Yeah, I really don't get the "just get an android" type of response (even though the OP here is quite polite and I'm referring to other people arguing this). If something exhibits anti-competitive behaviour, it's great if competition exists, but it does not justify the behaviour which should still be subject to typical anti-competitive laws.
So instead make it impossible to create an alternative to Apple because now there isn’t a point? Someone could have come in and done everything better than Apple and more open, but now that’s impossible. Who would bother when they could just donate to the nearest EU politician to dictate what software change they want next?
You should lobby your nearest EU politician to stop platform-holders from creating anti-competitive conditions. It damages the market, and requires regular scrutiny to prevent the corporate bean counters from deploying salami tactics.
Because guess what? Apple isn't going away, their hardware will continue to be popular, and companies will compete with them regardless. Just because one business tactic has been deemed anticompetitive doesn't mean everything is, let alone that you can't continue providing the same features under fair pretenses. Apple chooses how they respond to the legislation, and right now they are deliberately steering themselves in the most victimizing and infantile direction possible. It makes me embarrassed to be an American, where many consider this behavior an... attribute of free-market patriotism. Barf.
I didn't say they'd exist forever, just that they'd continue being around. Apple could profit $0 for the next decade and have enough cash-on-hand to continue operations for several years. It's not realistic that Apple would cease to exist immediately anyways - that's not how antitrust works.
If Apple dematerializes one day, I give you full permission to intrude on my latest comment and break the good news. There are two champagne bottles I'd like to open and I've been saving them for such an occasion.
