You said, "This changes nothing for people like you while giving more opportunities for others." I'm just pointing out that's completely untrue.

This seems like the same question anyone who's happy with the way Apple runs things could ask those that want the government to step in and change it? Why not just go use Android, where things are exactly how you want them to be? Why limit everyone else rather than make a choice for yourself?

Because nobody is limited by having more choice. It's quite literally the opposite situation.

So how does Apple limit anyone by offering their choice? Anyone who wants a phone environment where you can install any app and app store you want merely needs to buy and Android phone instead of an iPhone. And anyone who wants a phone environment where developers are far more restricted and are required to behave in certain ways can buy an iPhone instead of an Android. Seems to me everyone wins.

Apple limits everyone by not offering the choice in how their purchased hardware installs and runs their chosen software.

We really must steer away from this dystopian view of "choice" amongst trillion-dollar megacorps that control half of the ecosystem. Yes, there should be different rules when they get that big, like serving the user first.

Everyone who served customers first (whoever they are), ended up in the dustbin of history. Apple became so big exactly because they made a right choice between serving customers and serving their self-interest, speaks profit and growth. The purchase and continue support of billions Apple’s customers underline the correctness of Apple’s choice and strategy. It’s also remarkable that not the Apple’s customers who have sued the company but the third players who want to use the Apple’s ecosystem to make their own profit (and probably serving their customers). Unfortunately, when they signed their developers contracts, they have already agreed to the T&C of the App Store and now they pretend they don’t know it, didn’t agree with it.

That's a meaningless statement. Putting the customer first is how companies provide value and grow. Obviously the need to capture that value and create profit but every trillion-dollar company today is only that successful by giving the people what they wanted.

What you're missing in this discussion is that these companies are so large and powerful, and their services so critical to 100s of millions of people, that the situation has changed.

Really? You want the best products for free and the companies should give you that?!

You literally have that choice right now. Today. You can buy ANY smart phone that isn't an Apple phone and you can choose how it installs and runs your chosen software. And for people who don't want the necessary tradeoffs that come with that freedom, they can choose to buy an Apple phone where such a thing isn't possible. Everyone gets what they want.

Everyone gets what they want if you completely ignore the issue of compatibility between different phones and stores.

Then don’t buy an iPhone.

Same question to you.

Do you block ads on the web? If you do, then why don't you just choose a different site instead? Aren't the publishers and advertisers entitled to their cut for producing and delivering your content?

Mobile phones are critical computing devices, even taking over as wallets and keys for many people. There should be some standard of freedom enforced when half of the market is effectively controlled by a single massive company. Why is the profit motive of this particular corporation so much more important than serving users (and developers) better?

Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option.

I explicitly bought my iOS device so that all software that is possible to be installed will always be vetted. I don’t have to worry about my parents being tricked by either maliciously crafted websites or false promises like cheaper price but they get all your data. Companies are not going to be upfront about their store’s policies.

So my argument is not the profit motive. Sure apple should probably charge 10%. 30% might be greedy BUT my issue with that is that any number is arbitrary.

Apple created the platform, the device. Fine the developers played a huge part in making iOS a success BUT nobody forced them to build for the platform. If Apple increased the % then yeah - sure I’d be behind lowering them and be angry with Apple but as of now: users want an apple device and developers have a choice to Cather to them or not. There are a lot of Android only apps that work fine so I think it’s fine if you don’t support ios

> "will always be vetted"

It isn't. Malware is already an option. And websites are available on the phone, along with text and calls and many other channels that are constantly being used for scams and attacks. iOS isn't magically invulnerable and security would be handled the same way as MacOS (which also has an app store). This really isn't that big of a deal as you make it seem.

As for the rest, the other comments already describe the issues with the size of the company and importance of mobile devices leading to the current challenges. Reality, and how people and companies operate, just isn't that black and white.

> Because I think they service me better this way. I don’t want to have an ecosystem that allows malware to be an option.

You already have one. iOS exploits and vulnerabilities are cheaper than Android exploits because they're so plentiful. The App Store was responsible for shipping hundreds of millions of copies of Xcodeghost, as well.