[moosebear847]

I still haven't come across a convincing argument why Apple should be compelled by regulation to open up the iPhone and let anyone do anything they want with it, ie be a general purpose mobile computer.

It sucks that they simultaneously have (1) such restrictive policies on what you can do with your device and (2) a well-designed hardware and software ecosystem that serves as a foundation that's hard to move away from.

However, what's stopping others from coming out with a better, less restrictive alternative that benefits from the publicly visible work and lessons that Apple has done/taught us to get us to the great products we have today?

This would be a lot of work. It would require lots of investment of resources. But there's nothing explicitly stopping anyone else from doing this. With global hardware and software advances, and the mobile ecosystem becoming more mature and less changing, the technical moat between only Apple being able to make a good phone vs others doing the same is decreasing.

If Apple's behavior is unacceptable, we should move on to an alternative even if we have to create one to do so. An analogy of a relationship seems fitting. At the start of the relationship, it was all love, roses and fun dates. Now, years into the relationship, we are seeing that Apple is actually kind of a control freak and maybe not so good for us after all. Instead of futilely fighting with someone who won't change after so many fights, maybe we should use the free market to move on to a healthier relationship. There is no gun to our head forcing us to stay with Apple.

I personally dislike the fact that we aren't free to do what we want on our iPhones. But instead of being obsessed with Apple, maybe we should let Apple be Apple, and appreciate what they have contributed to the world. And then create the change in the world that we would like to see.

[kalleboo]

Lots of people with lots of resources tried, and made pretty good phones/OSes - Nokia, Palm, Microsoft, Blackberry.

They all fell down on the lack of apps.

If your phone doesn't have apps for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, WhatsApp, LINE, tens of thousands of banks across the globe, credit cards, transit cards, various government ID schemes (try booking your vaccine in Sweden without an iPhone/Android) etc etc you'll never make it.

[moosebear847]

All those companies were around before and during the existence of the iPhone. At least some had apps, and had an equal or better chance at having all those apps, so I wonder why they weren’t successful.

You have to start somewhere. If there were a good alternative, then adoption of it would drive gradual availability of these apps.

[kalleboo]

Software ecosystems with more than 2 platforms that need to be supported by developers just never happen.

Look at the desktop - we have Windows and Mac (and for a while it looked like we'd lose the Mac), Linux is still a desktop also-ran.

Look at the web - it took Microsoft completely neglecting IE for 5 years before there was any momentum at all towards other browsers. And now we're back to web developers mostly neglecting Firefox and praying for the day they can drop Safari support so we're 100% Chrome.

[moosebear847]

There does seem to be strong market pressure to have no more than 2 major platforms to support, and understandably so due to the amount of work.

Linux never became mainstream because of how poor the user experience was, not necessarily because there’s only room for 2 at the top. Even technically experienced people don’t want to muck around with drivers and deep-dive into configuration. Since few used linux, few apps were written for it.

I think there is usually room for new players, whether they have to usurp an existing one or have compatibility with others to do it.