>No computer platform should be allowed to prevent sideloading or other stores from competing.
How does this differ from "any programmable electronics should allow sideloading"? I don't see that as a very workable solution, legally, practically, or even in a pro-consumer sense.
It would certainly drive the cost of most electronics up incredibly as all devices would need to produce APIs and upgradeability.
Pretty much all CPUs are general-purpose. The vast majority don't run anything third party. Phones having general purpose computers isn't any kind of argument for who has what access.
And if the alternative for a vendor is being forced to lose enough revenue by letting any third party do whatever they want, then Apple will make an app for your bank, by contracting the bank to pay for the development.
The reason the third party platform is currently huge is because Apple created a platform for devs to publish on. If the rules were the ones prescribed above Apple would have likely taken a different route. Changing the rules because people are unhappy is simply bad precedent.
What is the vast majority here? Because servers, desktop pcs, laptops, mobile phones and tablets I think constitutes quite a big share of CPUs.
Will apple make app for every sort of app currently available in the App Store? That’s an unrealistic claim.
Changing the rules because people are unhappy is a bad precedent?? We should only change it when they are happy or what? It’s not about unhappiness, it is about disallowing them for controlling something that is an emergent property of the system they created, but is bigger then themselves. It directly effects most people on Earth, so it should not be decided by a private corporation, but by democratically elected governments.
It is no longer only Apple’s freedom to do however they want
It's hilarious to believe Apple would sacrifice their entire platform to avoid having to compete. This is nonsense. Apple will, like any profitable business, try to glean as much profit as possible and fight against any change that would lower that profit (including doom and gloom scare tactics about what it would mean), until the law goes into effect...
...And then they'll comply with it, because it's still plenty profitable to do so.
How does this differ from "any programmable electronics should allow sideloading"? I don't see that as a very workable solution, legally, practically, or even in a pro-consumer sense.
It would certainly drive the cost of most electronics up incredibly as all devices would need to produce APIs and upgradeability.