> Absolutely spot on, and it really does seem like it’s always Android users moaning about Apple’s business model.

They might be Android users _because_ they don't like Apple's control.

Indeed, so why do they care what I can/can’t install on /my/ phone? I don’t need someone to fight my battles for me, and I certainly don’t need someone to fight their battles for me!

What are you talking about? I care about this because I want to use Apple hardware, under reasonable terms.

So you want to utilize the power of the state to force a private entity to sell its products under terms that are "reasonable" to you?

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.

Apple is using its market power to prevent third parties from doing business with you by selling you software to install on hardware you bought. At first it was explicit, now that they can't due to EU regulation, they're attempting to circumvent it by charging a fee to third party distribution that doesn't apply to distribution through their own app store.

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.

> So you want to utilize the power of the state to force a private entity to sell its products under terms that are "reasonable" to you?

This is all consumer rights legislation. From the tone you are clearly opposed to this example, but it's not some revolutionary new concept.

It all hinges on "reasonable", which is a lot different than making sure a product is "safe" or that advertising isn't "fraudulent" and so on.

What do you mean jealousy? Most Android users that come here could afford an iPhone if they want to.

IDK. Android exists and is closer to the open model people here seem to want, yet the same people appear to knowingly still buy iPhones and complain it's not like Android.

Mainly because Apple hardware is amazing. I used to run Windows on Bootcamp on my MacBook and loved it and now Windows is worse, Apple Silicon is just way better. If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"

> If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"

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.

> I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work

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.

I said how I want them to work, not what is beneficial to society. Societal benefit is hard to balance and define. Don't assume what you want is automatically better for society as a whole.

I assume our politicians already spent significant time thinking about this before coming up with the DMA. But okay, I'll bite. How does it benefit society for Apple to steal 30% of everyone's transactions?

> 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.

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.

That doesn’t seem like something to legislate over to me though. “Your hardware is too good, you’re going to have to change the associated business model”? Madness, shouldn’t the onus just be on Android phone manufacturers to up their game? It’s not like Apple got where they are with iPhones for free, they heavily invested and are now enjoying the fruits.

I didn’t mean “they can’t afford it” jealousy, but from my experience the quality of apps on iOS is significantly higher than Android, that’s what I was going for; jealous of the “polish”, if you will.

Then again that could be because I’m used to iOS and find the Android UX patterns poor at best.

You can. It's about making it your choice to do so, instead of Apple's.

Is it not my choice though? When I buy an iPhone knowing how the App Store and their walled garden work? If anything, I could argue Android users pushing for more openness are invaliding my choice!