They didn't have to open the platform for other software (OS) at all. Let's be happy with what we got.
Ouch. It's exactly this mentality that enables malicious actors - "it could be worse". It could always be worse, but that doesn't make it sufficient justification.
Functional equivalent: "It could always be even more anticompetitive. Let's be happy with what we got."
I said we should be happy Apple decided to open their platform - because they didn't have to, at all. It's entirely their right to not open anything, not write any documentation, or not even allow 3rd party software at all. If you don't like it, don't buy their overpriced premium products - it's not for you. I wouldn't want my own company to be forced to do/not do stuff, so of course I don't wish that upon Apple. There are enough entirely open computing platforms that are VERY cheap to obtain and easy to use, perhaps that would be a better choice for you.
Completely agree about forcing them to do or avoid strategies, though governing bodies may disagree!
Jokes aside, it seems that despite occasional marketing/rhetoric from Apple, their platform represents the minimum bound of "openness". It's only open enough to allow further business - e.g. allowing 3rd parties to develop apps in the store (from which they take a cut of proceeds) - rather than being open for the spirit of it, if that makes any sense.
They are a business so that's not exactly something one could fault them for, though.
> though governing bodies may disagree!
That's why I am reacting so strongly. If people begin to apply your thinking too broadly (e.g. to businesses like Apple) it will lead to governing bodies behaving like that. Let's apply this kind of thinking to platforms that claim to be open.