Oh well, as the downvotes have started I may as well say that I'm genuinely not convinced by any of these arguments. And I'm not in any way an Apple 'fan-boy' -

Oh well, as the downvotes have started I may as well say that I'm genuinely not convinced by any of these arguments. And I'm not in any way an Apple 'fan-boy' - I'm very much opposed to how deceptive the app-subscription system can be, and hate the monetized apps aimed at children (and have written to Apple many times about these matters). But pretty much the only substantive argument in favor of using legislation to attack Apple's 'monopoly' always seems to boil down to "their system is so much better than the alternatives that the user is locked-in". If that's the best HN has got, then I think the standard stance is basically sour grapes. Anyway, as others have pointed out, Amphetamine could totally have been distributed outside the supposed 'monopoly' store environment - so the app-developers bleating was especially egregious.