It's really the most interesting thing I read in this screed, the rest of which seemed to be clueless BS like, "changes to App Store policies that will improve the state of the internet."
No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period.
But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy"
No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.
So what? Controlling how many fart apps are available on its platform does not make Apple a gatekeeper to any part of the Internet. Apple does not funnel Web traffic into its properties.
Think it through: Amazon dominates shopping-search results. It easily swamps any other shopping portal or indie vendor. So it is a de facto gatekeeper to a huge portion of online shopping. You're citing Apple's alleged 58% of phone-platform share as making it a gatekeeper to the Internet? Amazon is actually an Internet-based entity with huge dominance in its field.
Meanwhile Meta (Facebook) IS the Internet for a large (less tech-savvy) portion of the public. Akin to when AOL slapped Internet access onto its platform.
Apple controls its app store. Is it douchey as hell to developers? Yep. Has it antagonized governments and flouted legal rulings? Yep. Has it lied about App Store search? Yep.
But it is not an Internet gatekeeper or a monopoly.
The Internet and the Web are not the same thing. Apple absolutely gatekeeps the ability to run non-HTTP internet connected apps. Your statement that Apple is not a “gatekeeper to any part of the Internet” is simply false.
> So what? Controlling how many fart apps are available on its platform does not make Apple a gatekeeper to any part of the Internet.
Controlling what kind of software, including _web browsers_, runs on the main device for the majority of the US population, does not make it a gatekeeper? That doesn't make any sense to me. Want to go to Amazon? You need an app or a browser to access it, both of these are controlled by Apple on its devices. Meta/Facebook? Same.
No, it does not. Does the cable company's forcing of you to use DOCSIS-compliant modems control what Web sites you access? No.
Does WebKit direct you to certain sites or block sites based on their content? Does it capture your search terms and curate the results? Does it aggregate content? Does it funnel your viewing to certain sites preferentially? No.
You keep attempting to assert that the viewing tool curates what you view with it. WebKit doesn't. Even if you raise technical points (doesn't support Web MIDI or something), those still don't prevent you from visiting any site you want. Even if a site were totally broken for technical reasons, it doesn't amount to deliberate curation by Apple.
Webkit does limit the sites I can visit, or equivalently the technologies that websites can use, because it doesn't support them. Which is _fine_ for a web browser, if it wasn't the case that Apple effectively used to mandate all web browsers on iOS to use Webkit.
In practice I think he is right unfortunately. Most people would just run Chrome and more websites would require Chrome since they could just tell Apple users to deal with it, making the mono-culture even worse.
Yes I have, I worked with it for years, there's the officially supported standards and then there's the buggy reality you have to deal with. I've encountered bugs with backgrounds, zIndex, videos, forms, localStorage, SVGs, all basic browser features.
Then Safari also is the last non-evergreen browser so it's the slowest to update compared to all the other browsers. If you have a bug, there's a good chance you'll have it for years
Evergreen refers to the speed of update, your average iPhone user takes one year and half to update. Your average Chrome user is updated within 3 weeks, your average Firefox user within 4 weeks.
Call it with another word if you want but Safari is on a league of its own.
If you serve web pages, you likely serve many of your users on their Apple devices. And you can’t support features of the web for those users if Apple doesn’t want them to have those features, and prohibits browsers with other engines that do support them on their App Store, and prohibits other sources of web browsers.
Yes you did: "Try shipping a web browser not based on Apple’s browser functionality on iOS. See how free of gatekeeping the internet is."
And no, it isn't. Not supporting certain browser features does not direct traffic or even deny access. So you obviously don't know what gatekeeping is.
A) it’s not irrelevant at all. Perhaps you don’t do web design, or perhaps you restrict your designs to functionality Apple doesn’t actively or passively prohibit.
Then you might not be aware that Apple does not support everything other browsers support. Or takes longer to support some things.
The internet has two ends (at least), media source and media user. Both ends require compatible software for any connection to work or work fully.
