Maybe they could update AGPL and call it GPLv4, so the "or later" clause would kick in and fix things for real.
GPL s/w runs on all desktop OSs, and at least on Android (see many examples on F-DROID).
Maybe you're refering to iOS? I'm not sure about the collsion between GPL and Apple's terms.
But I think I misunderstood your point, you were focused on the GPLv3 itself. Which I don't think prohibits running on any computer as you say.
But to your first point:
I'm not a lawyer (thankfully), but my interpretation of GPL: that the s/w source must be published if the s/w is "distributed", would require the source of SaaSS s/w to be published, since the "service" is distributing that s/w.
Is that not correct?
If it's running on their machine, they're not distributing it; users don't actually receive the software to run themselves and are instead making requests to a server that is running the software. (Client software would be different, of course.) I am also not a lawyer so perhaps take with a grain of salt.
are you sure? AGPL was developed in cooperation with FSF which developed/published the GPL license; GNU is a software project published with the GPL license, but the license and GNU are connected at the hip with Stallman.
The GPL2 license, which GNU was originally published under, did not allow substitutions of new licenses, including GPL3 and AGPL which may by why they might not have appeared "supportive".