[tambourine_man]

Regarding 1, there are plenty of alternatives to iMessage and iCloud. They are even interoperable to some degree.

Essencial apps were made for Windows only back in 95-2005. Your only choice was emulation and there were no alternatives. It’s a completely different picture today.

2 and 3 are not relevant to monopoly claims.

[lapcat]

> Regarding 1, there are plenty of alternatives to iMessage and iCloud

So? The alternatives to iMessage and iCloud are different from them in a number of ways, just like iOS and Android are different in a number of ways. They're not identical alternatives.

> 2 and 3 are not relevant to monopoly claims.

We're not discussing monopoly claims. We're discussing why people buy iPhones.

[tambourine_man]

> They're not identical alternatives

Alternatives are not identical, by definition.

You see, in 95-2005 you couldn't compute without Windows. The vast majority of services not only assumed but relied upon you having Windows installed. There were no alternatives. Full stop. It's a completely different situation today.

> We're not discussing monopoly claims.

I am, and so is EU.

> We're discussing why people buy iPhones.

And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.

[lapcat]

> Alternatives are not identical, by definition.

Ok, so if you admit that the alternatives to iMessage and iCloud are not identical, it follows that people may have reasons for specifically preferring iMessage and iCloud to the alternatives, based on the differences that you admit exist. And again, iMessage and iCloud are iPhone-only features, so a preference for those Apple services would naturally make consumers prefer iPhones.

> I am, and so is EU.

By "We're not discussing monopoly claims", I meant specifically "We" as in you and me. I'm not discussing anything with the EU, because the EU doesn't comment on HN. My original reply to you was specifically about why people buy iPhones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39591038

> And why they are making a conscious choice, not being hostage by a monopoly.

Yes? We're both already in agreement about that. The question is to what extent, if any, vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps drives iPhone sales.

You seem to want to claim that the only relevant difference for consumers between iPhones and Android phones is App Store lockdown, and that's simply not true. There are a bunch of relevant differences.

[tambourine_man]

> Yes? We're both already in agreement about that.

Ah, that wasn't clear to me.

Of course there are differences between the platforms, but not enough to justify legislation, IMO. Comparing current Apple to 95-2005 Microsoft is not useful. Mac and Linux users had to run Windows in one way or another to interoperate with the rest of the world in many situations back then. Not true for Android at all.

[lapcat]

You're avoiding my question. You claimed, "a large percentage of Apple customers are buying iPhones because of those restrictions and not in spite of them", and I requested empirical evidence to support this claim. You've still not provided such evidence. You keep changing the subject to legislation or monopoly or whatever, but I simply want proof that a large percentage of iPhone customers buy iPhones specifically because iPhone prevents them from installing whatever 3rd software they want.

In my view, iPhone is a very complex device with a lot of features, consumers have many different reasons for buying them, and vendor lockdown of 3rd party apps is probably not at the top of most people's lists. I've actually never heard anyone cite that as the main reason. Here's a related question: how many iPhone owners have you heard say that they'll switch to Android if Apple allowed sideloading? How many European iPhone owners are saying it now, with the DMA changes forthcoming?

[tambourine_man]

Of course, no one will answer “yes” to a direct question “do you want more restrictions”. Many, however, will concede that being more secure and stable is more important than side loading, if given a choice. I thought this reasoning was implied.

And the proof you ask for is in the popularity of the device. I've heard many times that even though it is more expensive, security and reliability are important enough to justify the purchase. I'm sure design, life-style brand/marketing play a role as well, but to much lesser extent, in my opinion.

I have actually never heard a non-dev request side loading, for example. I have heard a few younger, more tech savvy users, wanting to go crazy with home screen and skin customizations like you can with Android.