The "Apple is not dominant" retort is very correct but also very frustrating.
Apple is dominant in the sense that they command an outsize portion of developer/consumer mindshare. So issues like this just get drowned out in all the fawning.
Because if they did, "Tide users" and "Ford owners" would be their own markets too which would mean that all brands would be monopolists by default.
You don't get to throw anti-trust at Apple because you can't be bothered to switch to a different type of smartphone, just like you can't throw anti-trust at Ford because you don't want to drive a Chevy. The notion is absurd.
> Because if they did, "Tide users" and "Ford owners" would be their own markets too which would mean that all brands would be monopolists by default.
Which could (in a formal logic, not juristic logic, sense) lead to an argument why anybody should be allowed to install any software they want on their devices - a demand that I, as a hacker, fully support.
What does Ford do differently with respect to software on their, say, entertainment system or ECU computers that Apple doesn't do with their iOS devices to allow you to draw this distinction?
Meaning that you can easily replace an entire computer system with another entirely different computer system? What stops you from doing the same with your iPhone? (i.e. buying, say, an Android device)
Have you personally ever done so? I have, and it ain't so easy, especially if you are not just swapping in a piggyback system, but actually installing a whole new ECU.
Yup. I agree with you 100%. This discussion was brought up earlier this week on HN and someone mentioned how Samsung can't get in trouble for anti-trust because you can't install an alternate browser on their TVs.
Apple is dominant in the sense that they command an outsize portion of developer/consumer mindshare. So issues like this just get drowned out in all the fawning.