If you didn’t write like an unhinged lunatic, one might take your opinion seriously instead of finding it laughably over-the-top and instantly dismissing it as the ravings of a madman.
Still not wrong! To modify another nearby comment[1],
> At least [I] have an ethos
One I can wear proudly.
It seems like there's some pretty clear & obvious truths to how Apple anti-competitively restrains the web. My words might sound wild to many. But I think it's less clear how many pro-Safari anti-choice advocates sound, how warped & weird that reality is. What even is the ethos?
I cite the idea of the the war-on-general-purpose-computing[2]. This is one of the darkest, most anti-personal worst fates computing could suffer: to have humanity stripped of agency, to leave us only with appliances, fixed functions. Apple's "balance", their "security" feels like a certain relinquishing of exploration, of possibility, of liberty, an enforcement of only their way of doing this. Apple's logos seems in severe clash with humankind's ethos.
The idea a company "anti-competitively restrains the web" by "not adding some features some developers want fast enough" is just so high-school drama hyperbolic it's hard to take you seriously.
> The idea a company "anti-competitively restrains the web" by "not adding some features some developers want fast enough" is just so high-school drama hyperbolic it's hard to take you seriously.
What about "anti competitively restrains the web by preventing any other browsers from running"?
Like, holy shit- do we remember what Microsoft got in trouble for?[1][2] For making IE the default browser? For including a browser at all? Windows had like >90% market share on desktops, iOS doesn't have >30%, but if 30% of the computers run Apple-Web- and can't run the real web at all, that's about as blatantly anti-competitive, is as crude & crippling a blow as could be imagined. Other browsers had been possible vs IE- Apple won't even allow the possibility.
