> Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. This is not my argument. It is not just inconsistent, it is selective. Major players are given far more leeway t

> Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. This is not my argument. It is not just inconsistent, it is selective. Major players are given far more leeway than small ones. There are obvious antitrust concerns, such as Spotify being required to give Apple 30% of it's revenue for it's service that competes with Apple Music[0]. There are concerns about freedom of speech and information, such as Apple removing an app that notified the user when there was a U.S. drone strike[1], or the Hong Kong protest app that China pressured them into removing. Or blocking all VPN apps in China. And even if the argument at the end of the day is "I don't care; I like having a curated app store", why does that imply that Apple should be able to force users into only using theirs? How do you lose anything if users are allowed to install apps from other places, in some cases where there are serious human rights issues at stake? 0: https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-store-under-formal-antitrust-probe-in-europe/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-stor... 1: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-apple-accepts-app-that-tracks-u-s-drone-strikes/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-appl...