This is like a restaurant demanding smart shoes for customers, and you complaining that it's anti-competitively hurting your sneaker business and the restaurant should be forced to change. Customers going there are going there knowing the dress code applies to them and others, forcibly blocking that removes part of their reason for going there at all.
> "You aren't making much sense. You won't have any semblance of adoption if you don't have presence on iOS."
That is the sense, you aren't required to have any semblance of adoption. Apple is successful by building a curated, restricted, "exclusive" (by perception if not fact) experience. You want access to the customers and their money, without upholding the reasons the customers are using that platform.
> "Yet no one raises any objections about not being able to run arbitrary code on them. Precisely because of the marketing and expectations."
Now you aren't making sense. Apple never marketed or set expectations that you could sideload apps on iPhone or iOS, did they?
> "By the way, washing machines and microwaves also have a full computer in them — there's CPU, RAM, and ROM. Yes, tiny and underpowered. Probably not quite powerful enough to run Doom. Computers nonetheless, technically."
So you're going after Bosch for anti-competitively not allowing you to sell software that runs on their washing machines, and not allowing owners to sideload? Because this is all about anti-competitive, you said? No obviously you aren't doing that, which calls into question your claimed reasons. You can easily list your app on Apple's store and compete, what it's about is you want more money. Which is fine in its own way, until you try to get some legal mandate for Apple to force me to worse platform so you can avoid paying Apple money for using Apple's platform and reputation.
Once you bought a thing, you own it. That's it. It's cool to have a curated app store for those developers who want it. It's uncool for Apple to retain control of devices after they've been sold.
> This is like a restaurant demanding smart shoes for customers
You can't make this comparison. You don't get to choose what kind of mobile device other people use. You do get to choose which restaurant you visit.
> Apple is successful by building a curated, restricted, "exclusive" (by perception if not fact) experience.
Apple is successful by building great hardware and mostly good UX. Macs have had no app store for most of their history, and even though presently do have restrictions by default, there's a manual override to allow running unsigned or self-signed code.
> You want access to the customers and their money, without upholding the reasons the customers are using that platform.
I'm having issue with there being a gatekeeper AT ALL. I don't give a crap about "their customers" and "their money". I just want to make an app and distribute it straight to my users. That's it. Apple forcibly inserting itself in between me and my users doesn't do any good to either side. Especially if it's a free app and I'm doing my own marketing. It's simply a rent-seeking prude intermediary that creates more problems than it solves.
People buy smartphones because you need one to function in the modern society. They choose either Google or Apple. Neither of these corporations deserves all the credit they feel entitled to.
> Apple never marketed or set expectations that you could sideload apps on iPhone or iOS, did they?
Apple set expectations that you can do pretty much anything on an iOS device.
> You can easily list your app on Apple's store and compete, what it's about is you want more money.
I don't give a crap about money. I despise intellectual property and proprietary software. I'll never sell a byte.
I'm simply sick and tired of how relentlessly Apple wants to eradicate sex and piracy form the internet, for example. Even if you have a free app, Apple literally dictates you how you should change your ToS to be approved on the app store. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. No one should have this kind of power. If the web was invented today, a web browser would be rejected from the app store for allowing the user to view any content without restrictions.
Meanwhile they approve all sorts of scam apps, like a bunch of wallpapers with a $20/week subscription on it. Because they take a 30% cut on those. This is hypocrisy.
> "People buy smartphones because you need one to function in the modern society. They choose either Google or Apple. Neither of these corporations deserves all the credit they feel entitled to."
And you can sideload on Android, and they chose not-Android. and you could do so on Blackberry, and WindowsPhone, and Maemo and Symbian, and they all failed for not offering what people want. The only remaining good experience left is Apple, and you want to take that away as well. We know what that world looks like. It's not paradise of free choice, it's this: https://i.imgur.com/Ko5QcQl.jpg
And by "this", that's what an Android phone looks like. If you want to live in that world as a personal choice, you can easily not install the toolbars. But if there is an ecosystem you can buy into which avoids that, that should be an option. You want people who chose a limited experience to have the limits removed - but they chosing the limited experience in the first place, who are you to say that shouldn't be allowed?
