I would love all hardware to have an "open option" that disables all security keys, doesn't let you run signed software, whatever, but lets you "hack" the device.

I'm also fine with Nintendo selling games via their store and physically, and taking whatever cut they can bear of it.

(80% of App Store revenue is "games" anyway, so it's a much closer analogy than people might expect. They may end up opening everything except games and only cost them 20% of revenue.)

Meanwhile you can get full advantage of the iPhone ecosystem "for $100/yr" which is nearly free, including App Store distribution, etc. If anything, Apple should be charged with dumping in those cases.

> are we just picking on apple because they are popula

Well, yes, antitrust law specifically, by design, focusses more on large market players, not small ones (there are some aspects still relevant to any participant, though.)

That's kind of central to the whole problem it is intended to solve.

So you would say that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are not large market players?

Nope, 100M consoles in an internet of several billion where Apple has literal billions of devices in market are not at all the same thing and bringing that up suggests you don't think very hard before you post or you're trying to derail those who do.

I’m sorry that me asking a question is so emotionally upsetting to you that it leads to you attempting to insult me. I’ll try not to ask anymore question about Microsoft the 3.19 trillion dollar company, Sony the 113 billion dollar company, and Nintendo the 10 billion dollar company. I hope my question didn’t hurt these mom and pop businesses. You also made me completely aware of the fact that these aren’t the big three players in the console market which is a pretty fair comparison to this situation. Thanks again for your wonderful contribution.

Which of those has not faced significant antitrust scrutiny?

You could have initially responded with that instead of reasoning that apple is being focused due to being a large player while dismissing other large companies being brought up.

sorry i can sideload my xbox and playstation. Just because they've been dinged for antitrust in other areas (i don't think sony has .. but certainly microsoft in my lifetime)..

> Or any nintendo or playstation or xbox. I can't just sideload games into any of them either

Homebrew is a thing, and you should be able to use whatever software you want on a device that you paid for. I have no doubt that there are people who own an iphone and wish they could have a different browser, or wish they could use a game streaming app.

They absolutely can. I can compile and install anything i want on my iphone, have to have a dev account is all. Also i think there are still iphone jailbreaks to be had.

Apple convinced us that only they could keep us safe. Turns out their argument is specious - they can't keep us safe either. They haven't been able to keep malicious apps off of their App Store.

> are we just picking on apple because they are popular

"Popularity" is a precondition to running afoul of antitrust law, yes..

I've Google TV and it allows sideloading. Yes, it should be allowed for all devices.

They are probably not monopolies in the legal sense, since there are three of them with comparable market share and they also compete with the PC, which is open. I suspect there would be more pressure to do something about it if those weren't the case.

Apple sells something like 70% of phones in the USA due to network effects that might not be apparent to users in other countries - social shaming for not using iMessage. The European equivalent is WhatsApp, which the EU is forcing to open up.

> or are we just picking on apple because they are popular

I don't use my Playstation or Switch for banking, ordering taxis, my actual job, so there is a bit of a difference.

Although consoles are another good example of how a locked down platform can make an experience hassle free and how that becomes a selling point.