[rejhgadellaa]

> I care whether Apple would compete with Google, and they wouldn't.

They receive $20B a year from Google (search engine deal). Some estimates put WebKit/Safari's budget at $500M. That's a rounding error away from $20B of pure profits. I completely agree that Apple is not in it for the good of the web. They are in it for $20B a year.

And even if they wouldn't want to compete: fine. Let them give up. Make room for browsers that do want to compete (or at least, let them try).

> WebKit isn't a browser monopoly, it has less than 20% of the browser market share.

That monopoly on iOS is enough, though. The web has to work on iOS because the wealthiest users have an iPhone, and all they have is WebKit. I work at a place where most of our users are on mobile, and most of them are on iOS. So WebKit sets the bar for what we can do. In other words, Apple is in full control of what we are able to do. Building features for Android users is often not worth our time and money, so we just don't build it.

[mort96]

> And even if they wouldn't want to compete: fine. Let them give up.

Again, this leads to Chromium out-competing everything else and getting as entrenched in mobile as it already is in desktop. This is a bad outcome.

> I work at a place where most of our users are on mobile, and most of them are on iOS. So WebKit sets the bar for what we can do.

In other words, Apple has successfully prevented you from writing a web application which only works in Chromium. This is a good outcome.

[rejhgadellaa]

> In other words, Apple has successfully prevented you from writing a web application

... by abusing their monopoly position on iOS (instead of competing).

Good outcome?

[mort96]

From the perspective of avoiding a web that's wholly controlled by Google? Yeah, absolutely.

[leptons]

Letting my users have access to the Web Bluetooth API is not making Google somehow take control of the web. If Apple won't implement it, and they won't allow other browsers on their platform, that's plainly an abusive business tactic. It's far worse than what Microsoft did by simply include IE with Windows - Microsoft never forced every browser application to use Internet Explorer. Can you imagine the outrage if they did??

But somehow Apple gets a pass, and you think they're somehow saving the web? Just stop.

Apple is stifling progress in favor of profit.

[mort96]

You're shadow boxing. I never said Apple isn't engaging in abusive business tactics. They clearly are. I just think the result benefits the open web by taking power away from Google.

[leptons]

And I pointed out that they don't help the open web, they stifle innovation of the web by abusing their power for profit.

Which I think is far worse than anything you think Google is trying to do.

I'm not giving Google a free pass here, sure they can be abusive, I hated "AMP" and I'm glad it got thrown on the junk pile. That was clearly abusive. But implementing Web Bluetooth? Not abusive, it's progress. And it's too bad Apple abuses their power and stifles progress in this case.

[hasanhaja]

I don't think it does benefit the open web. If consumers can't get value from the web, they'll go where they can find it. That is currently native apps, which is a closed and proprietary ecosystem. This causes the market itself to shrink, which means fewer and fewer people will invest in the web [1].

Here's a good podcast episode with people from the Open Web Advocacy: https://changelog.com/jsparty/316

> I do, frankly, think that mobile Safari couldn't compete that well in an open market, just like desktop Firefox can't.

Couldn't compete isn't a justification to exploit platform control and ban competition. If Apple's so worried that Safari usage will fall off in favor of Chrome, then they can invest in Safari to make it a level playing field to keep their user base.

[1] https://infrequently.org/2023/02/the-market-for-lemons/