there is nothing on iOS stopping you from using JavascriptCore.
Re:Epic Games steps up Apple fight with EU antitrust complaint
by FlownScepter on Wednesday February 17, 2021 @06:31PM
(#26173327)
This is just wrong. Apple disallows apps that duplicate existing functionality, i.e. browsers. You can write whatever wack headless browser you want, and there are tons of frameworks for this exact purpose, too: All manner of methods to do network things without invoking Safari.
This is a jawbreaker of hyperbole around a chewy gum center of truth.