When your proposition is clearly nonsensical you can make up all the best arguments in the world, and it still will never be anything but nonsensical. You’re wasting your breath.
Again with an appeal to common sense, the fallacy of unsupported assertion. I'll repeat, you don't agree with me, but you don't know why I'm wrong, and you can't prove it because, in fact, I'm right. You can prove me wrong quite effortlessly by showing one single non-WAP mobile website that existed before January 2007. But it's impossible because they didn't exist before Apple's initiative to build the mobile web (or "Web Apps") due to the delay of the iPhoneSDK, which they did by influencing web developers to use Apple's mobile site design specifications and web tools to try to get mobile Safari users' eyes and clicks on their content.
Even if that is true, which I kind of doubt because before the iPhone there was Opera Mini, it doesn’t prove anything, because obviously if Apple hadn’t made the iPhone, a few years later someone else would have made a phone that could browse the web, and then we would have gotten web apps created for that phone. It’s natural progression, not some diabolical plot by Steve Jobs. I’m pretty sure that the first version of Android that was in the works when Apple released the iPhone came with a web browser just as well. It’s kind of obvious people want that.
If you want to blame someone for web apps, you have to blame either Microsoft who started it all with Outlook Web Access, or Google who lead the way to real interactivity with Google Maps. Perhaps Brandon Eich who created Javascript, Sun who created Java or whoever created the DOM. To blame Apple or Steve Jobs is nonsensical.
And to insist that ‘everybody loathes mobile web apps’ is ridiculous. On this very site there’s plenty of people that prefer Reddits mobile web app to the apps and Twitters web app to the apps. You don’t like them and you don’t like how nobody cares about what you want.
That's not clear, that if Apple didn't do something, someone else would have. It might be true of technology when the elements of advancement are in the air, but this is about design. If Eiffel hadn't designed the Tower in Paris, you can't claim someone else would have. Or more clearly, if Jackson Pollack hadn't painted No. 5, we can't accurately claim it was inevitable someone else would have. There may have been a mobile web, but it isn't necessarily true that it would have been so restrictive. Apple created those tools, such as lock the page to prevent zooming, and it doesn't follow at all that someone else would have thought to prevent mobile browsers from zooming, even if someone else had come up with a zooming mobile browser. Beyond this, your argument is employing what's known as the fallacy of inevitability: nothing in history has ever been inevitable, and when you consider the chaotic nature of change over time, it should be obvious.
