[ss3000]

The thing is, an open ecosystem that allows users to run any software they want on their devices already exists, including on Apple devices, in the form of the Web.

And despite all of its flaws it's the most successful software deployment platform the world has ever seen, to the point where even Apple can't afford to not include it on their platforms when we all know they'd rather not, because it's simply too valuable to consumers and would make their devices obsolete if they didn't include it.

There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.

The web was only possible because it was developed in an era before everybody was using closed down devices where the manufacturer dictates what software you can run on it. And at this rate, if the web ever falls out of favor (and Apple for one is doing everything it can to make sure it does), you can definitely be sure that nothing like it will ever be allowed to exist again.

As a community of founders and makers, I'm sure we can all imagine what a sad world it would be to live in if we had to first convince some platform gatekeeper that our idea is worthwhile and make sure our ideas don't conflict with their interests before being allowed to turn our ideas into reality and deliver them to users, let alone having to pay a cut of our revenues to them for the privilege.

[wruza]

The web doesn't run on its own platform. It does run on browsers, which are controlled by few careful instances. Mobile browsers are subject to the same rules as any other app and most popular browsers are owned by lower level platforms, separated from website/webapp owners. It is not the same as side-loading. Web analogy would work if websites were executable binaries or if browsers were much less restrictive. It is an open ecosystem under a strictest environment ever made. Nobody is going to download your random binary as mindlessly as they tap on a-hrefs.

Following the idea you present, Epic should just start making browser games with in-game purchases just over a credit card. Why doesn't it then? What's wrong with the web that Epic couldn't just publish on playfortnite.com and that'd be it?

[greysphere]

By running your products via a browser, you're both handing more control over to Apple via Safari, the platform they'd have to run on (only Apple can create a web browser on iOS remember), and leaving power/performance/features on the table for your competitors (ex: netflix/youtube can only stream lower resolution content via the web vs via their apps).

[ace_of_spades]

Thanks for your comment. I want to clarify some things.

> There's no central gatekeeper for the web, and sure, it has its dark corners, but it has not devolved into absolute chaos as you so adamantly suggest all such ecosystems would, and continues to deliver such an incredible amount value to consumers and businesses alike.

I never stated that all open systems would turn into chaos. What I suggested is that systems with unchecked advanced AI capabilities probably will. Technology is changing and old paradigms are not guaranteed to work in the future.

You seem to be looking only at the present and there I find your sentiment somewhat reasonable. However, looking at the future, safety will become much more important. If the software you are deploying has the potential to (unintentionally) kill people, shut down cities, or otherwise wrack havoc because you haven’t completely mastered the art of training machine intelligence in a safe way... you simply don’t want this to be openly sold, same as you don’t want to buy medicine or medical technology from a 5 year old kid you just met on the subway. You also don’t have the right to hurt people to fulfill your desire to make things.

I know what I am referring to requires some looking down the road but we will get there in due time. More regulation is (hopefully) inevitable.

What I still think is open for discussion are the exact terms of such vetting/control. It might very well be that terms will get less onerous. That there will be requirements for gate keepers to implement. However, freedom from control is not going to be the long term solution and this is not a bad thing!

[Phr0ztByte]

This is probably the best comment on the subject I have ever read, for whatever that's worth.