|
|
|
|
|
by yamtaddle
1157 days ago
|
|
Apple's leverage has given it de-facto regulatory power that it has, to a considerable extent, used in my favor. It might be that nothing changes if sideloading is made much easier, or other browser engines allowed, or whatever. But, that's not guaranteed. Since I like the current situation—at least, better than the alternative of having no one push back on things like spyware-loving megacorps—I'm not in favor of risking changes to it. My ideal situation would be that a lot of what Apple prevents on their platform were illegal everywhere so it'd hardly matter, but the US, at least, does not seem to be heading that direction anytime soon. So, that's why. It risks changing the current situation such that I would find it worse, overall, and I'd prefer not to risk that. |
|
Indeed. This is called "being an monopoly" and "using anti-competitive practices to control a market, in violation of anti monopoly laws".
Yes, anti competitive practices work.
Yes, being a monopoly works.
And yes, it has produced some good things like Apple's focus on privacy.
But it has also produced other very not good things, like the 30% Apple tax.
But, it is at least comforting that people are now saying the quiet part out loud, which is "yep, Apple had anti competitive market power the whole time, I just like monopolies".