Impossible. There's a difference.
There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps. There could be in a better world, but there aren't in this world. Talk to me in a couple of years when we have native storage ironed out and maybe that'll be different. Or talk to me in 5-10 years when Librem 5 has its issues worked out, and maybe things will be different then.
> why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
It doesn't, not unless Apple enjoys the benefit of extensive government regulations that allow it to block and sue the competitors that do want to do something about it for me. Regulations like, for example, the DMCA.
Live by the government, die by the government. Companies don't get to pretend to be free-market Capitalists only when it's convenient for them.
> Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player
No, I just want consistency. I want the government to get in the way or to get out of the way.
It is infeasible to get rid of antitrust unless we're also going to also get rid of the regulation and interference that keeps the market from working the way it was intended.
Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism. I don't have patience for an argument that it's a bridge too far for the government to stop Apple from exploiting developers/consumers, but perfectly fine for Apple to use the government to reinforce their market position.
I'm sympathetic to anti-regulation arguments and the people who make them, but I am not sympathetic to pro-monopoly arguments.
If I name you the companies that release WebGL games I would state impossible? Let's not get that low in this discussion.
> There are no phones on the market where the web is a comparable platform to native mobile apps.
Comparable based on what criteria? Oftentimes I wish companies stop bother me with their "bug fixes and performance improvements" every other day and provide a sleek Web experience instead. So far I just hear how you are saying that alternatives do exist, but they suck, hence Apple's ability to charge 30% on top of everything is a viable business model, because their platform doesn't suck that much. No issue here.
> Getting rid of the regulations that protect us from the current smartphone duopoly while keeping the regulations that caused the smartphone duopoly isn't free market Capitalism, it's Feudalism.
If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform. Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
Apple is the reason why web experiences on iOS suck. They deliberately lag on web standards so that their browser experience is inferior to native apps. None of this accidental.
And no, it's not just inconvenience. There are things on iOS that are literally impossible to do in WebGL. Reliable, persistent offline storage on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Reliable persistent login on iOS is impossible to do from a web app. Notifications are impossible to do on iOS from a web app. The APIs have not been added to the platform.
It's not inconvenient -- you literally can't do them. It is not a comparable platform, because Apple makes sure that it will never be a comparable platform. It's not that Apple made an amazing native experience and the web couldn't keep up. The reason the web can't keep up on iOS is because Apple deliberately hobbles its mobile browser.
> Apple with all its money is in no position to dictate the way you or anyone else establish a new ecosystem based on open standards and free licenses.
https://venturebeat.com/2019/08/16/apples-corellium-lawsuit-...
Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Imagine a world where I could build a competitor to iOS that allowed users to port the apps that they had already bought to their new phones outside of Apple's ecosystem, rather than spending hundreds of dollars buying all of them a second time.
Imagine a world where I could build and sell my own hardware that dual-booted iOS and Android.
Imagine a world where I could sell a TV/Phone that would play DRM-encumbered content from Apple devices and iTunes.
That would be a real free market. In the current market, any of those competitors would be sued into oblivion.
> If you make this claim, then it's on you to prove that in the absence of regulations you won't be able to enter the market with your new competing platform.
Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
You keep on repeating the exact same argument, that regulation is the problem. I'm not sure that you're following what I'm saying. All I'm advocating for is that we get rid of all of the regulation. If you have a problem with regulation, then fine, let's get rid of it, including the DMCA.
It doesn't sound like you have a problem with market regulation and interference though. It sounds like you have a problem with a very small subset of regulations.
I've never mentioned web experience on iOS, let's not add words into my replies for the convenience of your argument. Everyone is free to choose any other platform with a better web experience and to build on top of it, with all open standards and free licenses in mind. Apple won't be able to interfere.
> Imagine a world where I could build a phone that was compatible with every iOS app and Android app, where users didn't have to choose in advance which ecosystem they wanted to be a part of.
Build Linux phone instead and make it compatible with Android. Or a Windows-compatible phone on ReactOS. Why are you so fixated on Apple and iOS? At this point it just looks as a random wish that Apple implements your ideas. Sorry, no one is obliged to implement your wishes as you see them fit.
> Give people a real free market, and then we'll find out whether or not in the absence of regulations they can compete.
Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
You don't understand what I'm saying, and I don't know how to say it any more clearly.
I'm not asking Apple to do anything. I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
This is worse than the Right to Repair debates -- people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking. Apple doesn't need to lift a finger. Let other people build emulators, port apps, display content, and make compatible phones. Apple doesn't need to fix my problems, but they shouldn't be able to use the government to stop other people from fixing my problems.
> Apple won't be able to interfere.
Again, I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
> I've never mentioned web experience on iOS [...] Everyone is free to choose any other platform
We're talking in circles, but just to repeat -- when you say "any other platforms", that means Android or iOS. Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now. And good luck building a third when users have invested hundreds of dollars into closed app ecosystems that it will be illegal for you to interoperate with.
If you know a way to get around the problems listed at https://whatwebcando.today/, by all means let me know, I'd love to build some offline webapps for my phone. If you know a way to get reliable disk storage from a website on any mobile platform, please let me know, it would open up a world of possibilities for me as a developer.
