> The phenomenon of Apple releasing a feature that supplants or obviates third-party software is so well known that being Sherlocked has become an accepted term used within the Mac and iOS developer community.
(Honestly, I think the fuss over Sherlock was overblown, but they definitely have a bit of a reputation for this.)
Does Apple build features into their core products that resemble other products on the market? Absolutely but often it helps raise the bar for that type of software. It gives users who were never going to go looking for another app something they didn't have before, it sets the floor for what they type of app should do/how it should look, and it gives existing apps a space to carve out a pro/prosumer space with features that Apple will never implement.
Spotlight (specifically the Command+space popup) exists and I think that's a net win for macOS, I don't use it, I use Alfred and have no plans to leave. Same with Notes vs Drafts or Weather vs Carrot Weather or Reminders vs Things, and the list goes on.
Does it clear out some of the bottom of the barrel versions? Yes, I'm fine with that. Does it sometimes integrate deeper into the system in a better way than a 3rd party can (Sidecar being a good example or Camera Continuity)? Yes, but should we all deal with a hacky/crappy experience just so that Apple doesn't Sherlock someone? My answer is no.
Or do these people really think we were better off when the App Store had a thousand flashlight apps? What's next, should they not ship Safari or Preview with the operating system either?
Apple doesn't currently have one in computers, mobile devices, or VR.
"come into our walled garden where you pay to agree to these onerous and arbitrarily applied terms, we analyze every possible app to see every app and idea per version, and then copy the ones that take off allowing it to function outside the constraints of our walled garden while continuing to apply these arbitrarily enforced terms to you debilitating your business in unnecessary ways"
the regulator and existing antitrust statutes can override the clauses that someone agreed to that perpetuates this, and they should. with the alternate route for Apple being to pay the developer beginning at an independent third party's valuation.