You honestly believe that Google don't look out for their bottom line either?
You honestly believe that Google don't look out for their bottom line either?
But, to get back to your Google example, of course Google looks out for their bottom line. It just so happens that Google is not nearly as aggressive in herding their users into fenced corrals as Apple is. Google moves fast and often discontinues services so it is unwise to base your (company's) future on the existence of any specific Google service. Fortunately Google generally makes it easy to get data out of their services so a viable exit strategy is usually feasible. Apple is not that fast a mover which also implies they don't discontinue services at the rate at which Google does. Where Apple fails miserably is in their support for migrating data out of their services. This, again, fits the description I gave at the start of this sub-thread: Apple wants to raise the cost of leaving their services.
Apple looks out for their bottom line. If your interest happens to cross that path, bummer.
Don't just assume a commercial interest 'looks out for you' because they don't. If your needs, or at least your perceived needs (due to effective marketing) fit with a company's strategy you might get the idea that said company does it all for you and your fellow users. This does not imply any causality, the company just does what it thinks is best for its bottom line. As long as a company serves the needs of its users they are in a position to do well. Vendor lock-in serves companies in that they have more freedom to choose their own path without bothering all that much about whether that path coincides with their users' needs as those users face a steep cost if they choose to change vendor. As long as the company keeps the extra costs - in money, limited features or usability - lower than what it would cost a user to switch vendor they stand to gain from this strategy.