Okay, but I don't think that's really the current discussion? It feels to me like a lot of people are talking about separate things here and trying to kind of m

Okay, but I don't think that's really the current discussion? It feels to me like a lot of people are talking about separate things here and trying to kind of mash them together. I'm interested in this ruling. I'm not saying that the ruling means that Apple isn't anti-competitive in general or in other ways, I'm not saying that an anti-steering ban would solve the entire situation, I'm not telling activists to go home, I'm not advocating for a specific solution. I'm asking about what the current implications are of this case. The parent poster was not saying that they wanted the App Store to be turned into a public utility, they were pointing out that this ruling didn't turn it into a public utility. Which... correct, but I don't think anybody anywhere was claiming that it did. A judge restricting anti-steering rules or ruling that a specific business practice is anti-competitive is not even remotely equivalent to turning the App Store into a commons.