---

Apple does not exercise "tyranny."

The people would probably stop using iPhones if Apple was rotten. Consequently, the majority of those against Apple publicly are either regulators, Apple competitors or want more money from App Store to themselves and their point would not stand in a direct democracy. But even the most ugly attempt to twist the public opinion for private interest works if you have the resources.

I believe the right approach would be instead to encourage competition with Apple, to the point where Apple users start switching from Apple because of the higher IAP & subscription prices.

Seems awfully lot like Chicago / Austrian vs Kaynesian debate. Do you see any good reasons why, HOW, the Apple thing IS NOT the same as old econ school vs. another debate?

---

In real world, for some reason, one can find many examples of this behaviour that are legal. Look into Airlines for example.

Rent where lots of humans are is higher. Airports are like the locked ecosystem, bringing your own lunch is perhaps like jail-breaking the Airport.

Is not the iPhone essentially an airport? Digital area with lots of of traffic and want, but artificial limitations (and for safety reasons!)

A difference: airports are less easy to systematically attack globally

---

ALSO, I know many old software humans that advocate for the old "integrated" desktop model, PARC style. On HN, at least user kkfx has often written about this. Apple is not the same but it is the closest one, is it not?

---

Apple unlocks everything, but all (including non-Apple) software must be free software, would be a great legal compromise. Might as well ditch CR.