Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Did you read my comment at all? I was arguing that if iOS gained a large

Just like you can use Linux instead of Windows, you can choose Android instead of iOS. Did you read my comment at all? I was arguing that if iOS gained a large enough market share, using Android might become a choice with unrealistic costs, like insisting on using OpenOffice instead of Microsoft Office. You could do it, sure, but you'd alienate all your colleagues and/or limiting your choices of employment. If people want Apple products they will buy them and if there exists a market that Apple chooses not to sell to, other companies will exploit it. That's a straw man argument. If making iOS more open would necessarily equate to Apple choosing not to service any market, please show me how. Best for who? You? That question is peculiar, considering that it's a direct response to my saying "their own best long-term interests". :p You, like I, may like the freedom that OSs like Android allow, but the majority of people don't really care at all. That's actually part of my point about people not necessarily making choices that are in their own best long-term interests. Let's use SUVs as an analogy. SUVs are bad for the environment. What's bad for the environment will in the long run be bad for themselves. People still buy SUVs because they're spacious. In the same way, I would argue that, pleasing as the restricted platforms Apple produces are to consumers right now, the lack of freedom might result in a long term loss for consumers.