Apple had the opportunity to lean on the web and elected not to.
With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and more.
HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available.
Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders.
Yes, they should be forced to do it.
Edit: Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android, iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital?
Edit 2: Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be broken up.
My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies.
Edit 3: If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your Netflix usage?
> Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience
Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim. You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.
> Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform?
The downvotes is because what you suggest is wholly antithetical to every "open" movement in history. You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny.
> I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place
Again with this whole thing. You don't get to enact whatever policies you want because you think it would be nice. People have rights.
> Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim.
It's not a whim. They're being investigated by the EU and US Congress for being monopolies and suffocating smaller players. They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own.
Don't trust me? Ask DHH.
> You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.
The government can absolutely tell them what to do. Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple.
Apple exists because of antitrust and the DOJ.
> You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny.
I'm glad the tyrannical government put the FDA in place. And the FAA. Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?
> People have rights.
Companies aren't people. Despite Citizen's United.
Saying stuff like "Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla" is absolutely a whim. This would be an absurd government overreach.
> They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on your own.
You can absolutely succeed today without Apple. Apple is a minority player in the mobile device segment.
Perhaps Apple is more profitable for developers. But they are not a monopoly in this space yet and do not warrant anti-trust.
> Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple.
Microsoft, on the other hand, was a monopoly (and still is, in many ways).
> Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?
Can you imagine what will happen if we keep giving the government more and more power to do what they want? See: Australia's government forcing encryption backdoors into every service.
Giving the government more and more power over companies that don't yet even constitute a monopoly is a recipe for disaster.
> Companies aren't people.
And yet companies are property, private entities, etc. Just because companies aren't people doesn't mean they are toys for the government to manipulate and control in any way they want under the guise of "antitrust regulation."
Both of these companies are already doing that: both are key participants in the WebGPU API development. Google has been particularly committed to this path for years. Apple is mostly going along, the big exception is that they don’t support web push notifications, though they do support app manifests.
Microsoft and Amazon are also seen in these processes, though not as often and their buy in is less important since neither develop their own browser at this point.
You just insulted the platform of an entire swath of developers. I'll take it you didn't intend to attack their work, because it sounded kind of close to that.
You're taking a very narrow point of view.
The web is the last free thing we have that keeps us from being eternally bound to rent seekers. You shouldn't attack it. You should be grateful for it.
It's because of things like the web and open source we have an incredibly vibrant industry where it's easy to get started from nothing. In the limit, if Apple and Google expressed complete and total control, we'd all just be employees and own none of it.
>The web is the last free thing we have that keeps us from being eternally bound to rent seekers.
On the contrary, ever since the web got hot, all we've had is rent seekers...
Everything is now a SaaS, closed code behind closed servers, and on the web everything major people would want to use (from Gmail to Basecamp, and from Notion to Slack), is either ad-supported (yuck) or requires a paid subscription.
I'd rather have the old native apps of yore: mine, forever after I paid for them (plus a freeware ecosystem, plus shareware, plus FOSS).
With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and more.
HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available.
Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders.
Yes, they should be forced to do it.
Edit: Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android, iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital?
Edit 2: Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be broken up.
My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies.
Edit 3: If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your Netflix usage?