[johncolanduoni]

That argument applies to literally any product that another business wants to built their own product on. I don’t see how that doesn’t turn into every business being required to make the business model of every other business whose products are built on theirs work in perpetuity. If you make a commercial OS, are you arguing you can’t ever remove any feature in a future version if it would make another company’s product impossible to upgrade?

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not about removing a feature, it's about keeping it there but monopolizing access to it. If the feature goes away entirely, that's fine. And then somebody else can come back and implement it themselves.

But if the company gives themselves access to that feature and not anybody else (even with the permission of the device owner), and restricts anyone else from reimplementing it, that creates a monopoly which they would then be abusing by restricting what competing app developers can do.

Security is the owner of the device controlling what runs on it. Monopoly abuse is the manufacturer of the device doing so against the will of the owner of the device.