Web apps are still at the mercy of Apple and Google. Plus, they’re always lagging in features. Wordle for example wouldn’t have been able to implement the sharing feature before ~2019 because the web share API wasn’t supported by major browsers (even though it’s a thing native apps could do since forever)
I'm not really seeing how regulation would really fix the scenario in the OP. What regulations that are likely to pass would prevent Apple and Google from removing apps arbitrarily?
> Web apps are still at the mercy of Apple and Google.
Not really. Apple and Google don't control the entire internet. Though they do have some level of control of the APIs available, ultimately they themselves use the same APIs as well, so...
In any case I disagree with you - web apps are the solution because every app that becomes a Web App instead of native app results in a loosening in the grip that is the Apple/Google duopoly. Once at a critical mass, sites will pop up to curate all of these new found web apps, APIs will be developed to facilitate payments for these apps, and so forth.
Ironically Google initially was not able to compete with Apple with respect to app store curation and promoted PWAs aggressively, but no one really bit. If people just went with that to begin with we wouldn't be in this situation now. So instead of going with PWAs, Google just ended up copying Apple and now both of them just rent seek instead of one.
Prior to PWAs, there were "responsive pages" and Steve Jobs in 2007 actually thought that it would make more sense of all iPhone apps were just responsive apps instead of native apps, and locked down the API to strictly first party apps.
Hackers jail broke the iPhone to unlock all of the functionality, forcing Apple to launch the App Store, resulting in the situation now before us.
We're being given a second chance here with WebAssembly. Let's not screw it up this time around, ya?
Regulate the markets by letting other stores compete, not by regulating the current monopolistic stores. Force OS developers to make it easy and practical to use alternative app stores, and able to compete fairly with the first-party ones. On iOS, you can't do so at all without jailbreaking, and on Android, there's tons of scary warnings, and there's some stuff like automatic background updates that are impossible for anything but the Play Store unless you root.
If that happened I'd love it though, as the precedent would presumably allow for all stores, like game consoles, appliances, etc. to open up their operating systems to allow any arbitrary software to be installed.
Even if there were more app stores I bet it would result in all apps having to be signed by Google, in the same way anyone can purchase their own domain but are still limited in that DNS is centralized.
That's the kind of thing I'd want the regulation to ban.
Of course, we are currently in danger of Chrome being the monopoly, and seeing already all the awful things that brings. But this is in part directly related to the scam going on with device lockin - it's not just Android, but that plays a large part in Chrome takimg majority market share.
Demanding app stores are allowed, or better that devices can be repaired by anyone, would mean more alt OS installs, more aftermarket devices, healthier software ecosystem, more economic activity.
The Irony of these tools not being widely available, means in Western countries there is not much of a third party market, not much software support, whereas countries like China can have built up the infrastructure to manufacture novel phones almost overnight...
What reading is that?
In practice DMCA simply made it easier to take down supposed infringers of copyright violations and spread the popularity of drm. In theory, yes it’s good, and it probably made companies like YouTube and Facebook more comfortable with user content. The other benefit is that because you can accept DMCA requests and assume they are correct as long as you respond promptly your liability should be limited
In any case you’re probably right but haven’t heard of any high profile lawsuits prior to DMCA regarding internet content so it’s hard to really say.
What the law says though is that DMCA criminalizing circumventing drm and other access control and related technologies, services or tools.
Regulation can most certainly result in permissiveness.
Why assume that people who have bought into devices with closed ecosystems want more permissiveness? Who does this benefit?
Most of this seems like question begging for ad-tech and similarly scummy business models.
Forcing them to allow alternative app stores for starters. The only reason they can get away with doing this stuff is because they each have 100% market share.
Any proposals?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/271...
Firefox on Android.
Maybe I’m cynical but I highly doubt it’s going to be “make your app stores completely replaceable without DRM/billing/taxation/etc schemes and allow unrestricted sideloading”.
I can think of 100x examples of the former in other industries and almost no modern examples of the latter happening (besides maybe right-to-repair, which hasn't meaningfully happened anywhere yet).