[jcsiracusa]

That was one of the connections I was trying to make, though I agree it's not spelled out as well as it could be. The other is that Microsoft's decision to expand into so many different markets parallels Apple's decision to do the same. When you're a platform owner and you also want to build businesses on that platform, the "success" scenario for your businesses can end up looking like a failure scenario for your platform, and vice versa.

For example, it's some person's job at Apple to make the iBooks store the most successful ebook store, but it's another person's job to make the iOS platform the most attractive, popular platform. My point in the final paragraph was that the only way for Apple to reconcile this tension may be to decide that the complete domination of Apple's businesses built on the iOS platform actually would make iOS the most attractive, possible platform. Ergo, the "What's good for Apple is good for America" reference. But when Apple's businesses have so many practical and now financial advantages versus competitors, how sure can Apple really be that its iOS content businesses would be winning based on their merits and not because of their "unfair" advantages? (That is, assuming the platform isn't stunted even sooner by customers abandoning it as their favorite non-Apple businesses decide they can't or won't agree to Apple's latest round of policy changes.)

[po]

In my view, Webkit is the canary in the coal mine for the strategy tax. The most viable competition for iOS native apps is HTML5/Javascript applications.

If I ever feel like the webkit team isn't pushing into new technologies as aggressively as possible, I get nervous. For example, it would probably be in Apple's best interest for Mobile Safari not to support offline storage. It would force developers who need offline features into creating native apps instead.

In this way, I think the Google Chrome team is giving us a good yardstick for measuring Apple's willingness to compete.

[rahoulb]

Actually I'm more worried about things like scrolling.

Dropping offline storage is such a big deal there would be a major outcry (plus it would destroy their marketing claims that Safari is the best browser - regardless of whether that is true or not).

But if the mobile safari user-experience is just a little bit worse than a native UI then that would cause real problems - especially on an Apple platform where there are large numbers of developers who notice and find that kind of thing important.

[po]

Yeah the difference in inertia on Safari's scrolling has been bothering me for a while so I feel you on that. There are a ton of places where I think native apps are better than a modern web app right now but I think that's just the state of the web. The browsers are all improving rapidly but the bar set by native apps is rising as well.

[danssig]

Apple was pushing HTML5 as much as anyone else if not more. To claim that it was only ever because of Google is unfair at best.

[zmonkeyz]

I think people forget that the original intention of the IPhone was to run web apps. Once the clamoring for native app development became too big the beast known as the app store was born.

[podperson]

I think you're confusing Apple's public stances with their actual intentions. Did Apple plan to release the SDK originally? We don't know. Do you?

[po]

Apple was pushing HTML5 as much as anyone else if not more.

Agreed. I would say they still are pushing as hard if not more.

To claim that it was only ever because of Google is unfair at best.

I certainly never made that claim so I don't know where you're getting that from.

My point is that Apple is pushing HTML5 hard right now and if they ever stop, I'll get nervous. How will I know if they stop pushing? If/when the Google team is implementing features developers care about and Apple doesn't. Competition is good.