3 ms·
1. Whether Apple is violating the law is up to the legal system to decide. 2. A lifting of the requirement is an implicit endorsement of a Chrome monopoly. Thi
by vehemenz 4y ago
1. Whether Apple is violating the law is up to the legal system to decide.
2. A lifting of the requirement is an implicit endorsement of a Chrome monopoly. This seems difficult to square with the intent of lifting the requirement.
- shmerl 4y agoThe legal system didn't decide anything because it's reactive (i.e. someone has to go after Apple for this to happen and Apple gladly use the fact that no one bothered enough). And in general competition law became so toothless that it's rarely applied even in such glaringly egregious cases. I don't really care what their motivation for lifting it is. They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web.
- vehemenz 4y ago> They got away with it for too long causing a lot of very concrete anti-competitive damage to progress of the Web. How are you defining progress here? "Progress" is inherently value-laden. Are you defining it only in terms of developer convenience, with the goal of making the web like an operating system? Or are you defining the web's progress in terms of freely available information and as a document retrieval system? It has obviously regressed in the latter sense. Why isn't it just as reasonable to suggest that iOS Safari is the last bastion against the decline of the web?
- shmerl 4y agoSabotaging interoperability is a big example. Apple are using that ban on competing browsers as leverage. iOS is a drag on progress which could have been avoided if competition laws would have been applied and Apple couldn't get away with this stuff.