Hacker News Reader

> In this case "consumer" is better off so seems like market works as intended.

How is the consumer better off when a choice for them has been removed? If Apple's keyboard is superior, then consumers will automatically chose that and not buy this guy's software. How is this "nanny state" behaviour by Apple justified?

View on HN

I assumed that they get this option for free instead of buying an app and less stuff to install generally.

If Apple's option is worse (which I doubt, at least for English) and/or original app is free then probably consumer suffers a bit. But if consumer is worse off then it is better because AFAIK American anti-monopoly system focuses on consumer's well-being so the more examples of consumer being worse off the easier to attract courts and regulators, isn't it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com