In my opinion, its based on the perception of the companies combined with the impact they have on the general consumer market. Eg 70% of phones run Android, only 27% run iOS which makes Google a much better target to go after.

Same situation with personal computing, Windows was like 80% of the consumer/business market when the whole browser thing took place. MacOS was something like 5%. Also I've never really heard of someone complain about Safari compared to IE/Edge so maybe there wasn't any traction for something like that

Maybe someone has a better/more accurate answer than that but thats just how I've been perceiving it.

In the US the marketshare split is closer to 45-55, with iOS having the larger 55% share.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1045192/share-of-mobile-....

I believe in Japan it's closer to 90/10 with 90% being iOS. Depending on the country really the split is very much leaning towards iPhone.

And younger generation, sub-30, overwhelmingly prefer iPhone.

> Also I've never really heard of someone complain about Safari compared to IE/Edge so maybe there wasn't any traction for something like that.

Well, when Apple was letting other people ship hardware with their OS, I don't think they bundled a browser or restricted their hardware partners from bundling one. Also, in those days, Safari didn't exist. I think Apple may have bundled IE 5.5 for a while, but I'm not totally sure.

People do complain about Safari being the only browser engine on Mac. But on desktop, might as well have Safari so you can download something else without using the command line; which is also what IE/Edge is good for (especially since windows's ftp command line wasn't very good and ftp is mostly dead)

Windows Explorer has had native FTP support forever now. All you need to do is point it at the Mozilla servers and you could get another browser without even opening up IE. Sure, it wasn't as fast as FileZilla, but it got the job done.

> but also the way they bundle programs in their operating systems, compared to Microsoft browser case in EU.

Microsoft was blocking competitors by requiring a fee for every processor sold by a manufacturer that offered Windows, whether that machine was sold with Windows or not, causing any other operating system sold on licensee machines to be more expensive for consumers. It wasn't bundling that was the issue in Microsoft Corp v Commission, it was tying applications together, such that if you purchase one application, you are forced to purchase another.

I don't see how it relates. Apple bundles software but does not sell what it bundles, nor is the consumer unable to remove that software, unlike with Microsoft Windows and Explorer. You can delete Safari and every application Apple bundles, and you can not purchase it because it's free with the hardware.

Wait, you can delete apple music? I never use it, but if I ever touch the soft button on.my right earbud it launches and plays nothing because it has no library or account.

Absolutely. Applications on macOS are just bundles in the sense they are just a special kind of directory that contains the executable and supporting files. Any application in the Applications directory will require Administrator privileges to delete, but the entire folder can be deleted if you want, including the Utilities folder and all utilities. With SIP disabled and root access, you can delete everything in macOS piece by piece or all at once.

No, you can’t, because they’re on a signed system volume that can’t be modified when the system is booted.

Try disabling SIP first, as I specified.[1]

[1] https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/disabling...

I know how to disable SIP. It does not change what I mentioned.

True. What you mentioned was always false.[1] macOS is BSD. Everything is a file in BSD. Anything that is a file can be deleted. Next time, try not to assume that something can't be done just because you don't know how to do it. Just assume you don't know how to do something when you don't know how to do it, not that it can't be done.

[1] https://nektony.com/how-to/uninstall-default-apple-apps-on-m...

Ok, first of all, even if you are right, you need to not reply to people like that. It was bad enough already when you tried to teach me about BSD and how files work, but then for whatever reason you decided to go back and add to it and make it even more condescending and personal. That's definitely unacceptable here, and I doubt it is celebrated elsewhere on the Internet, either.

Second, and perhaps more awkward, is you're actually still wrong. I didn't assume that what you claimed couldn't be done because I didn't know how to do it, but because of, for example, the fact that I was actually at Apple when this change was rolled out, or that I've gone through the processes in the article you linked enough times to know how they work.

