No, my defense was:
Quit misrepresenting what I said.
“It’s different because I say so”
I don't want to buy an Android. I want to have control over my phone.
Well I want my car to have CarPlay, but that’s not offered by the manufacturer. I don’t get to buy it knowing there’s no CarPlay and then force them to offer it because I deserve to have my cake and eat it too.
Then why did Apple enable emulators a few years ago? Were they choosing to enable piracy?
Probably because they saw the writing on the wall. But it should be Apple’s choice to make, even if I disagree with it. It shouldn’t be the decision of the exact same government regulators who thought making everyone use Micro-USB was a good idea.
Actually, Apple built the user base with the help of developers. There's a reason the iPhone's popularity exploded after the "there's an app for that" commercial. There's a reason they made it into a commercial. They used developers work to sell their phones.
Yes, and? Developers have been compensated greatly under the current rules. Those developers also agreed to terms and conditions when they decided to offer apps on the App Store. If they didn’t like the terms they shouldn’t have signed.
Malls aren’t successful without stores in them, but that doesn’t mean the stores get to skip out on paying their rent (which, by the way, almost always includes a commission linked to the amount of sales).
The stores are paying for access to the mall’s customers, even if some of those customers would have gone to the store outside of the mall.
Of course Apple did plenty of work too. And they do deserve compensation. And they get that compensation when people buy their phones, when developers pay their yearly fees, and when users subscribe to services.
If the App Store is so great, they will be able to compete fairly instead of forcing everyone to use it.
“Forcing everyone to use it” is better for 95% of Apple’s customers due to the significant security and privacy benefits. (See below).
And Apple created the platform and should be able to decide how it works. No one is forcing users or developers to pick Apple if they have a problem with that.
You think an app is Apple's property? That's ridiculous. You talked a lot of about fairness, but how is it fair that a developer makes an app and a user buys a phone yet you consider it Apple's property?
The app does not function without Apple’s property. Walmart doesn’t let manufacturers put “buy on our website for cheaper” on boxes in their stores even if the packaging design decisions belong to the product manufacturer.
Apple did not build the user base by themselves. They built it *with* developers and people who bought in to their platform. There's a reason the iPhone was a success and the Vision Pro is a failure
Yes, one started at $3500 and was an entirely new product category for almost all consumers. The other one was a better version of something everyone was already carrying (in many cases replacing 2 or 3 things users were already carrying) and started at $199 when it exploded in popularity.
Apple is compensated when developers pay their yearly fee for the developer program and they're also compensated when users buy their phones. And they're also compensated when users pay monthly for services.
That’s like saying “I paid a Costco membership so everything in the store should be free.” The price for the “yearly fee” is actually $99 + any the commission on paid apps and in app purchases.
Do you have any real evidence to support that claim?
- Here's a 2023 survey paper citing McAfee data reports 2.34M mobile malware cases, of which only 389 were on iOS.
- App Security Project quoted Nokia Threat Intelligence report that found that Android devices were responsible for 47.15% of observed malware infections (Windows/ PCs for 35.82%, IoT for 16.17% and iPhones for less than 1%), with third-party app stores being a key vector due to lack of security vetting.
- Zimperium found that users who sideload are 80% more likely to have malware on their phones.
- Tom's Guide reported that users of alternate apps stores had up to 19 times higher probability of encountering malware compared to the PlayStore
- Certo Software says sideloaded apps have a 200% higher chance of containing malware
The United States did that when they broke up AT&T and forced them to open their phone lines. The iPhone wouldn't even exist if they hadn't done that. That wasn't a good idea?
Should AT&T get to decide what Apple does on THEIR property (the phone lines and cellular connections?) or is it maybe a little more complicated than you're saying it is?
AT&T was an actual monopoly. 80% of local
service and 90% of long distance service, and no strong competitor.
iOS has ~30% in the EU and, to get back to the topic of the thread, 6% in India. With a very strong and capable competitor. The two situations aren’t comparable at all.
If Apple had 80% of the mobile market I’d agree with you that regulation was needed.
