I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.
I don't understand this line of reasoning. Just because you paid someone doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you to do something with the thing you bought. If the thing you bought doesn't do what you want it to do, then buy a different thing that lets you do what you want. And in this case there are literally thousands of other phones you can buy.
> doesn't mean they are obligated to write software to allow you
Apple literally doesn't have to write any software! All we're asking is for Apple to remove the software they've written that intentionally blocks any other software from working!
Android has a checkbox to install apps from any source. Hardly anyone even knows about its existence, but it means that we don't have to have a black market for phones with a given app installed (context: iPhones with Fortnite already installed were being sold for 2k+ per pop on eBay when the app was blocked).
It's disingenuous to claim Apple built and promoted the platform by themselves - third party developers are a huge reason behind iOS's success, and the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today if it only had first-party apps.
And? Those third party developers have already been compensated fully based on the terms they agreed to when they contributed to the platform. Apple owes them nothing at this point. Obviously it is probably in Apple's best interest to treat them fairly, but that is up to Apple to decide.
And to respond to GP. This has nothing to do with "bootlicking". The same thing should apply regardless of the company.
They control the distribution channels of a general computing platform at their whim.
They push their own services like Apple Music by having pre installed apps, free app store placement, not having to pay the 30% cut over other competitors like Spotify. In a low margin business that is live or die.
They force a browser like Firefox to not have its own engine as well.
When you build a platform and it becomes so successful that it forms part of the foundation for an entire society's technological existence, you lose the privilege of arbitrarily controlling that platform. Electricity companies don't get to skim 30% off of the revenue of any factory that makes widgets using the electricity company's electricity. Cell phone carriers don't get to skim 30% off of any orders placed over their networks. Apple shouldn't be able to skim 30% off of every transaction that happens to be made on an iOS device. I don't give a damn about esoteric arguments about Apple being a "private company" or whatever: it's unacceptable for society to pay a 30% tax to Apple on a big chunk of the economic activity of an entire society. No taxation without representation, right?
Exactly: a market duopoly doesn't mean they don't have disproportionate control over consumer choices especially when there are feature and ecosystem differences between the platforms.
The platform was built by every consumer, app devs, hardware vendors, and many others.
These players of the platform voluntarily cooperate with apple, and allow apple the oversized power, because the economic values of doing that is higher than other behaviors.
There isn't a moral high ground for apple, nor a particularly outsized contribution by apple considering their profit from the platform.
What you said is so superficial that it does not even refer to the right topic.
I can do whatever I want with my phone.
I don't require someone to tell me I'm not allowed to install or provide app X because someone somewhere doesn't like the idea of two consenting parties making an app transaction.