> 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 even the OS, which is also free, nor is the consumer unable to remove that software or required to pay a licensing fee to Apple whether they run their OS or not, unlike with Microsoft Windows and Explorer. You can delete Safari and every application Apple bundles, including the OS, and you can not purchase it because it's free with the hardware. Apple is not tying applications, and there's nothing anti-competitive with their bundling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 even the OS, which is also free, nor is the consumer unable to remove that software or required to pay a licensing fee to Apple whether they run their OS or not, unlike with Microsoft Windows and Explorer. You can delete Safari and every application Apple bundles, including the OS, and you can not purchase it because it's free with the hardware. Apple is not tying applications, and there's nothing anti-competitive with their bundling.