This, but unironically.

It's not hard to think of an example where "legislation that specifies APIs and designs user interfaces" is unambiguously good — say, accessibility requirements for commercial software.

I don't think a law forcing all software to be accessible makes any kind of sense.

But when you pull your focus a bit further back to look at society, Infrastructure, systems and practices, it’s easy to see that disabled people are both more vulnerable and also less well supported (and often actively discriminated against).

The laws we have give disabled people some leverage to redress that imbalance. Unfortunately, the perspective that “accessibility is an expensive addition” is so pervasive (or not even considered), that disabled people need those laws.

A problem with laws is they reinforce binary thinking. As written they tend towards flexibility, but at the point of enforcement, there’s usually a hard line between punishment and not, which amplifies that binary impression. A less binary outlook would see people and companies embracing the opportunities for collaboration and creativity. For example, a big games publisher could actively seek out and promote developers who specialise in accessible games, or games that play with creative devices beyond the vision-first norm. A few examples exist but they’re rare, independent and it’s not a category you can search for. The same goes for art, galleries, cinema. London, where I live, had an improving state of live subtitled theatre, but it’s still only one performance in 50 or 100, for the big shows. It’s probably only even this good because of the law.

Easy to say when you don't have disabilities

Now imagine that the only content you can consume are government's websites to pay taxes...

It's like saying that if you work in constructions you shouldn't care about accessibility unless you work on government's buildings

But people with disabilities go to cinemas, pubs, bars, restaurants, museums, stadiums, ballrooms etc. etc.

I honestly don't see your point

They already do. For instance Microsoft was forced to create BrowserChoice.eu because of an antitrust case. GDPR puts requirements on user interfaces for personal data collection. I'm not aware of similar US examples (except maybe the aforementioned COPPA), but I know US law specifies form designs and font types/sizes for certain content (IIRC, to combat hiding disclosures in illegible type, etc).

This kind of thing typically only happens when private self-interest gets in the way of the public good, which is arguably the case with some of Apple's App Store decisions.

> Not going to happen. Apple will simple close up the App Store into a private premium feature delivery system. Meanwhile the entire rest of the industry will be stuck with a new version of WAP.

Are you serious? Apple's going to comply with whatever regulations they need to, because having an app store is too lucrative for them. They're not going to cut their nose to spite their face.

On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform. Why not simply close open access to the store and explicitly license every app. They could just do a deal with a dozen software vendors to develop the couple of hundred core apps and games they need, and to do bespoke development for other clients. No public signups as iOS developers.

You're moving the goalposts, you originally said:

>>>>> The problem with this is that it would be putting an obligation on Apple to design and implement APIs it doesn't want to create or support, and implement features it disagrees with.

The way this usually works is that the regulators/legislators would come up with relatively high level requirements [1] and Apple would have to figure out the design details to meet them. If their detailed design fails to meet or subverts the high level requirements, then they will be forced to defend their actions in court, where "we don't want to do it" isn't a defense.

[1] Which hypothetically could be as simple as 1) users must have the option to install 3rd party app stores on their devices, 2) 3rd party app stores may not be technically disadvantaged compared to the 1st party store, and 3) maybe some requirements around revenue or cost sharing.

> On your last point, not if you take away the two primary pillars of it's profitability - exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity. Revenues would collapse, which after all is the point of doing all of this, and they'd lose control of the platform.

Explain to me why Apple hasn't abandoned the Mac OS platform for those same reasons, since it doesn't have the "exclusive payments processing and store exclusivity" that you seem to think are so essential.