> "Apple is successful by building great hardware and mostly good UX. Macs have had no app store for most of their history, and even though presently do have restrictions by default, there's a manual override to allow running unsigned or self-signed code."
Agreed, so people who want unsigned or self-signed code can buy macs, right? Choice. Nobody is forced to buy an iOS device, nobody is surprised when they can't side-load a program, because that has been the same for 10+ years and 10+ major iPhone versions, it's never been an expectation.
> "I'm having issue with there being a gatekeeper AT ALL."
I'm having issue with the idea that people willingly buying into an optional gatekeeper is some problem you think will be improved by forbidding people from having that option. The good it does is removing floods of junk from iOS users attention. It's like saying "My email isn't spam" and ignoring that spam is a huge problem and people willingly subscribe to gatekeepers at massive effort and cost industry-wide to try and protect themselves. So are robocalls, and dredmorbius suggests they might bring down the phone networks entirely[1] in the coming few years from a complete inability and unwillingness to defend itself. "Pay to send me an email or call me" would stop it in its tracks. Buying into a gatekeeper environment is another. "I should be able to bypass your spam filter because my emails aren't spam"?
Last time i checked, corporations were not allowed to own people, has that changed?
>"So you're going after Bosch for anti-competitively not allowing you to sell software that runs on their washing machines, and not allowing owners to sideload?"
You are not helping your case by making these daft comparisons.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22apple%27s%20custome...
> "You are not helping your case by making these daft comparisons."
The person I was originally replying to is the one who brought up washing machines as having general purpose computers inside them. It's not my comparison, it's me using their comparison to make a point. The point being, that because Alice bought a device that contains a microchip, doesn't entitle you to be allowed to sell software that runs on that microchip, and worsen her experience to do that. Like if Alice chooses to live in a gated community and pays someone to filter her mail, it would be obviously unreasonable to say "I object to gates, I should be allowed to post my fliers through her mailbox for free", as if that's your decision to make, not hers.
If you don't like Bosch, there's hundreds of other manufacturer, if you don't like a restaurant, there's hundreds of other ones you can pick, if you don't like Android and iOS, well, you're screwed.
That's the market analogy, secondly, those monopolies are essential in today's computing world and currently power a great part of the tech industry, easy to see some issues there.
> And you can sideload on Android, and they chose not-Android.
How many people actually know anything about what it takes to publish to the app store? Developers literally aren't allowed to tell them. If you write the very sensible "this content is not available on this device due to Apple App Store policies", you app will be rejected. Almost no one says bad things about Apple because of the fear that they might be denied presence on iOS. This is a very large power imbalance, and this absolutely needs to be dealt with. I'm so looking forward to those antitrust cases.
> and you could do so on Blackberry, and WindowsPhone, and Maemo and Symbian, and they all failed for not offering what people want.
"I wish my phone didn't allow me to install on it what I want" said no one ever. They failed for other reasons.
It's okay to have an app store as a default way of installing apps. What's not okay is making it THE ONLY way of installing apps, thus robbing people of choice.
> Agreed, so people who want unsigned or self-signed code can buy macs, right? Choice. Nobody is forced to buy an iOS device
Computers and phones aren't the same thing, you can't compare them like that. I use a Mac precisely because it's great experience AND it allows me to run whatever the hell I tell it to. I use Android for the same reason.
> It's like saying "My email isn't spam" and ignoring that spam is a huge problem and people willingly subscribe to gatekeepers at massive effort and cost industry-wide to try and protect themselves.
Calling things "spam" or "not spam" is users' own choice. You as an email user always have the last word in whether something is spam. You don't have this as an iOS user. If Apple says something isn't good for you, this decision is final. You just aren't getting that app no matter how much you want it.
