“It's anticompetitive because you literally aren't permitted to compete with them.”
That’s not what anti-competitive legislation says. You are making a cute argument using a slogan term and ignoring the definitions within the statutes.
The internals of a browser aren’t significant when it comes to product differentiation. They are significant when it comes to user-impacting features like battery life, security of data on the device outside of your app, and reasonable app sizes. These are the arguments I have seen that defend AAPL and their walled garden.
Anti-competition legislation is prosecuted based on whether prices for the end user are impacted, not whether there is freedom for a developer to rewrite some internal API that Apple already supplied.
There are much better arguments for anti-competitive behavior against Apple than the proprietary browser engine.
That’s not what anti-competitive legislation says. You are making a cute argument using a slogan term and ignoring the definitions within the statutes.
The internals of a browser aren’t significant when it comes to product differentiation. They are significant when it comes to user-impacting features like battery life, security of data on the device outside of your app, and reasonable app sizes. These are the arguments I have seen that defend AAPL and their walled garden.
Anti-competition legislation is prosecuted based on whether prices for the end user are impacted, not whether there is freedom for a developer to rewrite some internal API that Apple already supplied.
There are much better arguments for anti-competitive behavior against Apple than the proprietary browser engine.