> It seems like you want to remove that choice.

The choice of not choosing? The more you guys explain, the less I understand.

That's a truly silly comment. Based on that there should only be one grocery store to shop at and one place to work.

We generally don’t think it’s a good thing when people are forced to work multiple jobs, and we call it a food desert when you have to hunt lots of different stores to get the basics.

The idea that more choices is always better is just ideology.

It is quite obviously possible to move from a situation in which there is no choice and where there are some problems, to a situation where there are multiple choices and none of them are as good as the be no-choice case.

I do think there are problems with Apple’s store.

I think law may be needed.

I don’t think antitrust law forcing ‘competition’ has any likelihood of solving the problems.

If we think there are rights vendors should have over stores - e.g. the right to describe their product however they like, we should establish that in law for all stores.

If we want to use law to force our cooperations to limit the practices they can use in other countries as a way to put pressure on other political systems, those are called sanctions. I’m fine with those being applied if our government decides to apply them.

Again, nothing to do with anti-trust.