By the way, if Google says something isn't good for you, the developer can still distribute an apk from their website. Yes, it won't be as prominent, and it won't have a listing page, but the users would still have the option to install it if they want it.
> That argument would be fine if we had plenty of mobile OS providers
So your problem is Apple solved the customer problem so well with “an Apple experience” that all other phone OSes were abandoned.
And as a result Apple should be forced to ruin that experience beloved by their customers, so that the relatively small number of software developers make a little more money?
As an Apple customer, I’m glad your software is being gated from me. I don’t trust your judgement.
As an iPhone user, I invited (even pay) Apple to gate me from abusive software. Don’t blame Apple, blame me, and charge more for it if you need (this is how I pay Apple for the service).
I don't really care how and why those two companies got their monopoly, that's beside the point.
> And as a result Apple should be forced to ruin that experience beloved by their customers, so that the relatively small number of software developers make a little more money?
There's hundreds of thousands of developers on mobile platforms and juste two single companies on the other side with blatant anti-trust issues, that's an easy argument here.
> As an Apple customer, I’m glad your software is being gated from me. I don’t trust your judgement.
I really don't care if you use my software or not either. I'm currently forced to use one of those two mobile platform for my daily use and both choices are terrible in their own way due to anti-trust issues. You have absolutely zero power over Apple which owns your device anyway so I'm not sure why you would say that, it's not like your opinion would matter to them.
How do you expect to beat Apple or even an argument on the internet, let alone with Congress, if you’re not even willing to learn from your (so called) competitors?
It isn't; over the past decade the tech world has shifted more and more towards telemetry, advertising, and low quality user experience. Popular sites like Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube have added more and more adverts and less and less social connection, become more centralized (Microsoft buying LinkedIn and GitHub, Facebook buying WhatsApp and Instagram), Windows has added more advertisements and telemetry, and iOS has held out as a comparatively stable, predictable, clean, low-ad, low-telemetry, user focused platform through all of this.
> "blatant anti-trust issues"
Allowing my proverbial elderly mother to buy a device which cannot, in any way, be the subject of a scam like this:
https://old.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/mfy1sw/my_...
by having someone talk her through disabling the sideload protection and installing a malware, is not "anti-trust", it's "pro-trust". And yes I do understand that I'm swapping the meaning of "trust" here between your use and mine, and that's deliberate. Look at the comments in that thread:
"Sounds dumb, but my 79 year old dad fell for it completely. Something like $100 and they got him to install remote control software while they ran a virus scan. Of course that was just what was on the screen, who knows what they were really doing."
"My parents were scammed in a very similar way out of $50,000 about a month ago."
"This happened to a relative of mine, but for $80K. Though the thieves claimed they were working with the Shanghai police. The thieves were brazen enough to get her to not only transfer everything she had in her bank account, but to also cash in her 401K"
"I know somebody who fell for something similar about two years ago. Also out about $20k"
"My SO was inches away from walking through the finale of the scam, I caught it before we lost money"
The argument "nobody should be able to buy a system which has some protections in the design, because I want {geek code} on every device" just isn't good enough. And neither is the tech-world answer "they're dumb and deserve it". Buy an iPad and someone can maybe be conned into setting up a bank transfer, but not into side-loading a crypto coin ransomware, it's one level of defense in depth.
> "I'm currently forced to use one of those two mobile platform for my daily use"
And your solution is to drag iOS down to the level of Android or Windows? Who is forcing you? Why can't you use a dumbphone? Is this a "forced because I don't want to change jobs" thing?
> "and both choices are terrible in their own way due to anti-trust issues. You have absolutely zero power over Apple which owns your device anyway so I'm not sure why you would say that"
Apple owns your device is a lie, you bought it, you own it. Take it apart, take the LCD out and plug it into something else, see if Apple comes at you for breaking "their" device. They won't, because they don't own it. Turning "they didn't build it so I can run Linux on it" is not the same thing as them owning it, any more than Bosch not building a washing machine to let you run Linux on the controller does not imply Bosch own your washing machine in perpetuity.
