I get what you're saying, and had Apple performed a bait-and-switch, I would agree with you.
But iPhone and iPad were always like this. Hundreds of millions of people bought them (with extremely high satisfaction scores) just the way they are.
The closed, controlled ecosystem was always the value proposition for these platforms.
And if you recall, the 30% cut Apple takes was considered an AWESOME deal for developers at the time.
So what has actually changed since 2008?
Not Apple, not iPhone, but rather some people's opinion of how Apple's platform should operate.
Well, that's not exactly true; the network effects of having such a large installed base gives Apple a lot of power to make even more money.
What is unclear to me is what is the best course of action here; do we force all companies to be "open" even though people bought into them because they were closed and controlled?
That doesn't seem like a clear-cut win, either.
Do we prevent Apple from offering new integrated services because that, in a sense, is taking advantage of their monopoly position within its own platforms? (This is what is happening with Microsoft and it including Teams in Office in the EU)
That seems like a terrible approach to prevent vertically integrated companies from offering more integrated services.
These are difficult questions to answer because laws should apply evenly to all companies; you can't just make exceptions for one company here and another one there.
In other words, this stuff is complicated and IMO going for quick fixes is more likely to result in even worse outcomes, which is why I remain cautious of any legislative solutions to these complex topics.
