I think there's an element of them forcing an entirely new Google standard (then favouring it in their results) on to something they could just as easily punish (slow sites) directly.

Slow sites can be sped up quite often with small optimisations and improvements and those improvements can be guided by Google tools but instead they're forcing their own new format in the name of speed.

My guess is that they are separate services which have always been that way and people can choose not to use them from the beginning. Amp is different in that it sits in front of a lot of websites which used to work directly, it’s apples and oranges.

iTunes didn’t take over any existing service or stop you from doing something you could before on the web

So then it's akamai or limelight, then. Still not a threat.

Open standard, opt-in free cdn, independent compatible alternatives; this does not sound like a hostile takeover of your freedom.

The thing is... if you don’t use Google’s libraries and opt in to Google’s broken UI on mobile (you no longer actually go to the website, you’re kept on a weird container that contains the website), you get a drop in Google’s search results. There are no independent compatible alternatives which do not get that drop.

Google controls ~80% of online search and ads. Apple controls ~30% of the smartphone market and 10% of the laptop/PC market.

Its the same reason why Apple never gets slapped with monopoly charges. You have the option of using Android for your phone (ignoring the fact that if you value your privacy you don’t) and Windows/Linux.

  You have the option of using Android for your phone

Does the user have the option of changing to DuckDuckGo? Yes. And moreover AMP can also be hosted totally by your own servers. See Guardian.com AMP servers

You can use the Apple News Format, but you can also use it to subscribe to standard RSS feeds.

iTunes has been selling non DRM music for a decade and you can transfer most purchased movies to other services using Movies Anywhere. The podcast directory is just that - a directory to podcast feeds. They don't host any of the podcast and provide an API.

Messages interoperare with standard SMS, MMS. You don't get all of the non standard features.

Personally, because I don't use a single idevice and don't plan to. Any of apple's bullshit can't touch me. But google's amp is fucking up the web everywhere. On my Ubuntu/Win10 laptop, on my android phone, every device I use to access the web.

Fun to watch whataboutism move from politics into computing.

Personally I'm about as hostile to Apple News as I am to AMP for a lot of the same reasons. And I also don't love Apple's embrace & extend approach to SMS.

I guess there was a time when I was concerned about iTunes and DRM and the network effects of an Apple music ecosystem, but I mostly stopped buying stuff through iTMS that I could get elsewhere about a decade ago and then largely ditched iTunes somewhere around 5 years ago after Apple had spent so much time "revolutionizing" the UI that it became a shambling horror of a guessing game rather than an experience, and AFAICT these days there's plenty of ways to use Apple devices for listening to music without using any of their specific apps/services.

So, yeah, I'd guess there's probably a concerned audience that isn't exactly picking on Google while giving Apple a pass.

Regardless of what we call it, it's not helpful to defend Google by saying Apple is worse. It doesn't contribute to the discussion. Just deflects.

Now if someone was bringing up Apple to draw similarities between what they do and what Google does, or to make distinctions, I can see how that would enrich people's understanding of the issue.

But that's not what happened in the comment in question.

If we're not careful, this whole thread will be a pissing contest between Google and Apple fans. And we'll forget what's really important (the fact that companies are trying to claim the open web as their own territory)

Oh please. This is not a fucking courtroom and it's not a structured debate.

People saying "what about X" is useful for adding perspective.

Furthermore, adding "ism" to normal conversational mechanics just because you think it's "a bad thing" is pretty cringe.

Whataboutism isn't when someone complains that Y is bad too. It's when someone asks why you're complaining about X given Y is similar in some way.

I know exactly what it is, thanks.

What I'm saying is that each normal conversational mechanic doesn't deserve an "ism" just because you think it's "a bad thing".

It's perfectly normal to add perspective by saying "what about X" in a conversation, which is what this site is here for. This is not a structured debate for crying out loud! People can make your comment disappear without even having to prove anything!