This is an... odd comment. The article is written by a company who Apple almost put out of business (as they have many others), not by acquihire, or take over

This is an... odd comment. The article is written by a company who Apple almost put out of business (as they have many others), not by acquihire, or take over but essentially by adopting Microsoft's old 'embrace, extend, extinguish' policy. Copying a feature wholesale they could well afford to purchase should they wish to emulate it. It might be legal, but it's certainly unethical and as the article argues terrible for the apple ecosystem. Moreover, you're individual preferences 'maps and email is pretty much the only one (SIC) I care about', are not the issue at hand. I call this fallacy 'I don't want it, so you can't have it'. If you're happy with Apples increasingly walled garden of apps, great. No one is suggesting you change. Many many other people however would like to avail of the choices offered by other music services, other payment services etc. Often because Apple's offerings are unavailable or severely limited in their regions. Again - if you're happy with the Appple store, great. But, on a serious note, who cares? This article isn't about your preferences, but those of other people. Giving them more freedom doesn't detract from how you choose to use your device one iota. Ditto API's - they exist specifically so that apps don't need to have full hardware access. With apple controlling the underlying hardware API's can and are limited to prevent 'spying'. Not that that's prevented companies like Facebook from doing it anyway. What we're talking about here is leveling the playing field, in other words limiting Apples monopolistic control over their devices to the benefit of consumers.