Mainly because Apple hardware is amazing. I used to run Windows on Bootcamp on my MacBook and loved it and now Windows is worse, Apple Silicon is just way better. If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"
That doesn’t seem like something to legislate over to me though. “Your hardware is too good, you’re going to have to change the associated business model”? Madness, shouldn’t the onus just be on Android phone manufacturers to up their game? It’s not like Apple got where they are with iPhones for free, they heavily invested and are now enjoying the fruits.
> If Apple didn't allow me to install outside the AppStore on my MacBook I will complain as well and hopefully you won't be like "IDK, Windows exists"
If Apple suddenly changed Macs, sure. But, iOS has always been this way. Anyone who bought an iOS device over the last decade+ knows exactly the limitations and how it works. Android exists for those who want more open, yet the market has shown ~50% don't care about Android level openness.
I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work, especially when an alternative does exist and consumers have spoken with their money.
Of course, this would be different if Android and iOS operated the same, or one had an overwhelming majority of the market. Because then consumers wouldn't have a choice.
> I think it's wrong to legislate something just because it doesn't work how I want it to work
What absolute nonsense is this? That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society. Apple stealing money from a huge market isn't helping anyone so we fix it. Simple as.
> That is literally the entire point of legislation, to change things that aren't working how we want them to, for example to be more beneficial to society.
Where do you get this idea? What is the limit on this principle? The DMA that you keep referring to is an European legal framework. Is it your opinion that everyone must bow down to what European legislators and regulators deem "beneficial"?
An argument that derives entirely from the idea that "the government has decided it is beneficial" is unpersuasive, IMHO.
I said how I want them to work, not what is beneficial to society. Societal benefit is hard to balance and define. Don't assume what you want is automatically better for society as a whole.
I assume our politicians already spent significant time thinking about this before coming up with the DMA. But okay, I'll bite. How does it benefit society for Apple to steal 30% of everyone's transactions?
