[smoldesu]

You have completely missed the point. Let me back things up and you can tell me where things stop making sense for you:

Nobody is mad about iOS existing or using custom entitlements. Nobody is mad about the App Store existing or charging 30% on top of most IAPs/transactions. Nobody is angry at Apple for shipping Safari by default, or even for loading up iOS and MacOS with uncontrollable telemetry.

We're mad that we don't have options. Apple has no reason to arbitrarily limit our options besides personal profit, which is something they objectively do not need. That's what people are going to bring up during antitrust hearings, and it's the stuff you can't refute with "oh muh security". Apple is a hardware vendor that uses their status to abuse the software market, much like Microsoft did with the early web before they were brought to heel by antitrust hearings. The writing is on the wall for Apple, private entitlements or no they're headed straight to the hot-seat.

[scarface74]

> We're mad that we don't have options

Sure you do, you have the same option that 70% of mobile users exercise - buy an Android device.

> much like Microsoft did with the early web before they were brought to heel by antitrust hearings

This is another false trope. Absolutely nothing happened in the US as a result of the anti trust trial with respect to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows. There was no forced unbundling, no “browser choice” nothing.

> That's what people are going to bring up during antitrust hearings

Those same arguments landed with a big thud during the Epic vs Apple trial.

[smoldesu]

> Sure you do, you have the same option that 70% of mobile users exercise - buy an Android device.

I didn't buy an Android device, though. I bought an iPhone, and Apple is the one limiting the software I run on it. It's a closed case: Apple does not deserve the right to dictate what software people run on the devices they own. There is no degree of apologism that refutes this.

> Absolutely nothing happened in the US as a result of the anti trust trial with respect to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

They were still found guilty though, and the only reason they escaped prosecution was because they appealed and instead seeked a settlement under similar terms: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/504276/downlo... (page 10).

Their settlement involved the explicit forced sharing of APIs and internal technology (in Apple's case this would be software management).

> the Epic vs Apple trial.

And in fairness, so did Apple's. They used this as an opportunity to subpoena half the industry, and all it revealed is that Apple is in a class of their own when it comes to control over what users are allowed to interact with. Maybe it didn't hit a boiling point with Fortnite, but few things do. At least we have the EU to slap Apple around when they make silly mistakes like the Lightning port.

[scarface74]

> I didn't buy an Android device, though. I bought an iPhone

So you bought a device using your own free will that didn’t meet your needs even though there was an alternative? That’s like someone buying a Tesla and complaining they can’t use gas to power their vehicle.

> Apple does not deserve the right to dictate what software people run on the devices they own. There is no degree of apologism that refutes this

A real judge disagrees with you…

> Their settlement involved the explicit forced sharing of APIs and internal technology (in Apple's case this would be software management).

And that has nothing to do with browser bundling or the App Store. If a single App Store is illegal, that also means all of the console makers and TV smart OS vendors are acting illegally.

Also, today in 2022, Microsoft Office is just as dominant as it was in 2000.

> prosecution was because they appealed and instead seeked

And the “settlement” has nothing to do with browser bundling and in fact, they did release another platform - the XBox where not only were they the only store, even when you buy a physical game, they get a cut.

[smoldesu]

> So you bought a device using your own free will that didn’t meet your needs even though there was an alternative?

The device does meet my needs, it has a very capable ARM processor inside and a decent-looking screen. The only thing I need an alternative for is software, and Apple goes out of their way to prevent me from using software that respects my freedom as a user.

> that also means all of the console makers and TV smart OS vendors are acting illegally.

Ah yes, the tried-and-true "but look at [OTHER-INDUSTRY]" strawman. Console and smart TV vendors are not in the smartphone industry, much less even get treated as part of the computing industry. They're regulated as appliances, and if you think the regulation around that should change then I wholly recommend writing to your senator. You might even get me to co-sign it, too!

[scarface74]

> The device does meet my needs, it has a very capable ARM processor inside and a decent-looking screen. The only thing I need an alternative for is software, and Apple goes out of their way to prevent me from using software that respects my freedom as a user.

“yes the Tesla body frame meets my needs. But the battery I knew was bundled with it can’t use unleaded gas and I need to drive to rural areas where there aren’t any battery chargers available.”

> Ah yes, the tried-and-true "but look at [OTHER-INDUSTRY]" strawman. Console and smart TV vendors are not in the smartphone industry, much less even get treated as part of the computing industry. They're regulated as appliances

So consoles “are regulated as appliance” (no they are not regulated much at all) even though they are computers that are meant to serve one purpose. But the phone, which is a computer that is meant to serve one purpose is not an “appliance”.

Where are these “regulations” you speak of?

Are you claiming that Epic would have had no basis to sue console makers on the same grounds they sued (and failed) Google and Apple?

[simion314]

>yes the Tesla body frame meets my needs. But the battery I knew was bundled with it can’t use unleaded gas and I need to drive to rural areas where there aren’t any battery chargers available.”

The fair example is if Tesla would only allow you to use Tesla electrons, from Tesla electric generators. I van put non Ford petrol or non Ford oil in my Ford. I could put my own browser in iOS and it would work just fine but some companies does not allow it, it is not a material thing like your ridiculous example, an IF statement prevents me to run the real Firefox on iOS. When an IF statement in Tesla will prevent you using non Tesla electrons then you can use your shit example.

When OP bought an iPhone on the box it did not said "only runs what Apple thinks is social correct and only what Apple thinks is not a financial risk for Apple".