You seem to be demanding that everyone bend to your view of how the world should work.
But the fact is that Apple has a right to determine what apps are on their platform. No different to how supermarkets choose what items to stock or social networks moderate what content to show.
> No different to how supermarkets choose what items to stock
And yet, you can drive to Ikea and buy a couch without having to pay a fee to Walmart. Very curious. Want to think of a better analogy?
The whole point of all of these millions in legal fees is to even have the OPTION of an open model. Of course you'll always have walled garden option, that's apple's golden goose.
I don't think the problem is the idea of an app store offering only secure and vetted software. Apple absolutely doesn't offer that right now, but even if they ever do offer something like that would you really want that to be the only way to get software on your device?
Letting someone, no matter how trustworthy they are, decide for you what you can and cannot run on your own computer is a giving up a lot of freedom. I'd even say that was dangerous when it comes to our cell phones since we're basically stuck with just Apple or Google controlling our devices and for most people a cell phone is the only computer they own.
Did you read my entire comment? Both models should be available.
And that thing already exists - it's the app store. No one would be stopping you from choosing to only download apps from the official app store, and I assume that many people would be similar to you. They will only use the official app store because that is the vetted-by-apple place to find software.
But just because the closed and vetted ecosystem exists for users like you, doesn't mean that Apple should be able to prevent other people that don't care about that from doing what they want to with the devices they literally own.
Why can’t you and I just live happily in our walled garden without zealots of open access ruining it for us? It truly boggles me. Is it jealousy? That’s all I can come up with.
They might be Android users _because_ they don't like Apple's control.
Where is the limit on that sort of approach? Do you want the state to force everyone to set prices so that you can purchase everything at terms "reasonable" to you? How do we decide what is "reasonable"?
Given the existence of the Android alternative it is hard for me to support the argument that the government should mandate how Apple conducts its business. Even when I agree that Apple's policies have problems, I still don't think heavy-handed regulation by government is necessarily better.
That is what's unreasonable; I would be glad consumer rights are being protected by the power of the state in this case. It is hard to believe that there are so many people who prioritize the rights of the corporation to prevent competition over the rights of individual to do business with whoever they want, regardless of what hardware they own or operating system they use.
This is all consumer rights legislation. From the tone you are clearly opposed to this example, but it's not some revolutionary new concept.
If Apple suddenly changed Macs, sure. But, iOS has always been this way. Anyone who bought an iOS device over the last decade+ knows exactly the limitations and how it works. Android exists for those who want more open, yet the market has shown ~50% don't care about Android level openness.
I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work, especially when an alternative does exist and consumers have spoken with their money.
Of course, this would be different if Android and iOS operated the same, or one had an overwhelming majority of the market. Because then consumers wouldn't have a choice.
What absolute nonsense is this? That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society. Apple stealing money from a huge market isn't helping anyone so we fix it. Simple as.
Where do you get this idea? What is the limit on this principle? The DMA that you keep referring to is an European legal framework. Is it your opinion that everyone must bow down to what European legislators and regulators deem "beneficial"?
An argument that derives entirely from the idea that "the government has decided it is beneficial" is unpersuasive, IMHO.
Then again that could be because I’m used to iOS and find the Android UX patterns poor at best.
Some people (me included) would actually like to have a secure, vetted ecosystem for software that gets installed on my phone (and even my computer). I realize that other people want something different. And think it is reasonable for people to want different approaches for different devices.
Any regulations designed to ensure the "open" model shouldn't prevent the "closed" model from existing. Your comment just seems a bit to heavy handed to my ear.
That being said, it seems to me that Apple's attempt is guaranteed to satisfy no one.