> Google controls the desktop browser market already, one of the only reasons they haven’t done the same on mobile is because Apple won’t allow it.
Yeah, I think this is wrong, but I'm going to bail on this discussion since it's too close to my employment.
But my opinions haven't really changed anyway: from my perspective both sides have "control" over a market, but one side has been a good steward, allowing forks and experimentation and open implementation, and the other side has been an inarguably bad steward by disallowing competition entirely. And it's shocking (and frankly a little Orwellian) to see people trying to argue the opposite.
One side having been a "good steward" is your opinion, describing counter opinions as "a little Orwellian" strikes me as hyperbole.
From my perspective I agree that Google has been a better steward of the web than many others would be or have been. But I have spent too much of my professional life dealing with things like AMP pages and shitty, browser-crashing ads provided via Google ad networks to say they are a total objective good (to say nothing of the Web Environment Integrity proposal and other stuff that never succeeded, remember when they wanted to put Dart in Chrome?).
Even if you think they are objectively good, remember that they've been a good steward within the current context where they don't hold overall power. Microsoft is a good steward of the web these days but I've been around long enough to remember the IE6 days. If given total control over the future of the web I have every expectation that Google would behave like MS did back then. It's nothing personal against any company, I think it's inherent in the nature of any private company in total control of a market to bend it to their will. Expecting them to do anything else is foolish.
I fear the native future Apple wants but can't achieve because of the open web. I fear the dominated web future Google wants but can't achieve because of Apple. I'm equal opportunity scared of all these bastards.
It seems like you agree with me then. I remind you that you stepped in to a subthread arguing in favor ("seeing the logic" in your words) of Safari as an alternative to Chrome as a way to preserve open access to web content. And as you yourself point out, that's ridiculous: iOS/Safari is much more locked down than any WEI-compliant browser ever could be.
I repeat again that I'm happy if you want to boost Firefox or Chromium or (if you must) Opera or Edge instead, as those platforms represent open choices in a reasonably free market. But telling people to use Safari on iOS in this particular argument is a very weird up-is-down/gaslighting/Orwellian take. It's just wrong. Your stated goals upthread don't match your recommendations, at all.
I haven't commented really since afavour has mostly articulated my position for me. I don't use Apple products as I am philosophically opposed to the control of the hardware. And my life goes on fine.
WEI alone is enough for me to disagree with you on who is the bad steward.
> WEI alone is enough for me to disagree with you on who is the bad steward.
But... again, WEI is just duplicating features that have been there from day zero on iOS (and mobile apps more generally).
I understand that you dislike WEI. I understand why you might argue against its implementors and push platforms like Firefox that don't do that. I get that part.
What I don't get is your celebration of a platform that is even more locked down, in every reasonable interpretation. Your ability as an arbitrary client to connect to the service of your choosing using the software of your choosing (which is all WEI is about) is objectively much weaker with iOS than any other significant client platform. So maybe you should revisit your thinking here?
Yeah, I think this is wrong, but I'm going to bail on this discussion since it's too close to my employment.
But my opinions haven't really changed anyway: from my perspective both sides have "control" over a market, but one side has been a good steward, allowing forks and experimentation and open implementation, and the other side has been an inarguably bad steward by disallowing competition entirely. And it's shocking (and frankly a little Orwellian) to see people trying to argue the opposite.