Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
There is absolutely zero way to satisfy the latter part here. It's at best non-enforceable. If I'm using C++ and use std::span instead of a c-style array, is that good enough?
Of course. It's just a coincidence that they're placing onerous restrictions on competi- I mean alternative browser engines. Restrictions which, of course, they're not obliged to follow themselves.
I am sure that Apple will make no other efforts to impede others from unwalling the garden. That would be completely ridiculous, and frankly, un-Apple-esque.
Both Chrome and Firefox are already compliant, so I don't see it as onerous, but the full context of the list is indeed an extremely loud and clear "FUCK YOU, WE OWN YOU" to regulators and other browser vendors.
Which of the restrictions do you feel they don’t abide by? It looks like they meet all their own restrictions
> Use memory-safe programming languages, or features that improve memory safety within other languages, within the alternative web browser engine at a minimum for all code that processes web content;
There is absolutely zero way to satisfy the latter part here. It's at best non-enforceable. If I'm using C++ and use std::span instead of a c-style array, is that good enough?
9 replies →