The vendor implementing backdoors for commercial reasons, limiting competition for performantly rendering 100% of web sites?

It's hilarious to me that the same dirty tricks that led people to crucify Microsoft in the 1990s (OMG! Office can use an internal API!) are important security measures and perfectly legitimate restrictions in the eyes of Apple apologists.

And you are not the only one. Well, it is actually just depressing.

If you're simply concerned with the backdoor, I guess I'm completely confused why you also quoted the bit about LuaJIT iOS vs Android performance.

Are you trying to say that not being able to run the faster JIT version of LuaJIT on iOS is anticompetitive?

Javascript and Lua are two examples of languages where users have benefited from JIT compilation to assembly, as proven by performance benchmarks on multiple platforms. Both languages are artificially constrained by iOS restrictions. Safari's Javascript is one example of Apple implementing a JIT backdoor/exemption that favors Apple and excludes competitors like Mozilla Firefox.

If a regulator took action, Apple would have a choice of giving up JIT on Safari or permitting JIT for all apps on the platform. Practically speaking, they could not impose a JS performance penalty on every user of mobile Safari. It is more likely that Apple would permit JIT for all iOS apps. This would then benefit LuaJIT and all other dynamic languages on iOS.

A-ha, I didn't understand what the backdoor was.

I'm still not sure you could bring an antitrust case against them- to apply antitrust law they have to be abusing monopoly power, and they don't have a monopoly on mobile computing- but it makes more sense. Thanks.

Apple have a monopoly on app distribution within iOS and are favoring Apple-owned Safari to exclude all competitors.

Apple can either:

  • give up their iOS app distribution monopoly (allow other app stores)
  • give up their iOS browser monopoly (allow other performant browser apps)

That isn't how antitrust works. If Apple, for example, didn't allow anyone other than Apple to sell software for Macs- that isn't antitrust until Macs have a monopoly in the personal computing market.

You can monopolize your own ecosystem all you like, so long as your platform doesn't have monopoly power.

If iOS eats up all Android's marketshare and becomes the only platform worth a hoot, then you can start filing antitrust cases for this kind of thing.

The only reason Microsoft's IE bundling with Windows was antitrust was because Windows owned just about the entire personal computing market. Otherwise it would have been fine.

Some say Intel tolerates the existence of AMD, because if AMD completely disappears Intel suddenly becomes a true monopoly power and vulnerable to all kinds of antitrust suits.