But you are not enforced to use Windows or Android. Closed ecosystem is part of the product in this case. Nobody stops anyone else from creating, for example, Linux. So how is it anti-competetive?

It comes down to market share. For smart phones, you basically have two options for OS, and Apple is dominant in many markets. For desktops, Microsoft's position is even more dominant. When you have such a dominant position, there's a lot of room to abuse that position, so the more restrictions you should have on being able to abuse that position. Linux has a vanishingly small market position vs Windows and Android/iOS, so it's not really a competitor when it comes to anti-trust.

But part of the reason Apple is dominant is their closed garden approach - that is literally part of their product. I cannot understand how that's a bad thing. For me it's akin to a flute manufacturer producing flutes and everything is okay until they get popular. Suddenly they are hated because they don't produce flutes incorporating parts from different manufacturers? Even if they produce them to allow exchanging the parts? Same for Microsoft and their Internet Explorer case. I didn't understand back then I don't understand now why they lost lawsuit if they didn't, IIRC, block you from installing anything else. It would be different matter for me if it was for example Windows explictly blocking you from downloading another browser than Internet Explorer. That's abuse. But just having a default made by the same company being bad?

Whether they made it clear isn't really the issue, the issue is two-fold: - is it anti-competitive? If so, it's an anti-trust issue - what does the user get in return? For a contract to be valid, it needs to benefit both parties I answered the first below, so I'll focus on the second here. > It doesn't hurt anyone Not having options *always* hurts competition, and that hurts the consumer. For me, it comes down to the idea of ownership. Do you *really* own your device if you can't install what you want on it? Do you really own your app if you can't pick the payment processors you want to support? I get the value in being able to lock your device down and block payment processors you don't trust, but that should be up to the user or the IT dept at your org. To truly own your device you need to be able to make those choices. Here's what I think is reasonable: - Apple requires apps to include Apple Pay (or whatever) as a payment processor if they release through the App Store - devices ship "locked down" by default, with the option to allow third party app stores if the user chooses; this should be presented as an option on first boot or if the options there changes - Apple should not be able to force app devs to use a particular payment processor for in-app purchases, though Apple can deny an app for not charging enough at purchase time To me, that sounds competitive, respects the idea of ownership, and still gives Apple the high likelihood of continuing to make money hand over fist because most people won't change the default.

> Apple is dominant is their closed garden approach I really don't think that's true, I think Apple became dominant through being first to market, having attractive design (was largely sold as a fashion/luxury item), and attracting devs early on (mostly through being first to market). Most of the value of the App Store was the quality of app reviews, which was due to developer fees (raise barrier to releasing trash) and actual app reviews, and that's how Apple earned their 30% cut. Since iPhones were a luxury item, they attracted people willing to actually spend money on apps, which attracted more developers. I really can't see how not having other options somehow improves the attractiveness of iOS. Having high quality apps on the App Store made it more attractive, sure, but it didn't make other app stores unwanted, in fact not being able to side load apps/stores has been a complaint since pretty much the beginning. Nobody is saying Apple is bad because they're popular, they're saying Apple is bad because they're anti-competitive. > I didn’t understand back then I don’t understand now why they lost lawsuit if they didn’t, IIRC, block you from installing anything else. Microsoft restricted access to internal APIs that made the browser work a lot faster, so other browsers would *always* be slower and a worse experience vs Internet Explorer because Microsoft prevented them from getting the most out of the hardware. You could install an alternative, sure, but it would be hamstrung and most would blame the browser, not MS. Having a default wasn't the problem, Microsoft still has a default browser to this day and it's totally fine. Being anticompetitive, however, isn't fine.

The flute doesn't make for a good example, as the end user can take it and modify it as they wish, including third party parts. If we force it: It would be if the manufacturer made it such that all (even third party) parts for These flutes can only be distributed through their store, and they use this restriction to force any third party to comply with additional requirements. The key problem is isn't including third party parts, it is actively blocking the usage of third party parts, forcing additional rules (which affect existing markets, like payment processors) upon them, making use of control and market dominance to accomplish this. The Microsoft case was, in my view, weaker than this case against Apple, but their significant market dominance in the desktop OS market made it such that it was deemed anti-competitive anyways. It probably did not help that web standards suffered greatly when MS was at the helm, and making a competive compatible browser was nigh impossible.

Did not know about the API. This clears a lot, thanks. And about closed garden being wanted - if evrything goes through the people who made the thing, then these things are guaranteed to work on the thing. No wondering, no thinking, it just works. And such closed and tight thing was something I heard from people boasting iphones as best thing.

That's mostly copium. There are some benefits to Apple's ecosystem, such as iMessage and iCloud working across devices, but that has nothing to so with the App Store, but Apple's first party apps. The App Store certainly has value through its audits, but that could still be a thing with rival stores existing on the platform. What harm does having more options for installing apps have for iPhone users? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to. Do it like Android and tell users that those apps aren't reviewed by Apple and could cause problems, but only the first time (or perhaps the first time per source).

I actually have seen the closed garden nature of Apple be listed amongst its attractive features between laypeople. There’s no fiddly bits, everything is simplified, almost no configuration required, and the closed garden means there’s some implied quality control going on. For people for whom computers and technology is scary, the closed garden is a feature, not a bug.

Sure, and you can have that by not installing stuff outside the App Store. I don't see how having the option is a bad thing...

I absolutely and completely agree with you. I’m just saying, my aging mother does not. Having the option, to her, would make the iPhone a far inferior product. She is not alone in her opinion.

I just don't understand that. It doesn't add any complexity, you can literally ignore it. In fact, I'm guessing most Android users don't know you can install apps outside the Play Store, so that's an example of it literally not mattering if you don't want to use that feature.

The panic at the existence of additional options you don’t use and will never use is, unfortunately, strong in some people. It is what it is. I also have an iPhone and absolutely would love a 2nd store. I’m trying to figure out how to side load as it is, so I can get a version of YouTube that can keep playing audio while the screen isn’t on. I’d love that. My mother would be in fits of panic at the thought.

I dont think most android users know you can install alternstive app stores and otherwise sideload apps