Apple have 27% of the mobile OS market.
Simple as what? What do you expect, what do you want, anti-trust laws being applied to do? Magically conjour up a competitor from nowhere? Or just smash iOS in resentment for its success so you can have avoid having to suffer Android?
I said that. Implicitly, when I said "I want to use iOS and I'm willing to accept the tradeoffs that come with that". I have plenty of devices I can install random software on. including previous Android tablet and phone, I don't need or want yet another ARM/Linux device, what I need and want is a trustworthy phone that works well, and Apple appears to be the closest thing to that, by a long long way.
> "Computers and phones aren't the same thing, you can't compare them like that. I use a Mac precisely because it's great experience AND it allows me to run whatever the hell I tell it to. I use Android for the same reason."
One moment you're "robbed of choice", the next moment you're explaining how you chose a thing which does what you want. While still denying and ignoring that other people might want and choose something different. The same way I don't want my dishwasher to run an IRC client, I would prefer one that cannot do so, as it's simpler and less complex and has less to go wrong and has smaller security boundaries, I want a smartphone that I can trust. Should I want a device I can "install whatever" on, there are tons and tons and tons and tons of Android devices to choose from along with many non-Android devices such as Debian Cosmo Communicator, Linux running Pinephones, Librems, small Linux and Windows tablets, and all kinds of other things approximately nobody uses because they don't work very well.
> "You don't have this as an iOS user. If Apple says something isn't good for you, this decision is final. You just aren't getting that app no matter how much you want it."
I'm OK with this. This is a choice. The same way I'm OK with the government saying I cannot have an asbestos roof. I can have that app if I want it, by using a device where the app runs. If I want it enough, I can go where it is.
> "Almost no one says bad things about Apple because of the fear that they might be denied presence on iOS."
Citation needed; the tech internet is full of criticisms about Apple, like this thread and their appstore cut, or Airpod batteries that wear out too quickly, or Airpod sound quality, or dongle-gate, or lack of ports on laptops, or macOS phoning home to launch binaries, or worsening UX on macOS, or ever-increasing price of flagship phones, or lack of an iPhone SE (until recently), or "so brave" headphone socket, or no 3rd-party repairs and Luis Rossman's outspoken rants on that. It absolutely isn't the case that "nobody says bad things about Apple".
> "This is a very large power imbalance, and this absolutely needs to be dealt with."
It is a large power imbalance. It does not need to be dealt with. The day the Apple AppStore looks like the old Cydia app store will be a terrible day. The app store is already full of junk clones, I would rather it very very much more strictly curated, honestly.
It's like the comment I've linked elsewhere recently about the early days of search engines, narrowing down "all web pages" to "1 million results" does absolutely nothing useful for me. Providing me with "choice" of 100 apps to do a thing is way more than I can usefully vet for basic functionality, let alone signups, hidden fees, telemetry, dark patterns, reliability. "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" used to be a joke, now it's a description of Amazon - by adding more and more third party sellers and more "choice" at the low end, it's far harder to find anything and the experience of shopping for "a thing to do X" has got significantly worse.
> "Calling things "spam" or "not spam" is users' own choice. You as an email user always have the last word in whether something is spam. You don't have this as an iOS user."
For the severalth time, you /don't have to be an iOS user/. iOS makes up less than one third of the smartphone market. If I outsource my spam filtering to a paid service, it's because I choose to give up that option to save time and effort.
The history of the mobile OS market is beside the point, I'm only stating facts about the current landscape.
> Apple have 27% of the mobile OS market.
And they are in a duopoly with Google with absolutly zero competition. If you want a proof of that, the only time their tariff ever changed was because of Epic Game's threat... of an antitrust lawsuit, you can't even make this stuff up.
