> I want to be able to do things myself without Apple using the government to attack my business.
Here, how exactly does it attack your business? Is your business built around Apple ecosystem? Have you accepted their terms and conditions? there's no way to enter into any relations with Apple without accepting their terms of the services. Have you got warrants coming from Apple lawyers?
> Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking
You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though. For the same reason why you would refuse to give me access to your business (whatever it does) to compete with you. You cannot just freely re-interpret the definition of the market so that it fits your narrative. Market is never a private entity's platform.
> I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
It's either open standards or inter-operability with a proprietory standard. If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop. There's hundreds of companies who do that regularly, they pay their fees and make money along the way. There are also businesses who do not interact with Apple in any shape or form yet are able to build their mobile solutions. Because Mobile is not "Applications for either Android or iOS", you can believe this but that doesn't make it anyhow true.
> Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now.
There was a time when they didn't exist at all, the fact that there are two now doesn't change anything. Again, all your points are about convenience to you, not about inability to create a new platform. And by the way, define "viable".
> people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
are you elected to represent all of those who comment positively on that topic? I can play this game too, and "we" who oppose it neither do want any third-party battery to be presented as a genuine replacement for the original ones nor desire to have a device that is easily disassembled by third-parties. Had we wanted these features, we'd go and buy any noname Android phone.
> But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies
You have to prove that, so far it's an unsubstantiated claim. Another one, because you feel like it. The majority of people use these two platofrms not because there are no alternatives, but because it doesn't worth the effort to switch to anything else. The existing solutions already are convenient enough. Notice the difference. You may disagree with this, but again, it's just your wishes.
> you would refuse to give me access to your business
You will always be free to build 3rd-party products that work with and wrap around my products. I will never use the law as a cudgel to stop you from fairly competing with me. Users have an inherent right to control the devices that they own.
> You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though
Not asking to compete on their platform. I want to be able to compete on my platform, and I don't want Apple to tell me whether or not I'm allowed to build a platform that's compatible with iOS apps.
> If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop.
Why? Why can the government decide what I'm allowed to build? If I can build a solution by myself without a contract that interops with Apple's platforms, why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to do that? If I can build a device that runs iOS, why should the government say that I'm not allowed to do that?
What right does the government have to stop me from building and distributing products that solve my problems?
> [...]
This is ridiculous.
If you support regulation, then fine. Go argue about what the regulations are.
If you don't support regulation, then fine. Let's get rid of artificial government monopolies that allow companies to decide what is and isn't legal. Copyright is not a natural right.
You're taking a great many words to say that you selectively oppose regulation only when it's directed towards the protection of the consumer. If that's your position, then fine, but I'm not going to debate it, I don't think that position is logically coherent enough to debate.
Here, how exactly does it attack your business? Is your business built around Apple ecosystem? Have you accepted their terms and conditions? there's no way to enter into any relations with Apple without accepting their terms of the services. Have you got warrants coming from Apple lawyers?
> Just let people compete, that's all I'm asking
You are free to compete, not on their platform at their cost though. For the same reason why you would refuse to give me access to your business (whatever it does) to compete with you. You cannot just freely re-interpret the definition of the market so that it fits your narrative. Market is never a private entity's platform.
> I don't know if this is on purpose or not, but I just listed a few of the ways that Apple can interfere with Open standards, including suing competitors that use adversarial operability to get around network effects in an entrenched market.
It's either open standards or inter-operability with a proprietory standard. If you don't want to get sued, either buy the license or build your own solution that doesn't require interop. There's hundreds of companies who do that regularly, they pay their fees and make money along the way. There are also businesses who do not interact with Apple in any shape or form yet are able to build their mobile solutions. Because Mobile is not "Applications for either Android or iOS", you can believe this but that doesn't make it anyhow true.
> Those are the only two viable mobile platforms that exist right now.
There was a time when they didn't exist at all, the fact that there are two now doesn't change anything. Again, all your points are about convenience to you, not about inability to create a new platform. And by the way, define "viable".
> people accuse us of trying to force Apple to fix our phones for free when in reality we just want to stop Apple from suing everyone who imports a 3rd-party battery.
are you elected to represent all of those who comment positively on that topic? I can play this game too, and "we" who oppose it neither do want any third-party battery to be presented as a genuine replacement for the original ones nor desire to have a device that is easily disassembled by third-parties. Had we wanted these features, we'd go and buy any noname Android phone.
> But don't pretend the web is an escape hatch when its mobile support depends entirely on the two companies
You have to prove that, so far it's an unsubstantiated claim. Another one, because you feel like it. The majority of people use these two platofrms not because there are no alternatives, but because it doesn't worth the effort to switch to anything else. The existing solutions already are convenient enough. Notice the difference. You may disagree with this, but again, it's just your wishes.