| > there are really only two options: Android or iOS Now, you subtly moved the goalposts here. I'm not even saying you did it on purpose, just drawing attention to it. Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, are hardware manufacturers with integrated, proprietary software stacks, just like Apple. Androids are made by dozens of manufacturers, and you can side load, use the App Store of your choice, and so on. The fact that Play Store does the lions share of business is the sum of: doing a great job, and nudging users in that direction through various defaults. Fact is, you can load what you want on an Android, and to me that undermines the case for forcing Apple to do likewise. I'd still like the ability to sideload apps on my iPhone, and think it's worth pushing on Apple to get there. But as long as there are general-purpose phones available for purchase, and there are, I don't see the anticompetitive argument in the iPhone being a console: either put up with it or don't buy one. I'm drawing a distinction between a bad business decision which customers should push Apple to change, and anticompetitive behavior which governments should force Apple to stop engaging in. I don't see the case for the latter. |
I'm just struggling to figure out why the PERCEPTION is very different between iOS and the home console market. It feels like many iPhone users do not believe their smartphone can be substituted with one from another manufacturer. Those same users also complain that they're locked into the App Store. (I think there's a few people in the comments here that have done exactly that.)
At the same time, the majority of mobile app revenue is coming from iOS, which is pushing app developers to the platform, even though they dislike the terms of the App Store.
I'm not sure what the solution is here, but an ecosystem with a large number of members who are unhappy with the status quo doesn't seem very sustainable.