No need. Market is functioning reasonably well, as Android, PineOS, FirefoxOS, and similar alternatives exist.
Just because someone purchased a product doesn't mean they were coerced into the purchase. Apple products still function fine and legally, if not ongoing service isn't exactly ethically run by the company management.
I'm not sure I'd like a government (whom at least in theory, exists to protect & provide as much collective good for their constituents as possible) to approach the situation in such a cold strictly economic fashion. Hundreds of millions of people unfairly being taken advantage of to the benefit of a small privileged few is exactly what I think governments ought to be trying to prevent.
>Just because someone purchased a product doesn't mean they were coerced into the purchase.
So what if they weren't coerced? Should government really have to wait until an apple exec points a gun to someone's head while they make a purchase before they can try and help? Isn't it possible a lot (I'd argue most) of these people don't realize all the financial nuances they've unwittingly become party to when choosing a phone. Think about all the grandparents who opted to get iphone because that is the one their grandchildren uses, think of all teenagers who chose IOS because that's what their friend group uses, heck think of all the literal children using IOS because that's what their parents gifted them for Christmas. Should the government really just turn their heads while children, teenagers, elderly, and so on are unwittingly agreeing to participate in a financially abusive arrangement.
I think you and I are running into the classic "is" vs "ought" disagreement. While I agree with you that this is currently legal, I also believe that it ought not to be due to the negative impact it has on hundreds of millions of people.
No, where Apple goes wrong and will lose the market is through the exercise of market access to developers, as they lock the currently largest market down. It's also a implicit tax for purchasing.
But the legal remedies are already stymied. We are stuck with the stupidity of the decision for awhile despite the minor migration inconvenience.
Thus ends the House of Jobs, not with a fight but with a pyhric win.
Apple handles this quite well, having all your subscriptions in one place easily canceled and non of this shenanigans about losing access if you cancel mid subscription.
Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires?
If apple were abusing their position, you may have a point. But you’re preemptively regulating them when they’ve been nothing but pro consumer. It’s clear this has nothing to do with the consumer.
Hey there friend, I really don't appreciate your assumptions and negative tone. I never once mentioned alternative app stores as they have nothing to do with what I am talking about.
I believe a 30% fee for other developers to innovate on their platform ultimately bad for everyone but Apple. Either the developer eats the cost and thus has less resources to work with or they offload this cost onto their consumers which results in artificially high costs for the consumer, the only one that truly benefits here is Apple.
Here you have a market used by hundreds of millions of people controlled by one company with practically zero government oversight. Even if we take the optimistic view that no one in Apple is currently taking advantage of these people (unlikely as that may be) what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage? (Let a fox into the hey pen as it were) To me it's ridiculous that consumers don't have any meaningful financial protections in this market given the sheer size, scale, and daily activity it sees.
Then how is Apple to continue development of the platform? Is your point that Apple should spend the money developing something hundreds of millions of people use, literally inventing smart phones as we know it, and they shouldn’t be able to make money on it to maintain it?
> what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage?
In general, it’s illegal to punish someone or something for an action they have not taken. You are preemptively attempting to regulate with no damages. If this were a lawsuit, it’d be thrown out and used as the new definition of frivolous.
Now answer my question. Who do you trust more to be pro consumer? The company with the proven track record and a great reputation to lose or “Random Shady Company, LLC, were totes not gonna scam you”?
