> If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it.
"Deserving" is subjective, and that attitude doesn't seem far from "might makes right". Beta was better than VHS (or so I hear), but the consumers went where the content was, and the better format lost.
> I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace.
Except it already is involved: the government issues currency and defends copyrights and patents, all backed by (heavily abstracted) violence. In fact, remove the threat of prosecuting NDAs alone, and I guarantee that Apple as we know it would collapse within a year.
> How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace?
In theory, the rules are not arbitrary, but driven by democratic processes. In practice, such rules might as well be arbitrary, if not openly hostile, and I will stipulate this as unfixable (for now).
But we already have marketplace rules all over the place, whether by law or by convention: don't false advertise, don't market poison as candy, etc. I don't see why "you're not allowed to encrypt everything so you're the only game in town" can't be one of them. Moreover, I don't see a difference between a tyrannical Apple and a tyrannical government, except in details and scale, and I'm not willing to settle for either.
For the record: I am typing this on a MacBook Pro. I think curtailing Apple's monopolistic tendencies would be not only be good for users and the ecosystem, but in the long run, good for Apple itself. For instance: if users are allowed to side-load any old app, they can curate their App Store to their heart's content, including only the best of the best, and regular users would be more satisfied their experience as a result.
they might be more satisfied, but use it less, and provide less revenue. "highly satisfied" users of a system that is optional to use will most likely provide less revenue than a system people are forced to use, but provides less overall satisfaction to the users.
"Deserving" is subjective, and that attitude doesn't seem far from "might makes right". Beta was better than VHS (or so I hear), but the consumers went where the content was, and the better format lost.
> I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace.
Except it already is involved: the government issues currency and defends copyrights and patents, all backed by (heavily abstracted) violence. In fact, remove the threat of prosecuting NDAs alone, and I guarantee that Apple as we know it would collapse within a year.
> How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace?
In theory, the rules are not arbitrary, but driven by democratic processes. In practice, such rules might as well be arbitrary, if not openly hostile, and I will stipulate this as unfixable (for now).
But we already have marketplace rules all over the place, whether by law or by convention: don't false advertise, don't market poison as candy, etc. I don't see why "you're not allowed to encrypt everything so you're the only game in town" can't be one of them. Moreover, I don't see a difference between a tyrannical Apple and a tyrannical government, except in details and scale, and I'm not willing to settle for either.
For the record: I am typing this on a MacBook Pro. I think curtailing Apple's monopolistic tendencies would be not only be good for users and the ecosystem, but in the long run, good for Apple itself. For instance: if users are allowed to side-load any old app, they can curate their App Store to their heart's content, including only the best of the best, and regular users would be more satisfied their experience as a result.