[prklmn]

The separate stores should compete, as they are doing now. If one becomes more appealing, users and developers can switch. I think of the logic behind your argument as saying that Walgreens should be forced to let CVS use a portion of its stores to sell in (for free), even though there's a CVS across the street....there's nothing stopping anyone from going to shop across the street as it currently stands, just as there is no outside force stopping anyone from switching to an android to be able to download play store apps. These 2 year contracts are an impediment, but these are signed at the consumer's discretion.

[vosper]

Except that going across the street to CVS to get the exact same product at a better price is very different to switching from iPhone to Android. Apart from just the big outlay for new hardware, you have to figure out how to migrate from (e.g.) iCloud, what happens with your chats in iMessage with all your friends, the different way that Android actually works. Don't underestimate the degree to which small differences confuse non-techy users. Even just upgrading from one iPhone to another, or installing an iOS update, can be confusing.

No-ones going to do that to get slightly cheaper apps (if they are actually cheaper, which I doubt, because I don't believe that the Google App Store is actually competing with the Apple App Store).

[jliptzin]

You can't be serious that walking across the street is the same as moving from iPhone to Android.