[batty_alex]

> What Apple ought to be in trouble for is interfering with their operating system customers' ability to patronize competing app stores.

This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront

It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem

[Wowfunhappy]

> This isn’t illegal. Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront

In that case, someone else owns the storefront. I own my phone, not Apple.

If Apple would like to claim that I merely lease my phone, they need to update all their marketing so it isn't misleading. They should also be on the hook for repairs (without AppleCare), and all the other responsibilities that typically accompany a leased product.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign or not letting randos sell things in your own storefront

Your phone isn't Apple's storefront. Their storefront is. Prohibiting their customers from patronizing any other store is clearly anti-competitive.

> It’s not illegal just because you don’t agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem

It's not legal just because you agree with the philosophy of a closed ecosystem. "A closed ecosystem" is inherently anti-competitive and should be illegal.

[stale2002]

> Equivalent to a “No outside food and drink” sign

Really?

When you buy food from the grocery store, the grocery store goes to your home and physically prevents you from also eating food from a different store at the same time, in your own home?

When people buy a phone, they own it. They are using it in their own home.

No, a grocery store does not force you to only eat food from them, in your own home.

They do not prevent you from mixing milk from their store with cookies from a different store.

[diffeomorphism]

Obviously not equivalent.