I agree and this debate is infuriating. They got paid when I bought their hardware. I should owe them nothing more to use the device after that point.

It's already a competitive landscape. If you feel Apple is unfairly charging you extra for something, then you have a myriad number of Android and other phones to choose from.

On the other hand, if Apple's model allows them to better compete with others and create a superior product that people want ... well then, it's ridiculous to mandate they should do business a different way.

>Apple's model allows them to better compete

their business business model allows them to compete because they're rent seeking by grazing off developers and apps that dont want or need their app store, payment processor, etc.

Wow who knew rent seeking was massively profitable, huge surprise!

So you think the Samsung model is correct? That is, devices shouldn’t receive any updates after the initial purchase?

I will accept the argument that apple’s gatekeeping is ridiculous, a lot of that is the bizarre prudishness of the US, but saying that apple should not be compensated at a rate that is generally below the market - the majority of apps on the AppStore are freemium from which apple makes nothing, the remainder are mostly only paying a 15% commission. This is vs 30% or so on game consoles, 30% on steam, etc.

apple is free to charge what they wish for the app store, and support phones for as long as they wish, so long as alternatives are possible.

So you do support the Samsung model? Where the only way to get security updates is through buying a new phone?

you're offering a false equivalence that isnt required for my argument to be true, so I'm going to say 'i never said that, you did,and you never managed to make a logical argument out of it yet'.