B) Of course I omit other irrelevant issues. No need for argumentative non-points.
A suggestion that would help me understand you better:
Instead of simply dismissing points out of hand, respond with reasoned thoughts.
Maybe you have a sensible viewpoint?
I have no issue learning from you.
If you can communicate how Apple blocking alternate browser engines doesn’t actually block other browser’s additional web functionality, please explain your work around.
I would appreciate any solution you have. So would many others.
—-
Apple also prohibits (via there App Store) non-browser apps based on how they use the Internet. So that’s additional gate keeping of Internet functionalit.
—-
Read Apple’s App Store guidelines for developers. Apple is up front and clear about all these restrictions and prohibitions.
I am lost as to what you are trying to claim they allow, that they openly document they don’t allow.
—-
Perhaps you have confused internet functionality with Internet addresses.
Indeed, Apple doesn’t block IPs.
But some kind of software at both ends is still required to communicate across the Internet. And blocking specific kinds of Internet functionality at one end, effectively blocks it from both ends, on their locked down devices.
You have confused "Web functionality" with gatekeeping.
You can use WebKit to visit any site you want; whether it supports every technical feature you might encounter on a site is irrelevant. I'm not arguing that it's a good engine or even competitive. I don't question your objections to missing functionality, and probably agree with all of them. But that is not gatekeeping. That's like saying black-&-white TVs were "gatekeeping" by not showing color, or some Bluetooth speakers are "gatekeeping" by not being stereo.
Anyway, the point is moot because Apple has to allow other browser engines now. If you think it through, this will simply allow Chrome to completely dominate the Web and take us backward to the bad old days of "this site works best on..."
How is that gatekeeping? Does Webkit prevent you from visiting certain sites, or funnel you to others?
No.
And the browser-engine ban is being lifted; something that sounded good at first, until you realize that Chrome is already a cancer on the Web that is only held back to the dominance of Safari on mobile. Cheerleading for a total takeover by Chrome isn't smart if you think it through.
> They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store.
They also control the OS and don't allow side-loading or other app stores (without putting absurd obstacles in the way) So in the end they completely control the devices they sell.
The end user is _NOT_ forced to buy into their ecosystem though.
There are alternatives, and depending on where on this globe you ask, apple is not even the one with the biggest marketshare.
So while I'm not against the general outcry and need for change, it is not just apple. The problem is way way bigger, and it should not be put onto one of the players in my opinion.
Create regulation/platform that sets the limits, then put ALL players into the process not just one
The difference is that we can easily try to pretend that game consoles are not general purpose computers. And doing so is not going to cause issues to the fabric of the society.
Hahaha, wow, OK. Then we must acknowledge that we're talking about PHONES here, and the applications on it are optional TOYS. The phone could have no app store at all, and still be highly functional and complete. In fact... that's how the iPhone launched. There was no app store for years.
Meanwhile, a game system with no games is not functional at all.
No, they are general purpose computers that can also work as cellphones.
The first iPhone technically wasn't a smartphone (unlike its competitors at the time) because it did not have a way to install third-party programs. This situation only lasted a year though.
It did have a pre-installed Google Maps app, very much not a toy...
And don't game consoles typically come out bundled with some first party games too ?
"The first iPhone technically wasn't a smartphone (unlike its competitors at the time) because it did not have a way to install third-party programs"
What a laughably wrong assertion. The iPhone handled all kinds of PIM data and synced with computers. There was no requirement (or even expectation) that a "smart" phone had third-party applications.
No. Unlike Google, Meta, and Amazon, Apple is not a gatekeeper to the Internet. They are the gatekeeper to one thing: their own app store. It's tiresome to hear the same anti-"big-tech" hysteria aimed at Apple. They aren't a monopoly, period.
But back to this: "The App Store policies hurt privacy"
No, they don't. The plaintiff bases this admittedly novel whine on the fact that Google and its ilk make money on things other than their software. So by that logic, every company that doesn't conduct business through its app hurts every company that does. Give us a break.