Mozilla says Apple's new browser rules are 'as painful as possible' for Firefox

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s response to new EU rules on browser competition in iOS is widely seen as “malicious compliance,” since it limits non-WebKit browser engines like Firefox’s Gecko to EU-only builds, effectively forcing rival browsers to maintain two separate codebases while Apple continues using one. Commenters debate whether EU regulation such as the Digital Markets Act, GDPR-style consent rules, and the USB‑C mandate meaningfully improves competition and consumer rights or merely produces workarounds, dark patterns, and user inconvenience. Underneath is a broader argument about platform lock‑in, user choice versus “walled gardens,” and how aggressively regulators should intervene in Big Tech’s business models.

Apple’s DMA Compliance & EU Regulation

  • Many see Apple’s EU-only browser engine changes as “malicious compliance”: technically obeying the DMA while preserving its App Store and Safari advantages elsewhere.
  • Some expect large fines under EU laws (DMA/DSA), but others argue that if Apple meets the letter of the law, serious penalties are unlikely and court processes will take many years.
  • Discussion of EU lawmaking: broad, vague terms (“reasonable”) are intentional to survive court challenges and allow flexible enforcement, but they also give Apple room to maneuver.
  • Debate on whether EU regulators truly prioritize “intent” vs strict textual reading; courts are described as mostly letter-of-law focused.

Firefox, Browser Engines & Apple’s Restrictions

  • Mozilla’s complaint: restricting Apple’s new BrowserEngineKit to EU-only apps forces independent browsers to maintain two implementations (WebKit globally, their own engine only in the EU).
  • Some argue Apple is simply responding to EU-specific rules and doesn’t owe global changes; others call this asymmetry anti-competitive because Apple uses one engine (WebKit) everywhere.
  • Counterpoint: browsers are not required to use their own engines in the EU, so Mozilla could keep the existing WebKit-based Firefox and avoid the extra cost—but that defeats their goal of offering “real Firefox” on iOS worldwide.

PWAs vs Native Apps

  • One camp argues Apple’s weak PWA support (and Safari quality) suppresses web apps and entrenches the App Store.
  • Others note PWAs haven’t taken off on Android either, despite fewer restrictions, citing performance, device fragmentation, and ad-tech incentives favoring native apps.

Cookie Banners, GDPR & “Malicious Compliance”

  • Many blame cookie banners on ad-tech’s hostile interpretation of GDPR, not on the law itself.
  • Suggested alternatives: honor Do Not Track, use only necessary cookies by default, remove third-party tracking, or provide simple, symmetric “allow/decline” prompts.
  • Others criticize EU policymakers for not anticipating dark patterns and for slow follow-up; some mention upcoming moves to outlaw “accept big / reject hidden” UIs.

USB‑C & Hardware Mandates

  • Supporters praise the EU’s USB‑C requirement as a clear win: fewer proprietary cables, easier charging across devices, possible spillover benefits worldwide.
  • Critics dislike replacing working Lightning cables and dealing with confusing USB‑C cable capabilities, and see this as regulatory annoyance and e‑waste.

Walled Gardens, Device Ownership & App Stores

  • Some want “no‑tether” laws: if you buy a device, you should be able to cut ties with the vendor and still use it (including alternative OSes and app stores).
  • Others defend tightly controlled ecosystems (like iOS) as valuable for security and privacy and argue that forcing openness can weaken those benefits.
  • Debate over whether smartphones are general-purpose computers (thus should be open) or more like locked-down appliances.

Mozilla’s Finances & Fairness of the Burden

  • Several commenters question Mozilla’s complaints about the cost of dual implementations given high reported executive pay, suggesting a prioritization problem.
  • Others respond that Apple’s design choices are imposing an artificial and unnecessary cost center on competitors; even if Mozilla could reallocate money, the structural burden remains.