> Simple as what? What do you expect, what do you want, anti-trust laws being applied to do? Magically conjour up a competitor from nowhere? Or just smash iOS in resentment for its success so you can have avoid having to suffer Android?
Yes exactly, smash both iOS and Android into multiple independent companies so that this broken market blocking the tech industry can function again.
More to the point, why should Catarina be forbidden from offering a gated community with a pool and a mail filter service, because Eve wants to send mail outside the filter system?
Is the claim here that if you started a smartphone company with your own AppStore and sideloading, Apple would act anticompetitively and shut you down? (What would they do?) Or is the claim that it's unfair Apple offers a product other people want, which you don't want?
By the way, in terms of security, the iPhone isn't even the most secure platform right now, you still have tons of private apis, privacy issues and ways to snoop data back, that's exactly why companies ask you to install their app instead of directly going to their website because on the web they can't do any of that...
> And your solution is to drag iOS down to the level of Android or Windows? Who is forcing you? Why can't you use a dumbphone? Is this a "forced because I don't want to change jobs" thing?
Because even banks and government apps are locked down to these two monopolies, that's enough proof as it is.
> Apple owns your device is a lie, you bought it, you own it. Take it apart, take the LCD out and plug it into something else, see if Apple comes at you for breaking "their" device. They won't, because they don't own it. Turning "they didn't build it so I can run Linux on it" is not the same thing as them owning it, any more than Bosch not building a washing machine to let you run Linux on the controller does not imply Bosch own your washing machine in perpetuity.
You don't own your device because Apple can decide to remove everything from it remotely, can decide that you can no longer can switch it on if they wanted to and actively prevents you to see what it does, that's why you don't own it. You should treat Apple's device as Apple's property that could vanish at any point.
It's not besides the point, it's important whether there's no competition because Apple crushed them unfairly in an anti-trust kind of way, or because all other competitors are completely and utterly incompetent. That there is a competing OS with many manufacturers customising and selling it and they collectively have the dominant market share by ~2x over Apple says that Apple is not a monopoly. "Duopoly with no competition, except the dozens of companies which outsell them by 2:1" is nonsensical.
> "if you don't like Android and iOS, well, you're screwed" "Yes exactly, smash both iOS and Android into multiple independent companies"
But I do like iOS. And I don't want you smashing iOS because you don't like it. Part of why it's good is because it's made by one integrated company. You already have Android from multiple independent companies - you can have it without Google services, where it's basically functionless, you can have it with Samsung UX or you can try Huaweii's build. Are you saying they're all bad (yes), that they all can't compete to make things better, but if the same happens to iOS that will somehow make it good? Of course it won't, it will make it just as bad in the same ways for the same reasons.
What's wrong with the Pinephone or Librem5 or all the other non-Apple non-Google phones? Why are you "screwed"? They can't compete because making a cutting edge device is hard and expensive.
> "because of Epic Game's threat... of an antitrust lawsuit, you can't even make this stuff up."
I'll check what Wikipedia has on that... "When Epic first released its Android client, it offered it as a sideloaded package rather than as a Google Play store app, as they did not want Google to take any revenue from the microtransactions in the game.[6] However, this resulted in a number of security concerns and numerous unscrupulous clones attempting to pass themselves off as the real Fortnite game in the Google Play store"
Yes, this sounds exactly what I expect, not techno-freedom-utopia but unregulated scamland, and why I'm objecting so hard in this thread. Followed by "Sweeney said that they undertook the actions as "we're fighting for the freedom of people who bought smartphones to install apps from sources of their choosing, the freedom for creators of apps to distribute them as they choose, and the freedom of both groups to do business directly."
That sounds awesome, imagine the freedom to install apps from sources of your choosing, like sideloading ... hang on "and by April 2020, Epic discontinued the sideloaded version and placed the game on the Google Play store". Oh I guess he didn't really believe his own story at all, and wanted to benefit from Google's better reptuation and filtering on the Play store, while arguing that it shouldn't exist?