Anyways, turning off SIP does let you just go rm everything you want. That used to be the case, until Catalina, but it isn't anymore. In macOS Catalina those files were on a separate mount that was read-only, but with SIP disabled you could remount it as read/write and then work with it as usual. In Big Sur the entire volume has been turned into a signed APFS snapshot that you cannot modify, period. Even if you pull off hacks to patch it the system will panic on the next boot (as several iOS jailbreaks have found out the hard way). What you can do on macOS is shut down the computer, boot into recovery, disable signature verification, and from there create an entirely new snapshot with the modifications you like. With just SIP disabled and root permissions you can't do this, and even if you go through the process I described it's irrelevant whether macOS is a BSD or apps are in bundles because you're literally constructing a new copy of a APFS volume with the contents you want.

> You can delete Safari and every application Apple bundles

This is not possible on iPhone though. You can't even run any other browser than (reskinned) Safari.

> This is not possible on iPhone though.

mobile Safari is embedded in iOS. It can be deleted by jailbreaking and gaining root access, but removing it would cause iOS to malfunction. You can't delete it entirely from iPhone, but you can effectively delete it by removing it from the Springboard, entirely disable it in Settings (using Content & Privacy Restrictions, toggle the switch next to it in Allowed apps), and make it undiscoverable.

And although all web browsers on iOS use WebKit, there are effectively only two browser rendering engines still used today, WebKit and Gecko. And only FireFox uses Gecko. Every other browser uses WebKit or an engine derived from WebKit. So while Apple considers allowing the other rendering engine,[1] Gecko, I guess you're stuck using any other browser other than the official Gecko version of FireFox. There's a WebKit version of FireFox for iOS, if you can stand to use it.

[1] https://9to5mac.com/2022/12/13/apple-mulls-opening-browser-e...

You are incorrect. Blink might be a fork of WebKit (which in turn is a fork of KHTML), but they are definitely not the same; WebKit is generally inferior.

Thankfully, the EU is forcing Apple's hands, and soon we'll see better browser engines running on iOS.

They vertically integrated beyond the scope of the law.

Microsoft job in trouble for forcing their hardware suppliers to only ship windows machines. By taking the hardware in house, Apple does the same but it's legal.

Google loses an antitrust case for monopolizing app stores on Android. By making alternative app stores technically impossible, Apple doesn't have the same issue.

It really feels like the went mega-monopoly so hard that the law doesn't apply to them.

> Microsoft got in trouble for forcing their hardware suppliers to only ship windows machines.

Not accurate. They required their licensees to pay a license fee for every machine they sold, whether it was sold with Windows or another OS. This meant that any machine that didn't ship with Windows was burdened with two licensing fees, one to Microsoft and one to whatever other OS provider.

Interesting, it should be easy enough to track the number of Windows OS being shipped so this is really just Microsoft strong arming the suppliers with monopolistic intent.

And punished rightfully so.

> Google loses an antitrust case for monopolizing app stores on Android

Note that they didn't lose; they settled. It was in their best interest not to put the question to the courts in the first place.

(As, apparnently, did Apple according to adjacent threads).

> vertically integrated beyond the scope of the law

Cupertino plays in the super-premium segment, leaving the value end of the spectrum open to competition.

Because they have cornered the market for top 5% incomes while leaving the rest 95% to their competitors. Since their market share is always less, they always get less scrutiny. Outside of developed world, no one uses apple products unless paid by their workplace (for example mac books) or if they are in the top 1% of their country.

This lawsuit only applies to the US, where ios has a majority of the market.

Or in my social circles they want to appear to be top 1%.

in Europe they have been. I think they have to open it up at least there in the future along with usb-c

In this case, Apple was sued in a similar fashion and settled in a similar fashion.

The settlement website: https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com/

Summary of the settlement: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/26/app-store-changes-devel...

The apple settlement is extremely similar to the Google one. You have to click around to see the terms Google agreed to.

Funny that when apple announced the changes, they made it sound like they were being altruistic.

> Funny that when apple announced the changes, they made it sound like they were being altruistic.

Apple (and several other big tech companies) do that every time they have to give up a modicum of control or are forced to admit wrongdoing.

They will deny critical design glass in their hardware but "altruisticly" open up free repairs for a few months so their customers don't realise they're effectively just making use of their warranty when these flaws come to light. I'm pretty sure they still haven't admitted that the butterfly keyboard was a mistake.

Every time a big company pretends to care about their customers, look for lawsuits or product flaws, especially if they're in a duopoly position like Google vs Apple or Microsoft vs Apple.