Ka-pi96 said:
My problem with this is that there's literally not a single person that's "forced to use their platform". Even if you "had" to have a phone there are other options than getting an Apple one. Plus I know you're talking about the US government and I don't know how it is over there, but as a Brit I know the UK government wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were to criticise Apple for this since they're much worse when it comes to monopolies (TVs), have no competition unlike Apple, and will send you to jail if you don't pay them while Apple won't/can't do anything if you don't pay them. I don't really see how this Apple winning would make things worse for consumers though. It would just maintain the status quo, no? Apple would still get their 30% cut, just like they always have. The competition would be pretty much unaffected either way too, so why would things be worse? |
In capitalism things do tend to get worse by default. Maintaining the status quo means things are getting worse. The only things that keep things at least a bit balanced are infrequent interference by the law to reign in monopolistic and immoral behavior. So yeah, if Apple gets a clean win here things will get worse, just like they always do.
Then we have to wait for the next entity to try and take them to court.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.