But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies who have the most to gain from keeping its capabilities behind those of native apps.
> Just read how commerce existed prior 1913.
You keep trying to phrase this like I'm secretly being pro-regulation in this conversation. I'm willing to concede literally every single antitrust point I've raised in the comments above, and my only condition is that we get rid of all of the regulations including copyright.
At this point, you're arguing that market regulation is bad to someone who's proposing that an alternative to antitrust might be... to get rid of all market regulation.
What is your position? Do you think market regulation is bad or good? If you don't like regulation, then what do you disagree with me on? What do you oppose about the idea of stopping the government from using copyright to interfere with the free market?
Here, how exactly does it attack your business? Is your business built around Apple ecosystem? Have you accepted their terms and conditions? there's no way to enter into any relations with Apple without accepting their terms of the services. Have you got warrants coming from Apple lawyers?
> Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking
You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though. For the same reason why you would refuse to give me access to your business (whatever it does) to compete with you. You cannot just freely re-interpret the definition of the market so that it fits your narrative. Market is never a private entity's platform.
> I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
It's either open standards or inter-operability with a proprietory standard. If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop. There's hundreds of companies who do that regularly, they pay their fees and make money along the way. There are also businesses who do not interact with Apple in any shape or form yet are able to build their mobile solutions. Because Mobile is not "Applications for either Android or iOS", you can believe this but that doesn't make it anyhow true.
> Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now.
There was a time when they didn't exist at all, the fact that there are two now doesn't change anything. Again, all your points are about convenience to you, not about inability to create a new platform. And by the way, define "viable".
> people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
are you elected to represent all of those who comment positively on that topic? I can play this game too, and "we" who oppose it neither do want any third-party battery to be presented as a genuine replacement for the original ones nor desire to have a device that is easily disassembled by third-parties. Had we wanted these features, we'd go and buy any noname Android phone.
> But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies
You have to prove that, so far it's an unsubstantiated claim. Another one, because you feel like it. The majority of people use these two platofrms not because there are no alternatives, but because it doesn't worth the effort to switch to anything else. The existing solutions already are convenient enough. Notice the difference. You may disagree with this, but again, it's just your wishes.
No he is not. Because Apple will make a call to the people with guns (The government) Who will prevent them from doing so.
Why do you support government regulations forcing people to not do these things?
> It's either open standards or inter-operability with a proprietory standard. If you don't want to get sued
Why should Apple have these rights? Why should. the government be protecting them?
He was arguing that we should get rid of Apple's ability to sue people for these things.
Lets get rid of the regulations that allow Apple to sue anyone for any of this.
Why do you support big government regulation, that allows apple to use threats of legal violence against people?
You will always be free to build 3rd-party products that work with and wrap around my products. I will never use the law as a cudgel to stop you from fairly competing with me. Users have an inherent right to control the devices that they own.
> You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though
Not asking to compete on their platform. I want to be able to compete on my platform, and I don't want Apple to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to build a platform that's compatible with iOS apps.
> If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop.
Why? Why can the government decide what I'm allowed to build? If I can build a solution by myself without a contract that interops with Apple's platforms, why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to do that? If I can build a device that runs iOS, why should the government say that I'm not allowed to do that?
What right does the government have to stop me from building and distributing products that solve my problems?
> [...]
This is ridiculous.
If you support regulation, then fine. Go argue about what the regulations are.
If you don't support regulation, then fine. Let's get rid of artificial government monopolies that allow companies to decide what is and isn't legal. Copyright is not a natural right.
You're taking a great many words to say that you selectively oppose regulation only when it's directed towards the protection of the consumer. If that's your position, then fine, but I'm not going to debate it, I don't think that position is logically coherent enough to debate.
Any phone that runs WebGL. Inconvenient? Tough life, why does Apple have to do anything about it for you?
> All of US antitrust law is based on the idea that the quantity of providers in a market matters.
US antitrust laws are deeply flawed and in no way serve the purpose they were enacted for. If your product (subjectively) costs too high you are a monopolist; if your product costs too low (hello IE) you are dumping the market; and if your product costs approximately the same as of your competitors then there's a "market collusion". You cannot win in this system if you are a successful economic player. The bottom line is this though - there was no time in history where monopoly existed without government's sanction and gate-keeping, and Union Pacific was a prime example of it.
> If you want to go full Libertarian
I don't as I'm not one of them, which doesn't negate the points that I've made before.
> Apple's dominant market position exists in no small part based on its exploitation of copyright, the DMCA, import laws, and heavy lawsuits over trademark and cross-compatible app runtimes, all of which only work because of artificial government intervention into the market.
Wasn't it the government that enacted them? Why asking for it from Apple?
> I'm also going to go full Libertarian and ask what your views are on abolishing copyright.
I'm not libertarian; if you are just asking, I'm for IP in principle, whether it's modern copyright laws or something else is another story.
> If we're all OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm OK with dropping antitrust. If we're not OK with making that stuff legal, then I'm keeping antitrust. I'm OK with either having government regulation or not having it, but no halvsies
with all respect, it really is a funny position. Everything you mentioned here is a product of federal legislature, yet you want to blame an economic player that acts according to the law, in a system that is designed to eventually punish successful.