[zshrc]

Microsoft didn't have competition in the 90s. Apple has plenty of competition, they've just built up a competitive advantage which is their fully-integrated platform. Googles been trying to build one on the Pixel for years and haven't come close to their success.

Apples been doing this "next level of nefarious" since the App Store's introduction in iPhoneOS 3.0, and it's been fine up to this point, otherwise the platform (and consequentially the apps on these platform -- spotify) wouldn't have thrived the way it did.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Apple has plenty of competition

What competition? Apple has a 87% market share amongst US teenage population[1], Epic's core gamer market. It's basically a monopoly amongst their core demographic which will grow up to be adults with jobs and paycheck and guess what they'll buy? More Apple. With <13% market share Android isn't even in the race.

[1] https://www.barrons.com/articles/apple-stock-teens-iphone-e5...

[zshrc]

But is anyone prohibited from going out and buying an Android? I see plenty of Samsung ads on TV.

Does Apple stop you from downloading Signal and communicating with your Android friends that way?

It's called "competitive advantage" in the US.

[causal]

I find it frustrating when people think something can't be a trust just because one can imagine hoops a consumer could jump through to find an alternative. Switching from iPhone to Android is onerous, and most users are locked into multi-year payments contracts for the device they have.

A healthy competitive environment should have 10+ options. The fact that two massive corporations have the entire space locked up is not sufficiently competitive nor healthy for consumers.

[giantrobot]

The previously existing competition should have competed rather than completely fucking up. Both Apple and Google started as complete underdogs in the phone market.

Many current Android manufacturers used to built phones running their own platforms or Windows Mobile. Symbian, Windows Mobile, PalmOS, and BlackBerry all died not because Apple or Google somehow hamstrung them but because they sucked compared to what Apple and Google were selling.

[causal]

I agree that would have been nice. But that is not the consumer's fault; it is however in the consumer's interest to have strong antitrust laws which restore a competitive environment.

[giantrobot]

What anti-trust laws are going to restore a "competitive" environment? The competitors couldn't compete. They failed. They failed with a huge head start and incumbent advantage! Apple and Google were the underdogs. They made better products people wanted.

Microsoft even tried a second (well, fourth) time and failed again! All these companies failed for their own issues and not any sort of action on Apple's part.

No legislation is going to make a company fundamentally understand the smartphone market, consumer electronics, or help them understand effective operations. No law is going to help them avoid visits from the Good Idea Fairy or executive hubris to avoid stupid business decisions. You're not going to regulate your way into finding investors willing to put up the cash to make a realistic play in the current smartphone market.

[Narishma]

> But is anyone prohibited from going out and buying an Android?

Yes, through social pressure.