> If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone
Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions.
We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era.
It's been a century. It is about time that our existing and uncontroversial anti monopoly laws got updated.
Some laws have already been past, in the EU, for example, that do this. In the EU, because of the digital markets act, people will be able to bypass the Apple app store in less than a year.
I don't know that I agree because for things like railways there were real physical limitations and privatization led to real restriction on commerce. There was literally no other way to compete with rail at the time.
Today, there is, in my own opinion, plenty of ways to compete with Apple's ecosystem. Android is the most obvious, but we also have the ability to build much better web and mobile web experiences to compete with apps. To quote another commenter, "it isn't Apple's fault the competition is not any good"
To be clear, I don't agree with Apple's honestly draconian cut on payments and app revenue, but I also don't think it is illegal. I think the competition needs to step up OR companies need to reconsider how much they are attaching their revenue stream to Apple's world. I see this as clear business maneuvering by companies who can't/don't see an easier way to grow than to attack the rails upon which they built their products (and the rules were clear when they started!! -- this isn't a surprise fee...)
Cool, so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful and mostly secure devices people have in their life by "forcing" a company to do things against their will?
Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too?
We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era.
There are very few places in the world with good trains, unless you're referring to one of them, your argument is pretty weak. Especially if you're in the USA. The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way.
...This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software, is an avid long term Linux user and owns many "open" hardware devices...
> so break one of the only stable, reliable, useful
No, people would be free to use the Apple App store if they want.
Apple simply wouldn't be able force the world to pay them 30% of everything anymore. Theyd have to compete on their merits, and people would now have full ownership of their own phone.
> The trains suck and I hope my devices don't go the same way.
So, what, you just support the railway monopoly and oppose the Sherman antitrust act? Please explicitly say whether or not you think the Sherman anti trust act, should be repealed, and all monopolies in the world, and anti competitive behavior, should be legal.
But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly.
I would hope, that you would oppose it Microsoft put a 30% fee on every online transaction, and kicked off all competing web browsers that tried to get around it.
Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE.
Surely you'd have to admit that this should be illegal, for such a monopoly to be enforced like that?
> Why not just throw our the US government and install the CCP too?
The Sherman anti-trust act is a pretty uncontroversial law. Surely you can't be saying that our existing uncontroversial anti trust laws, that have been around for a century, are the same as laws in China?
> This again is coming from someone who works with and on open source software
Then you should support people being allowed to do what they want, with their own phone.
You are the one who supports authoritarianism, if you oppose people being able to control their own device, that they purchased.
> Imagine if every computer in the world, you could only use internet explorer, and they forced you to pay them 30%, and use IE.
Absolutely nothing like this is happening though, so what's your point? I run Firefox on my iPhone, it's free?
> But let's try a different example, since apparently you support the railway monopoly.
I don't support the railway monopoly you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that breaking it up did nothing really useful. Shit trains still exist.
> Absolutely nothing like this is happening though, so what's your point?
I am saying that the fact that this is illegal, because of the sherman anti-trust act, is a good thing. Anti-trust laws are not some crazy, extreme example of authoritarianism.
Therefore, because I hope you can agree that it is good that we use government force, to prevent this, you cannot act in fake shock outrage, at the idea of using uncontroversial, and obviously good laws, such as the sherman anti-trust act.
> I run Firefox on my iPhone, it's free?
Apple prevents you from using your own phone to pay for apps that do not give them the 30% fee.
So, because Apple, in an authoritarian way, does not let you use your own property in this way, without a 30% fee paid to them, this is similar to another example of Microsoft not allowing you to install anything at all on your home PC, without paying them a 30% fee.
You seem to be trying very hard to convince me Apple truly is an evil company and without the government, it won't be. This is why I'm not keen to continue this thread.
This type of hyperbolic sentence: So, because Apple, in an authoritarian way, does not let you use your own property in this way, doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
Don't get my wrong, I understand it, Apple phones aren't an open source utopia where you can do whatever you like with it, you know as good as me that it's peoples choice to participate in that type of system and many choose to own a locked down device as a trade off for security, stability and convenience. People aren't rioting in the streets over this.
_People are choosing to enter the Apple eco-system for various reasons, there's no "Authoritarian regime" forcing you to use an iPhone._
Apple is popular because they make good products as far as I'm concerned and that's part of living in a free society. That someone can start a company that is successful like Apple and that people are allowed to buy Apple products, or not buy them.
Actually, you run Safari. Firefox and Chrome on iOS are just Safari with some different browser chrome. This happens because Apple has banned all other browser and JavaScript engines on iOS other than their own. Gecko, SpiderMonkey, Blink, etc are all banned on iOS.
Mozilla isn't able to actually bring real Firefox to iOS because of this, and has to settle with a reskinned Safari parading around as Firefox in order to stay relevant. Same thing goes for Google and Chrome, it's just browser chrome on top of Safari's browser engine.
> If you feel this strongly about the feature, then using a different phone
Actually, instead of that, citizens of a nation are free to vote for anti-trust, and pro competition laws that force Apple, under threat of government force, to stop engaging in certain actions.
We did it for the railway monopolies a century ago, and we can do it again, by updating our anti trust laws to new era.
It's been a century. It is about time that our existing and uncontroversial anti monopoly laws got updated.
Some laws have already been past, in the EU, for example, that do this. In the EU, because of the digital markets act, people will be able to bypass the Apple app store in less than a year.