They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that product.
There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting
It's more like Apple demanding a cut of your call charges.
That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment
But it's ok because you have the option of building your own store on your own island and convincing enough people to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct.
(F-Droid is right there. It's relatively trivial to install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, replacing the whole Android OS).
Libertarianism is like the tide on hackernews, it's quite confusing
I think we are both pushing the metaphor beyond usefulness
The hardware it's running on?
I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.
> If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though!
> it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out...
No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote.
Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
I can run Doom on a refrigerator but it's still a refrigerator. Apple makes computing appliances.
Me personally? I might just let it happen (especially if it goes hand-in-glove with some other benefit, like lower cost). Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators.
> Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves
That's the business model of the alternatives to Apple. Apple's business model is value delivered through vertical integration. For their end-users, they're building a better product because they own and control the hardware, OS, and software ecosystem.
It's Nintendo-Seal-of-Approval thinking, and it's not inherently wrong so long as there are alternatives (and there are many, just none that have a supported path to using Apple's hardware).
> You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care?
I don't think Apple sees opening the bootloader as a good thing. It increases the ways the machine can be in a broken state with the only benefit to people tech-savvy enough to just use other hardware. And, of course, from a pure-business standpoint, it might kick a leg out from under the money-made-through-vertical-integration stool, which is of concern to them.
You think that having to switch a working major appliance for another because of a post-purchase update by the manufacturer is an acceptable cost for consumers to have to take on? I assume this is because you think the free market forces always end up optimal in the end somehow, and that regulation will cause more harm than good?
People buy into Apple for a certain security that the company does its best to vet the store contents. Stepping on their ability to do that diminishes the product value for the intended consumer.
I want this lock-in because THAT is what I want. THAT is what I bought and THAT is why I went Apple and not Android.
If someone asks me what phone to get I say iPhone most of the time because I know their needs and that they don't want to deal with headaches. If they need more stuff I'd recommend either G Pixel or Fairphone but they I tell them to do the research.
Well, there are other options.
Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes.
Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies.
If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).
So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little).
But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition.
[1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
There are other hardware manufacturers than Apple?
With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector.
Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments?
Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater.
One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.