[turtlebits]

Customers don't necessarily want a choice.

Sometimes choice equates to complexity, if it doesn't work for you, don't use the product. Apple is very well known (and probably very successful) for limiting choice, in product lines and features.

IMO Android devices are already open enough - there are alternative app stores and you can sideload apps. Banks not distributing on these channels is not Google's responsibility.

[crowcroft]

Take it a step further – the power grid. I don't want to have to choose which power grid to use, and we shouldn't bother making duplicate power grids. It makes sense they operate as a monopoly. Those companies are heavily regulated though.

[Guvante]

> Those companies are heavily regulated though

Without that regulation it is a very different beast.

Having the government decide the platform cut would very much change the conversation.

[felipelemos]

> Customers don't necessarily want a choice.

I was going to say that it's something for them to decide, but then the conversation was going to be circular.

Nobody should have the right to not have a right.

[berkes]

> Customers don't necessarily want a choice.

But that's not a requirement for something to be a monopoly.

[int_19h]

Customers don't want a choice right up until the moment they need to do something but can't (e.g. install Fortnite).

[theoldgit]

Capitalism without competition isn't capitalism; it's exploitation without competition, innovation is slowly strangled if there is no free market, the wealth in the market accretes upwards to those who control the market; i.e. those businesses which do not have competition

[secf4ult]

It's right and wrong at the same time, you can only say "most of the customers don't want a choice", so we just gonna ignore the minority and let big companies take all the cake?

[guru4consulting]

Let the customers have the choice to decide whether they want choice or not. Historically, more choices have always benefitted the common folks in the end.