So you claim. We could hold a vote: „Should Apple have the exclusive power to decide what applications can be installed on iOS - or should applications be installable freely, such as on other OS (Windows, macOS, Linux).
The voting has already happened. Apple MIGHT sell more of their devices if they were altered in some way but, RIGHT now, this year, Apple will sell over 100 million phones and, for the cost of production, they consider that a good return. If the sales of the iPhone drops to 12 million because everyone is avoiding buying the iPhone because they don’t like the phones or the software model, THEN Apple would change. Unfortunately for folks like you, it doesn’t look like there’s enough people concerned about such things to the point where they’ll hold off buying an iPhone.
That’s the issue that will be regulated: application software markets have (for decades) been related but independent markets (from OS and hardware). And it has had hugely benefited innovation and pricing for customers.
Apple has chosen to bundle or „fuse“ hardware, OS and distribution of application software into one platform and control it all by themselves in monopolist fashion. That is obviously not illegal - but it should be.
Not in a monopolist fashion, in a “doing business normally” fashion. For example, Microsoft created Xbox and has fused hardware, OS, and digital distribution of application software. And, even for the physical distribution of software, they still take a cut of every sale, so it’s not like developer can get around it by NOT paying the fee to Microsoft.
This is the same structure that underpins all businesses. It’s ABSOLUTELY a huge risk for Apple to not license the OS to third parties (as shown by the awesome success of Android), but if it’s a risk a company wants to make, a risk which actually limits the spread of their OS, they should be free to take that risk.
The fact that checks and balances aren’t needed for most users and situations doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist.Alternative methods of app distribution are checks and balances on Apple‘s behaviour and pricing.
Yes, alternative methods like Android. If Apple’s behavior and pricing becomes bothersome, customers will stop buying and buy Android instead. Unfortunately for folks like you, the vast majority of customers DON’T find Apple’s behavior and pricing to be as big of a problem as you do.
Operating systems are a market that’s (basically) naturally converging onto few options.
When people or governments want and benefit from competition in the market for automotive vehicles, that doesn‘t mean that more mutually incompatible underlying platforms should exist.
Always the same story.
“This is about competition!”
“Well, how about things that would actually, you know, increase competition?”
“No, it’s not really about competition. It’s actually about the fact that there’s not enough people that care about the things I care about to the point where none of the current vendors will change the way they do business to meet the needs of the tiny market segment I’m a part of… I guess.”
“But, even if you’re really stuck on the “few options” idea, one of the new options, just like Apple did, could be favorable enough to a large enough number of people that it bumps one of the current leaders out of the market. And, that new option might even be more open to looking at your tiny market segment and supporting it!”
“No, I really just want Apple to change. Yeah, not about competition at all. Sorry I brought it up that way.”
They have curtailed development of applications (and functionality within applications) for their own OS. Which, along with Google‘s Android constitutes a duopoly.
Apple controls Apple’s OS and Apple’s App Store and Apple’s development software and Apples development hardware. Sounds to me like they exert zero control outside their own partitioned off portion of the tech world. Compare this to ANY of the antitrust trials of the past and you’ll see there’s QUITE a big difference there.