There's network effects on mobile platforms, you could not make a new one even if you had 500 billion you could spend on it. The existing actors just prevent you to create a new one.
> But I do like iOS. And I don't want you smashing iOS because you don't like it
I don't like monopolies, I couldn't care less about the iOS interface. There's blatant market issues in the tech industry that need to be solved.
> What's wrong with the Pinephone or Librem5 or all the other non-Apple non-Google phones? Why are you "screwed"? They can't compete because making a cutting edge device is hard and expensive.
They have negligible market size and thus do not have an influence on the the mobile app market, that's not even an argument.
> Yes, this sounds exactly what I expect, not techno-freedom-utopia but unregulated scamland
You're missing the point completely, in a market with competition, you are supposed to act and react according to the competition, the only change Apple ever did was because of a real threat of antitrust lawsuit... That's basically admission.
> That sounds awesome, imagine the freedom to install apps from sources of your choosing, like sideloading ... hang on "and by April 2020, Epic discontinued the sideloaded version and placed the game on the Google Play store". Oh I guess he didn't really believe his own story at all, and wanted to benefit from Google's better reptuation and filtering on the Play store, while arguing that it shouldn't exist?
No, that just tells you that even the most popular game in the world could not make it outside the play store. That tells you that Google's claim that "you can sideload anyways" are just complete BS and that's hard proof that the restrictions they've put in place to make that option not suitable are working.
Additionally Google has prevented manufacturers to pre-install the Epic Store by using threats.
Don't forget the fact that iOS exploits are cheaper than Android exploits because iOS exploits are so plentiful[1][2].
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/05/14/zerodium_ios_flaws/
First it's network effects, then it's the existing actors preventing you. Make your mind up.
> "I don't like monopolies, I couldn't care less about the iOS interface."
Then use a Pinephone. That nobody else you know uses it, and nobody develops for it isn't Apple's fault. Apple's 30% appstore cut isn't bringing people from Pinephone to iOS, if anything it should be pushing the other way. I know they have negligible market size - the point is Apple iOS has big market size by being good and your plan to respond to this is to make it bad from sour grapes.
> "You're missing the point completely, in a market with competition, you are supposed to act and react according to the competition, the only change Apple ever did was because of a real threat of antitrust lawsuit... That's basically admission."
Fortnite was not competing with Apple though? Epic gave people a way to buy Fortnite on Steam, and then a way to install Fortnite free on Android, and people didn't want that. So Epic came after Apple and blamed them, irrelevantly, and the judge was leaning to Apple's side.
> "No, that just tells you that even the most popular game in the world could not make it outside the play store."
That just tells you that app stores are doing something people really really really want.
> "That tells you that Google's claim that "you can sideload anyways" are just complete BS"
Except you can sideload anyways, as evidenced by the fact that you can. What it tells you is that /people don't want to/.
Only if you completely ignore all the things I've been writing. The appstore has restrictions. Those are useful. They are a layer of defense in depth, user protection.
> "By the way, in terms of security, the iPhone isn't even the most secure platform right now, you still have tons of private apis, privacy issues and ways to snoop data back, that's exactly why companies ask you to install their app instead of directly going to their website because on the web they can't do any of that..."
Then Apple should close those gaps. "It has flaws" is not a reason to turn it into a wide-open free-for-all, that would be worse, not better.
> "You don't own your device because Apple can decide to remove everything from it remotely"
That's like saying you don't own a TV because the TV station can stop broadcasting and then the device is useless. You can throw it in the trash without telling anyone, and nobody will care. You can sell it. You can smash it with a hammer. You own it. What the software and online service licenses are, is a different matter. That you can see a processor inside it and wish it could run Linux and wish Apple had built it differently, is irrelevant to whether you own it.
That's two sides of the same coin.
