It does? macOS seems to do well enough on the privacy front.
I don't think Apple's App Store, or its 30% cut, needs to disappear, but consumers should have the option of running software from outside the store too. That's adding choice, not taking it away.
And my laptop is a lot more expensive than my phone.
Look, you're presumably complaining because you either own, or want to own, an iPhone, in spite of there being dozens of other phones with similar features, and hundreds more with different features. The feature / price point combination of those phones are in part a result of the App Store policies. Changing that cut will change the feature / price point: they'd have to charge more, or give you less, or find alternate sources of revenue (i.e., start spying on you).
Now, maybe their business model would work fine without having to resort to ads or raise the prices too much. But maybe it won't. The only way to find out would be to risk destroying it. Which is completely unnecessary, given that there are so many alternatives.
If you don't like their policies, don't buy their phone. If Spotify doesn't like paying a 30% cut, they don't have to make an iPhone app. There are lots of other options out there.
It's not for many people. An iPhone X starts at $1,000.
> The feature / price point combination of those phones are in part a result of the App Store policies. Changing that cut will change the feature / price point: they'd have to charge more, or give you less, or find alternate sources of revenue (i.e., start spying on you).
Apple is a ridiculously profitable company. They quite literally have more money than they know what to do with, as evidenced by their enormous bank account.
I'm happy Apple has been so successful, but I also think a portion of their inordinate profitability has come from anticompetitive practices, namely how locked down the app store is. They don't have a right to that particular revenue stream.
They do. It just won't run on iOS. That's a choice Apple made, and by extension, a choice the purchaser made when they bought the phone. For example, it is a primary feature that holds some responsibility for my continued use of iOS.
That's adding choice, not taking it away.
Yeah, who is Apple to say that I didn't want my entire contact list uploaded to a Russian server? Maybe I like a little malware mixed in with my Kandy Krusher.
In summary, if you don't want to pay a 30% surcharge for vetted software and a system that ensures that those you support technically will load only vetted software, an iPhone probably isn't for you or your loved ones.
The iPhones's closed nature also prevents security researchers from sufficiently examining third party apps for vulnerabilities.
My current, personal solution is a Jailbroken iPhone, which I'm very happy with. But, I'm getting tired of worrying about what happens if my phone breaks and I can't get a new one on an exploitable firmware. I wish Apple would stop fighting to make this impossible. Build in a switch to unlock the bootloader or what have you, and nothing will change for the rest of the user base.
> You sound like someone that just moved into the neighborhood complaining things that have been that way for the last 20 years.
Is Comcast not a monopoly because you have the option to move to a different city?
If the only neighborhood with good jobs and a good school also prevented me from buying my own furniture, I'd complain.
Apple's "tax" allows them to pay for software without selling my data. At the moment, I have a choice: 1) Buy software funded by spying on me (any Android phone) 2) Buy software funded by selling to me (and iPhone). If they're forced to "open up" their platform, then their revenue stream becomes more difficult, and I don't have choice any more.
If you want to have all your software funded by letting people spy on you, then go for it. But don't take away my choice.