> However I will once again ask why the focus is on the developers so much, and not the users.
Because users don't create an anticompetitive system. Users buy things, they are ostensibly the customers that the market protects. It's akin to asking why Boeing is being lowlighted by the government while passengers are still buying 737 tickets. There is no correlation between the righteousness of a business and the desire for customers to patronize them.
> I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my iPhone.
Even on iPhone, nobody I know is refusing to buy Amazon Prime or Netflix because it goes through the browser. It might be a legitimate complaint, but it feels entirely tangential to how Apple chooses to implement their payment API.
> The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android phone.
Sure could - and the fact remains, it would have nothing to do with the regulation of the digital markets therein.
> Is it better than developers having all of the power and choice
There is literally not a single platform, even Linux, that exists with such a security model. Your hyperbolic misrepresentation of the situation is why I can so confidently and repeatedly say that you're wrong.
Obviously, iOS does not give developers "all of the power and choice" by forcing Apple to comply with the DMA. Apple still gets to choose whether they participate in the market, as well as how they implement compliant features. They can ship iPhones that default without sideloading features, and craft their user-experience however they see fit. The only caveat is that there has to be room for fair competition at the software level, or they can't operate in Europe. If that's equivalent to surrendering to developers, then it's proof that Apple was never competitive in the first place.
Because users don't create an anticompetitive system. Users buy things, they are ostensibly the customers that the market protects. It's akin to asking why Boeing is being lowlighted by the government while passengers are still buying 737 tickets. There is no correlation between the righteousness of a business and the desire for customers to patronize them.
> I... never claimed it was? I am talking about my iPhone.
Even on iPhone, nobody I know is refusing to buy Amazon Prime or Netflix because it goes through the browser. It might be a legitimate complaint, but it feels entirely tangential to how Apple chooses to implement their payment API.
> The fact remains, you could have gotten an Android phone.
Sure could - and the fact remains, it would have nothing to do with the regulation of the digital markets therein.
> Is it better than developers having all of the power and choice
There is literally not a single platform, even Linux, that exists with such a security model. Your hyperbolic misrepresentation of the situation is why I can so confidently and repeatedly say that you're wrong.
Obviously, iOS does not give developers "all of the power and choice" by forcing Apple to comply with the DMA. Apple still gets to choose whether they participate in the market, as well as how they implement compliant features. They can ship iPhones that default without sideloading features, and craft their user-experience however they see fit. The only caveat is that there has to be room for fair competition at the software level, or they can't operate in Europe. If that's equivalent to surrendering to developers, then it's proof that Apple was never competitive in the first place.