[a9entroy]

I don't agree. Millions (maybe even billions) of people user their devices and the country absolutely should regulate their systems. As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone. Obviously this is unlikely to happen but then I would expect the govt. to intervene.

If Apple want to impose rules without any government oversight, they are free to start their own country with their own government and impose their own rules.

[Zelphyr]

That's a pretty big straw man argument. If Apple said all apps have to pay a 95% cut and all customers have to pay $20/mo to use Internet on their phones then they'd nearly instantly lose massive market share and the backlash would be so severe that they'd never regain that market share. In other words; they'd never do that.

[cafed00d]

>if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut But Apple could easily say "no more 3rd party apps" -- again, equally unlikely given the values those apps bring. But zero 3rd party apps is precisely what the iPod was, no?

[AgentME]

>As an extreme example imagine if Apple tomorrow said that all apps have to pay a 95% cut instead of a 30% cut and all customers have to pay $20/month to use Wifi or internet on their iPhone.

If they did they did this with the app store as used by existing iphones, then that would probably cause them to get in trouble, but if they made a new app store with these policies that was only used by a new model of iphone, then while extreme, I'd think it's within their rights. It's not that long ago that feature phones with limited app selection and internet browsing as a premium feature were a thing.

[antaviana]

I wonder if you are having in mind the same government that wants a hefty cut of the sale of TikTok to Microsoft.