[scojjac]

Modern phones are more like general purpose computers than game consoles. The console argument from Apple is disingenuous and gets far too little pushback from courts. Same goes for their argument that developers who don't like the App Store rules should make web apps — but limits Safari support for PWAs and limits third-party browsers to an older, slower JavaScript engine.

From a different angle, corporations are not people; they do not inherently deserve the same consideration as people. Sideloading provides actual individuals the option of more flexibility in how they use the device they purchased with their hard-earned dollars. Sideloading also provides the freedom to continue to install apps that might be removed due to government pressure. "It's their platform" holds absolutely no weight as an argument in my mind; it's reflects excessive deference to corporations.

Apple should be forced because the real-world use of devices they make is broader than they argue in court, because it is a company not a person, and because other actions it takes restrict the ability of developers to take advantage of the alternative Apple itself promotes.

Less bureaucracy is the solution yet the United States, famously lazy about regulating tech, has managed to support only two truly viable mobile operating systems. Not even Microsoft wants to be in the game. This indicates that the bar is much higher than "they should just go make their own" and therefore we can expect more of the behemoths.

[VogonPoetry]

For those complaining about not allowing 3rd Party JIT engines for 3rd Party Browsers. Please consider the vulnerability track records for Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox and Safari:

I'm taking the best year for all of these (2024) - there are far worse years in the past 5 that could have been picked.

Chrome had 107 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. That is a vulnerability every 3.4 days. [0]

Mozilla had 52 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 7 days. [1]

Safari had 10 vulnerabilities that were Overflow or Memory Corruption. This is a vulnerability about every 36 days. [2]

Sources:

[0] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/15031/Google-Chrome.html?...>

[1] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/3264/Mozilla-Firefox.html...>

[2] <https://www.cvedetails.com/product/2935/Apple-Safari.html?ve...>

[kelnos]

How many of those vulnerabilities were related to JITs? How many were actually feasibly exploitable, and not just theoretical? How many would have resulted in something actually dangerous (code execution, privilege escalation) and not just something annoying (denial of service)?

How many people are actively doing security research on each browser? Is the number of finds per browser more a function of how many eyeballs are on it than how many issues actually exist?

I don't doubt that there are actual, real differences here, but presenting context-free stats like that is misleading.