The main reason malware on Mac isn't as common as MS Windows is due to the larger install base. It is not even close to being like iOS when it comes to security. If you can't understand basics like this I don't know what to say. There are so many reasons one could argue that iOS should be open like macOS but security isn't one of them. I really hope you don't own a Mac and use it thinking it's secure as an iOS device. Please don't do that....
This reminded me of when eBay began to move from traditional auctions to a more typical marketplace of "Power Sellers" -- may have also been near the time of the PayPal acquisition -- and, especially with lower cost items, sellers were fighting increased fees by upping the shipping cost because it didn't affect final value fee. For example, charge $30 for shipping and be okay with $10-40 ending bid or Buy Now price on something such as earphones. The point being, even if you disagreed with eBays changes, this was a poor reaction, was just about greed (from both sides), and only went on to confuse and create problems for bidders, e.g. refunds.
You already have to pay as a developer to access the App Store. Not only do you have to pay for the ability to publish in the first place, but then you are forced to use all of Apple's service regardless of what your app does. This would be like if a site like eBay only let you use PayPal, or if Microsoft only let vendors use Internet Explorer on their computers... Oh wait a minute, both of those things already happened, and both of those things changed, because of the evidence that they were monopolies. The only difference is that Apple with iOS has about 10X more evidence against it due to how locked out they have their ecosystem. Hmmm... I wonder how this is going to turn out.
If that vendor also happens to have a monopoly on the stores that sell your product, and use said monopoly to force said product to not be sold elsewhere, no. But you can get the person who makes the product to sue.
Another words, Apple should be punished because they are successful and other companies don’t want to play by the rules they originally agreed to. That is the argument you just gave me. Not a good argument at all.
Apple should stop forcing everyone to use their payment services. Simple as that.
Apple has the right to determine how payment is made in their own store. What isn’t right, is signing you agree to the terms and conditions therein, and then deciding after the fact, that you aren’t going to abide by them, and then demand Apple acquiesce to your demands. That doesn’t create legal standing. What that creates is breach of contract.
Apple should also stop preventing all other companies from publishing app stores. This is a text book monopoly. You cannot install applications on a piece of hardware that you own without jumping through a number of unrealistic hoops for the consumer. That is ridiculous. It has caused xCloud to be completely banned from iOS devices. It has caused Spotify, a competitor to Apple Music to loose profit, and literally compete against itself by giving apple subscription revenue. Now it is causing the same thing to happen to Epic. This is not complicated, it is a monopoly. Remove yourself from brand loyalty and look at it for what it is. I hope Microsoft jumps into this suit and sues apple into oblivion. There is a reason why this is illegal, and it is long overdue for it to be stopped.
There is no other choice for anyone to publish for a billion devices. This is a monopoly. If you want to bring google into it then it is a duopoly. Both are illegal.
The Harris administration will sort it out in January. The news says she favors the tech giants so probably Apple will be ok.
PlayStation has a monopoly on what PlayStation games go on the PlayStation. They also process all payments. It’s ok.
You argument boils down to “ Company X is too successful and should be told by government (thru the court) that it cannot be as successful as it wanted and therefore, it will be legally and financially penalized for doing what other companies wanted to do but failed to do”.