> Then use a Pinephone. That nobody else you know uses it, and nobody develops for it isn't Apple's fault. Apple's 30% appstore cut isn't bringing people from Pinephone to iOS, if anything it should be pushing the other way. I know they have negligible market size - the point is Apple iOS has big market size by being good and your plan to respond to this is to make it bad from sour grapes.
I'm talking about the mobile app market, maybe one day the Pinephone will have enough market share to be considered a competitor, right now it does not so you can't count it.
> Fortnite was not competing with Apple though? Epic gave people a way to buy Fortnite on Steam, and then a way to install Fortnite free on Android, and people didn't want that. So Epic came after Apple and blamed them, irrelevantly, and the judge was leaning to Apple's side.
Fortnite suffered from the duopoly and the app market failure.
> Except you can sideload anyways, as evidenced by the fact that you can. What it tells you is that /people don't want to/.
No, it tells you that the restrictions Google put in place so that users don't sideload (the developer menu being hard to access, scary warnings and the difficulty of update your app) are enough to keep out even the most popular game in the world to use that option.
You want Apple to change? Change the hearts and minds of the people who like Apple’s products and pay Apple.
Statements like “the history of the mobile phone market doesn’t matter” or “I don’t care if the iOS interface is any good” or (paraphrased) “I don’t care why customers choose Apple” will just cause you to alienate the people you need on your side.
For your own sake, please find a better argument rather than repeating yourself.
> For your own sake, please find a better argument rather than repeating yourself.
The arguments are there and can't be refuted, every single market analysis (even superficial) shows antitrust issues and you haven't been able to refute a single point yourself either.
I can keep adding even more and more evidence if you want. Here's another one:
There's been some group preparation for an antitrust lawsuit and in order to do that, those groups have been gathering testimony of people affected by those unfair practices. Developers were so afraid of retaliation by Apple and Google by speaking out what they experience that they had to accept anonymous testimonials. That's as bad as that.
That's outside of the point of antitrust issues we were talking about but I personally think they're not as effective as the marketing claims.
> Then Apple should close those gaps. "It has flaws" is not a reason to turn it into a wide-open free-for-all, that would be worse, not better.
The most technically secure platform is currently the web (yes, far above iOS sandboxing), there's no relation between openness and security.
> That's like saying you don't own a TV because the TV station can stop broadcasting and then the device is useless. You can throw it in the trash without telling anyone, and nobody will care
Except the TV station doesn't manufacture the TV, and the TV manufacturer does not control TV stations... It's like every single example you pick reinforce the fact that there's anti trust issues.
Apple should follow the law because healthy, robust markets would benefit hundreds of millions of consumers in the US.
Also, they should follow the law because it's the law. They have no problem using the law against their competitors, and even complementary businesses like repair shops, so they should follow it, too.
I've refuted many of your arguments in this thread. For example, when you claimed that "nobody speaks out against apple", "there are no other mobile OS vendors", "the tech industry can't function with the appstore", "you have no choices", "there are no options if you want to sideload apps". All of them demonstrably (and fairly obviously) incorrect.
That you don't like the alternatives is not the same as them not existing. That they aren't popular is not the same as them not existing. That iOS is "restricted and popular" are not coincidences, nor unfair.
Sky, the satellite TV company, made Sky boxes and satellite receivers, which tuned into the Sky service, and sold Sky TV channels.
> "The most technically secure platform is currently the web (yes, far above iOS sandboxing), there's no relation between openness and security."
Security is improved enormously by shrinking attack surface area and closing off entire areas of attack. Not being able to be talked into sideloading a program is obviously more secure than being able to be. "Technically secure" is a different matter, and not relevant to the point I was making - which is that restrictions have benefits, and restrictions are part of the reason iOS is great and all the competitors are terrible, competitors that you variously claim are part of a dominant duopoly and also don't exist.
> "It's like every single example you pick reinforce the fact that there's anti trust issues
It's like every single comment you make ignores the fact that you aren't forced into iOS, that you have alternatives, and pretend you don't.
