4 ms·

> 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

> 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. 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.

danShumway 6y ago
> 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. 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/ 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?
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  > I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business. 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.

danShumway 6y ago

> 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. 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/ 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?

ghostwriter 6y ago
> I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business. 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.