It really is funny how we went from a major anti trust case against Microsoft for simply bundling a web browser with their OS [1]. The original decision in that case was actually to break up Microsoft, though was lost on appeal. And here we have Apple doing many magnitudes worse. Even in this original antitrust case, you could always bypass Microsoft entirely to install whatever software you wished. Apple has quite literally never allowed that possibility, has no intention of doing so, and any software you develop for the platform entitles Apple to a 30% cut. There's many markets with a profit margin under 10%, and here we have Apple taking 30%.
And people defend them for it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor....
Talk to your legislators. That is the way to fix this tribulation.
If you don't like Apple, boycott them. Easy.
But I don't understand why you would suggest Android is unstable and reliable. I have been using miscellaneous Android devices for some time now, and I don't remember having any stability or reliability issues with the OS.
As for the "boycott", I agree as a user, it's easy. But as a an app developer it's certainly much tougher given their large market share.
That can be true while at the same time being true that Apple is taking advantage of their position to extort money from developers and end users.
If your customers demand an iOS app, boycotting them is not easy. It's expensive either way.
More than "simply bundling a web browser".
I get you are trying to win an easy sentimental argument, but making your own market definitions will not make them a monopoly.
Apple sells products, not "computing". In no market where they sell products they have a monopoly.
Computing covers many of the things people do in a modern society, including:
- Communication
- Banking
- Investing & trading
- Finding information
- Applying to jobs
In what world is that not a critical market?
Imagine there are only Chevrolet and Honda (Apple and Android).
Imagine you could only go to Chevrolet-approved locations. That Italian place you like is on the destination list, but only because they pay 30% of their revenue to Chevy.
The movie theater is protesting the 30% fee, so your car physically can't even visit. It's prohibited.
The new boutique really wants to get business. After all it bought land and paid for real estate in a prime location. But Chevy doesn't like the look of it and asks them to tear it down and rebuild.
All the artists at the market your Chevy brought you to are mad because they have to fork out to Chevy, and they're not even sure what Chevy has to do with any of this. They just want to sell their art.
The builders are complaining because everyone is driving these damn cars with their silly rules, and nobody used to work or think this way. But suddenly everyone thinks Chevy's demands are okay. They're not entitled.
Customers like Chevy.
And all of the commerce around that computing.
You have to pay their tax to interact with Apple customers in any way.
Who are Apple customers? 50% of Americans.
It's a protection racket and it's anticompetitive af.
Furthermore, you can't use your own software stack / runtimes, have to dance to arbitrary rules, and can't deploy or update when you want or need to.
Apple got this by building an awesome product, but they also played an incredibly evil game that puts Microsoft to shame.
"We're protecting customers" really means "we're tying all of your hands and forcing you to walk the plank".
I totally get how you love your shiny pocket device and you own Apple shares (and may even work there), but this company is destroying our industry and making it unfathomably hard for startups to get off the ground and succeed.
Imagine if Apple hadn't made these draconian choices. We'd still have the technology we have today, but startups would be able to deploy when and how they want. And they wouldn't have to pay their margins away.