As I said, there were earlier deadlines, but they didn't apply to members who weren't in the working group -- just as the whole process doesn't apply to companies that aren't W3C members at all.
Perhaps it was a strategic error by the W3C to standardize touch events in a new working group (allowing Apple to delay longer just by refusing to participate), rather than an existing working group that Apple already participated in. But in the end, no matter what process changes a standardization body makes, Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. And they'll continue to do so whenever engaging the standards community is less beneficial than their other priorities (like having a stronger patent arsenal to use against mobile OS competitors).
And sure, I don't expect Apple to act any differently. They are a for-profit corporation, and they have not just an expectation but a duty to use the tools the system gives them -- including patents, secrecy, and lock-in -- to create and capture value. And they are very good at it. And they've created some tremendous value not just for their shareholders but also for users and developers.
But, thinking in the long term, remember that the open web is part of what kept alternative platforms like the Mac useful and viable through decades of Windows monopoly, and what made devices like the iPhone useful from day one, before the SDK and the app store. Open platforms like the web are great for disrupters, but for the same reason they are scary to incumbents.
If the dominant computing platforms of the 1990s were as locked-down as iOS and Windows Phone are today (with one company controlling software distribution, and forbidding any alternate ways to download and run code), then the web would never have been allowed to take off. I want to build and sustain platforms where the next web-like innovation will be allowed to happen. But today's incumbents understand what this means, so I expect a real fight to keep that possibility alive.
> "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. "
Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want. I just don't think it's reasonable to do so while they're still following the rules.
> "the web would never have been allowed to take off."
The systems being locked down isn't a big deal, I don't think. The far larger risk was the monoculture that Windows presented and thus the control Microsoft could (and tried) to exert. As long as we have healthy competition between viable alternatives, I think the mobile space will be healthier than PCs in the 90s. Carriers, manufacturers and platform vendors today may try to squeeze out third party solutions, as Verizon is trying to control the NFC wallet space. But they extent to which they might succeed is the extent to which there aren't competitors for what they offer. The operating systems they (ab)use to push this plan are largely irrelevant of their ability to get away with it. Indeed they stand at their highest chance for success, right now, with the most open mobile operating system on the market.
That said, a locked-down monoculture would be a far bigger threat than a monoculture with more freedom.
>> "Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. "
> Sure. And at that point it will be reasonable to cast aspersions all we want.
Well, that's what they did in this case. They opted out of the standards process, first by not bringing their proprietary extensions to any standards group, and later by not joining the standards group that other parties formed. No rule change will prevent outcomes like this.
I do agree that it's slightly better that they are at least W3C members (so they had to disclose their patent claims at the last minute rather than not at all), but that's the most marginal possible level of participation, and it doesn't really leave the open web or the standards community in much better shape.
Perhaps it was a strategic error by the W3C to standardize touch events in a new working group (allowing Apple to delay longer just by refusing to participate), rather than an existing working group that Apple already participated in. But in the end, no matter what process changes a standardization body makes, Apple will always have the option to just take their things and go home. And they'll continue to do so whenever engaging the standards community is less beneficial than their other priorities (like having a stronger patent arsenal to use against mobile OS competitors).
And sure, I don't expect Apple to act any differently. They are a for-profit corporation, and they have not just an expectation but a duty to use the tools the system gives them -- including patents, secrecy, and lock-in -- to create and capture value. And they are very good at it. And they've created some tremendous value not just for their shareholders but also for users and developers.
But, thinking in the long term, remember that the open web is part of what kept alternative platforms like the Mac useful and viable through decades of Windows monopoly, and what made devices like the iPhone useful from day one, before the SDK and the app store. Open platforms like the web are great for disrupters, but for the same reason they are scary to incumbents.
If the dominant computing platforms of the 1990s were as locked-down as iOS and Windows Phone are today (with one company controlling software distribution, and forbidding any alternate ways to download and run code), then the web would never have been allowed to take off. I want to build and sustain platforms where the next web-like innovation will be allowed to happen. But today's incumbents understand what this means, so I expect a real fight to keep that possibility alive.