My choice of phone is not a political statement.
A better analogy would be if you don't like the food a particular restaurant is serving, you go patronise another restaurant that does serve the food you want. And if none of them have food that is to your exact liking, then maybe you either cook your own food or learn to compromise and go with whichever best suits your tastes, even if it is not exactly 100%. You don't march to the kitchen, hand the chef a recipe and insist that your order be done to your exact tastes and preferences unless you somehow own the restaurant.
The problem with your so-called "better analogy" is that there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the United States alone, let alone the rest of the world while there are effectively now only TWO real phone platforms to choose from (oddly, just like there are effectively only two political parties in the USA). I can cook my own food, even so I don't technically need ANY restaurants to keep eating. I
cannot make my own smart phone, operating system and software and neither can you, anymore than you could create your own utility delivery or even cable/satellite system. That's why you just made a bad comparison. Unlike food, you are the mercy of extremely limited or single groups controlling entire industries. This is why monopolies are bad in general. Having two choices is twice as good as one, but still only one or the other. We used to have many phone platforms to pick from. But when there's only two, you really should have open access.
Imagine if you only had one road out of town and you weren't allowed to use it because it's private. Are you supposed to hike through people's backyards, then? If there's something wrong with Android at some point (huge security hole, whatever), what's your alternative/backup? Apple. But you can't run what you need to run on Apple. It's like having two roads out of town instead of one, but Apple's road is a private road they control and if they so much as don't like the color of your car, you can't ride on their road even if you pay. Some groups say, oh well. It's a PRIVATE ROAD and Apple's owns it, so too bad for you. Others would say that we live in a society/community and some things are too important to infrastructure to play privacy games to basic living. When Internet access becomes more than a luxury as it is becoming these days, having one company or one person decide what can and cannot be run on a platform is RIDICULOUS.
Look at what's happening with airlines as there becomes more and more mergers/buyouts. Are seat sizes going up or down? Are ticket prices going up or down? Are they nickle and diming you to death or are prices going down? Did deregulation help the average citizen? Did Capitalism work? Or do companis try to thwart the rules of Capitalism when we allow them to in order to profit and defeat the whole basis for it (lower prices through competition)?
Does that make it "political" or just a basic problem of modern society that requires regulation through laws to keep things fair and reasonable? Do you want a closed Internet or an open one? Do you really want Apple deciding what you can and cannot run on your iPhone?
Do you want Microsoft spying on you from now into the future because they "own" the operating system (as Windows 10 does) or should there be basic CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS to things like PRIVACY??? I'm on Apple Mac because they are currently protecting privacy rights for the most part. What happens if that changes? Microsoft is already spying one everyone using Windows 10. Google is known for even reading your emails to sell ads (recently changed finally). At what points should your Constitutional Rights TRUMP companies abilities to profit off ever single thing you do? Does a company like Google OWN you and your life and half your country? Or are they privileged to exist here? Since when are businesses or politicians more important than the citizens of a country? Is society a function of business or is business a function of society?
[doublepost=1498509833][/doublepost]
30% of iOS revenue maybe high.
What do developers get for that?
Who gives a crap what they get for it? The point is the authors HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE CHOICE if they want to sell on the iOS platforms! Given most of the money to be made is on that system and not Android, it's not hard to see why authors would have an issue with Apple. Why is that hard to see or comprehend? Why bother defending a bad system?
There's an App store for the Mac. It has 23% of software sales for the Mac. If the App Store by Apple was really that great, wouldn't their Mac share be MUCH MUCH higher???? No, because people aren't forced to use it! Look at game prices and features on STEAM some time, particularly during one of their regular holiday sales. Why would you want to pay $65 for a game that is on sale for $12? Mac App Store almost never has any discounts or sales what-so-ever. STEAM has them all the time and most Steam games (with Steamplay) can play against PC and Linux users as well as Mac users. Get rid of Steam? Boom. Instant high prices, no connectivity with PCs for multiplayer what-so-ever. It would SUCK. No wonder no ones like the App Store. Plus they force their views on adult subjects, etc. on you.
What they get is a company deciding IF their software can be sold and therefore what content can be in their apps. If you ever watched old movies from 1934 to 1968, you probably noticed certain types of movies simply didn't exist because they were strictly controlled by one body (Hays Code: See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code). So instead of the MPPDA deciding what goes into a movie, you have Apple deciding what can go into an application. Why is that acceptable to anyone? Are we living in the 1930s of Internet distribution?
The rest of your argument is about storefronts and is moot to the argument being made against Apple having a monopoly on distribution for ALL the software for iOS systems. What if Android was doing the same thing? Too bad? You'd have the same problem as the motion picture association did for 34 years...a total distortion of reality.
IF Apple didn't enforce their own "views" of what content should be allowed but were just a simple storefront or whatever, you'd at least be rid of the CENSORING aspect of Apple, but you'd still be allowing Apple a virtual monopoly for distribution of all iOS software. Italy has decided that is unacceptable, that consumers should have rights before CEOs deciding what they can and cannot run on their bought and paid for computer hardware. How many people want to see the Mac go to a closed system in the future? Apple seems to be slowly pushing in that direction operating system update by update.
.
