Tim Cook’s Fortnite trial testimony was unexpectedly revealing

> The argument equating smart phones with consoles however, is downright silly.

Yea I’m kind of the opposite. I don’t really see the difference. An Xbox has many of the same apps, a web browser, etc.

> I just don't understand how that would ruin the system for you. If anything, wouldn't it force Apple to improve their store in order to be more competitive? Would that not be a benefit to you?

The App Store on iOS and how Apple manages it is effectively a collective bargaining agreement that individual users wouldn’t be all that effective in enforcing. Items like mandating what’s being tracked and how, allowing for anonymous sign-ins, and others are possible because Apple can bargain for users via their control of the App Store.

If you take away the App Store, it’s possible (idk how likely or not though I view it as extremely likely) that Apple I as the user lose that ability to collectively bargain. Companies like Facebook will migrate their apps to third party App Stores where Apple’s beneficial (in my view) rules and terms won’t be enforced. The network effect of apps moving to third party app stores will overwhelm the iOS App Store, and the benefits I enjoy will be largely unenforceable. There won’t be anybody who is even somewhat on my side. There won’t be some sort of competition between a privacy-first Facebook and data harvesting one. So we can’t really tell what users prefer.

Apple also creates a great user experience. One way to pay, a single App Store where everything is, and via their collective bargaining position I can mostly trust that they are trying to enforce rules around privacy, not let junk or scam apps in, etc. I know these rules are not always properly enforced, but they’re there.

So I view third-party app stores as not only not beneficial but hostile to the user experience I enjoy with the iPhone. I’m vehemently against those changes. I’d rather the App Store lose support from major Apps than Apple change how they’re doing things.

And this is kind of how things work on all platforms, stores, etc. There are more strong and loose rules, but I can’t just sell skins on the Epic game store for Fortnite, they don’t allow third-party integrations. I can’t sell apples I grow in my backyard at Wal-Mart either - they have a problem with that. For some reason since Apple makes the best phone and makes the most money people think they should be treated differently, and I don’t.

If users really value these things they’ll buy Android phones or jailbreak iPhones or demand Apple open up things. So far they aren’t. It’s a vocal minority - an absolutely tiny one, and the market seems to pretty clearly say that they prefer things how they are by buying iPhone.

Amazon has produced 11 generations of Fire devices, but they all serve a very specific purpose: a portal to purchasing things from Amazon. That means their innovation has come in the form of having the absolute lowest cost devices for their level of build and hardware quality. They've innovated in that direction, investing quite heavily. You seem to want them to innovate in terms of features: That's fine as an opinion, but that is not the only direction for innovation, and Fires already have the most important feature Amazon wants for consumers: a smooth integration to buying stuff.

Eink readers, as I said, are a completely different product class, not at all comparable to iOS. And if you chart the progress they've made since their original eink devices there have been significant improvements.

The kindle app on Android has a 4.7 star rating. On iOS it's 4.8. A few negative reviews don't mean anything when their ratings are that high. Whatever issues people have, they are outliers.

I'm no Amazon fanboy-- I don't like them very much as a company. But they have absolutely innovated, you just disagree with the directions they have chosen to go with that innovation.

> I’m not sure why you think you have a right to dictate private policy on a private platform.

Well, because it is illegally anti-competitive, and the courts already ruled against microsoft, regarding web browsers.

So thats why. It is because of anti-trust law.

But what do you want to ensure: that grandma only installs malware on her phone via mistakes she is individually responsible for, or that she doesn't install malware on her phone? Maybe for the abstract 'grandma' you would take the first option. But for someone you personally care about, you're not going to choose the option that predictably ends with her being harmed, even if it will be her own fault when it happens.

> My problem is not having a way to bypass the App Store

The ability to bypass the App Store for yourself exists and has for a long time. The process might not be to your liking, but let’s stop pretending that you have no choice if you want to use iOS but not go through the App Store.