This is why we have anti-trust laws.

This is a ridiculous meme. If you enjoy the mafia's services, don't be surprised if they ask you to pay. But it's your choice to go to them (ask to be put on their platform and sell to their customers). You can make your own internet corner shop, set up payments and distribution, ignore the Apple platform, and never worry about their #mafiatax.

That choice isn't a real choice though, as it's the consumers' choice to buy an iPhone not the businesses. Businesses only have a real choice about who their customers are when there is free access to the market. The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple. Internet distribution channels are inherently open and borderless, until companies like Apple artificially restrict the market.

But is the Apple app store the same thing as the "app market"? If I open a denim store in Spain, is that the same thing as entering the Chinese market? Why or why not? The "market" here isn't the app market but rather just Apple's customers. It also seems like people would be okay if Apple just shut down the app market overall, like that would be "tough luck" to developers and a matter for customers to judge.

An open and borderless web market is the kind of thing that just about every nation is rethinking right now.

> The issue here is precisely that you cannot set up your own internet corner shop and ignore Apple, as that means you have no access to consumers who use Apple

I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple. If you don't want to pay to play on their platform, imagine a world where Apple doesn't exist, and position your business accordingly. Nothing is actually forcing you to deal with Apple except your own expectation that being on Apple's platform is valuable. Then why not pay for that privilege?

Are you really saying you'd be okay with the same idea in any other part of you life? How about a neighborhood where you're not allowed to bring in any products except those offered by the company that build the neighborhood? How about car that you're not allowed to carry any items inside or any people that are not officially blessed by the car manufacture? How about a fridgerator that only allows food designated by the makers of the fridge.

It seems like your argument is people opted into buying things with those restrictions therefore it's ok but many things have been banned in the past along similar lines.

Yes. As an example, think of the juicero debacle. They tried that game, and failed miserably because the whole offering was not attractive. Most of your ad absurdism examples fall along these lines. I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience—-if it sucks, a competitor should be able to do better.

There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience. Plenty of people chose only to rent movies at Blockbuster Video because it was a bright and clean store with no porn. That didn't require Blockbuster to make their own special VHS or DVD player that only played the movies they offered.

> I have no problem with restrictions that improve overall experience

I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.

> There's nothing preventing you from having an unrestricted device but having your improved experience.

Agreed. I, as a consumer, would like this option the best. If a free and open competitor to Apple made better devices and better software, I would jump ship immediately. I lament Apple's increasingly poor decisions, but have no better alternative currently, because competitors just aren't as good at what they do. The answer isn't to strong arm Apple into changing the way they do business on their own platform, the answer is to build better alternatives. (IMHO)

> I'm sure there are plenty of restrictions that would improve the overall experience for many people of many things that are still banned. Plenty of people would like all of a certain race banned from their apartment complex or town. I guess by your argument if they opt in to that experience because it's better for them it's should be no problem.

I know you gave this as an absurd gotcha, but yeah I have no problem with that. For the sake of argument:

- Town A wants to segregate, everyone in A would be happier with racial segregation. - Country X does not want segregation, the people have spoken and decided that segregation is immoral. - Town A should be free segregate to their hearts content, just not in Country A.

> I don't understand why businesses are entitled to have access to consumers who use Apple.

I don't understand how expecting a computer to just run software became entitlement. Why should anyone need Apple's permission to do anything?

Buy a non Apple device if you don't want to jump through Apple's hoops.

I did. I'm using a Galaxy Note 9. Apple device owners shouldn't have to abandon their favorite phones though. They should have software freedom and choice.

> They should have software freedom and choice

They have the freedom to buy a different brand, as you did. They shouldn't have the "freedom" to dictate what Apple does with the devices they sell.

To clarify, because there is difference: This is not about the consumers and their choices, it is about the businesses which play no role in that choice but are affected by it. The question is how large a barrier to the market should a company like Apple be allowed to erect before it's considered excessive or anti-competitive.

By that logic shouldn't companies be paying Microsoft for the price of being on Windows too?