It seems like you've moved from a position of "way more harm is done by protecting people than allowing freedoms" to "more harm is done by allowing Apple to do

It seems like you've moved from a position of "way more harm is done by protecting people than allowing freedoms" to "more harm is done by allowing Apple to do as they wish; we need protection from that", despite Apple being a subset of "people". And the "more of us than them" suggests that rather than any principled approach, you advocate something like the mob rule that the Athenians described to the Melians: the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Fair enough. That position has been common enough throughout history. Right now lots of people appear to like the way Apple is running their company. Does that make it right? You seem to think no, but are articulating reasons why you should think yes. That's perplexing to me. I'm trying to make sense of what I think about the disagreement between Apple and Epic. I'm not sure. The arguments people are making against Apple so far seem unsuccessful and problematic to me. I think the collective bargaining argument I've cautiously advanced might make some sense.