I agree, under the assumption that users jailbreak their devices. In my mind Apple has zero obligation to enable it maximum leeway to obstruct it. The people don't want they locked down single function phone, they shouldn't buy one.

>under the assumption that users jailbreak their devices

if that didn't void warranty, I'd accept it as a reasonable workaround. But on top of that I'm pretty sure Apple acively fights with jailbreaking and jailbreakers in particular.

>In my mind Apple has zero obligation to enable it maximum leeway to obstruct it.

They might soon, given DMA. In my mind, Microsoft got dinged for antitrust decades ago and Apple has gone so beyond that line that I'm surprised Europe had to step in before the US. Even Mac OS isn't locked down this hard (helps that it started fundamentally as a BSD fork) so it just tells me this is exploiting its monopoly.

>The people don't want they locked down single function phone, they shouldn't buy one.

opposite argument works as well. An open world does not stop you from staying in the walled garden. If you really don't want to use anything other than the App store, that's fine. You just miss out on a few apps like you have for 16 years with Android stuff that Apple banned.

> Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own.

They do decide, right when they buy their phone.

You know that's not what the OP meant.

"Apple users should be able to decide what software and stores run on the device that they own."

It should be able to be decided while owning it, not before. The point is that a phone that doesn't give the user the same level of control over the software that the manufacturer has simply should not exist. It should not be left to market forces.

Yeah I know that’s not what OP meant. The problem is OP is not fully thinking things through with principles.

All these “problems” with walled gardens are well known and consenting adults keep opting into it time and again.

I think it’s arrogant to look at a system you aren’t even participating in (can we assume op doesn’t have an iPhone) and say “no those people are doing it wrong”

I don't like this "you consent to the walled garden" approach for a very simple reason: you can do both. Jailbreaking has existed for over a decade but no one was complaining about the walled garden collapsing.

Opening up IOS doesn't mean you need to open up too. The garden isn't going anywher. Take it from an android user that has had choice and google play is still the dominant platform. It's just nice that when/if I need to I can download open source stuff, or games in foreign languages, or just sideload some random apps I tinker with without paying $100 for something I don't plan on releasing to the app store anyway.

These are all very niche uses and I don't understand how my existence inconvinences the garden.

>I think it’s arrogant to look at a system you aren’t even participating in (can we assume op doesn’t have an iPhone) and say “no those people are doing it wrong”

I do it with Russia and North Korea, so call me whatever you want. I'm not just going to dimiss it as "well its their culture" if their culture breaks fundamental principles I was raised on.

> I do it with Russia and North Korea, so call me whatever you want. I'm not just going to dimiss it as "well its their culture" if their culture breaks fundamental principles I was raised on.

Are you really equating the human rights atrocities of those nations with Apple business practices?

Here's the difference - Putin kills people who disagree with him. If you want to leave Russia, people with guns stop you (see East Berlin).

And you want to equate that with simply making a choice to not buy an iPhone and buy another phone instead?

And since we live in a democracy with laws where Apple's current arrangement can be voted to be made illegal, we can also decide to force Apple to open their device ecosystem (which may already be illegal).

Yeah we could. But just because we do, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing or the smart thing to do. Once upon a time alcohol was voted illegal and even now marijuana is federally illegal.

I personally think it’s a shame when the government takes something interesting and working and makes it illegal. Patreon could easily not be an app on iOS, but they really want that money, so now the government has to make laws on apple. Doesn’t make sense to me

do we really call "give us your subscription money or get banned" an "interesting and working" system? That's pretty much peak antitrust fuel there. This is quite literally what Epic spent years in court fighing over.

> "give us your subscription money or get banned"

This is literally so many businesses. Are you kidding me? Get a membership at a gym. Then stop paying the subscription. And see if they kick you out or not. Or stop paying your netflix bill. See if netflix bans you. Btw, stop paying your patreon, see if you still get the videos. Every subscription business is literally give us your subscription or get banned.

I don't care what Epic is fighting in court over. Why is that mega corp the good mega corp? Mcdonalds spent years in court fighting the responsibility to pay for some woman's burns.

>it’s a shame when the government takes something interesting and working and makes it illegal.

Do you also think monopolies should be allowed to operate uninterrupted, then?

No I don't, but I get the feeling that you missed an assumption in the middle which is that Apple/iOS is a monopoly.

It's clear to me Patreon is not forced into having an iOS app. They do so because they think they can make more money. But they could be web only.

All of these entities already have a presence on Android + desktop/web and can operate just fine on those. They just want to make more money from the iOS audience.

In theory, you could. In reality, however, you're not going to. Maybe the EU will, but it won't happen in the US.