> I don't give the most minuscule damn about how Apple having to deal with "broad hardware quality and compatibility". Let the trillion dollar company figure th

> I don't give the most minuscule damn about how Apple having to deal with "broad hardware quality and compatibility". Let the trillion dollar company figure that out. You say this but then when your knockoff part uses a driver from a different older phone that gets pulled from an iOS release, you’ll be filing a lawsuit about how apple “deliberately” broke your property. https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/ https://9to5mac.com/2016/02/18/ios-9-2-1-error-53-update/ Like are you just demanding that apple support third party components with ongoing software development or you’ll sue? Because that’s literally what already happened. People have this “buy the cheapest sushi, get worms” mindset when they’re being toughguy internet libertarians but when it’s their own personal loss they absolutely start looking to make it someone else’s problem. Bioshock was so right. That’s a massive brand image problem on top of the financial risk posed, a rational actor certainly might choose to opt out of that broad support model and it’s their market right to choose to choose to opt out of that. But that’s where we get into the “socialism/regulatory protections for me, markets for thee” thing. Just like with the sideloading and the protections that provides against "third-party stores" using that as a dodge for app review/violating user privacies - for a lot of android users it's not enough that they just win in the marketplace of ideas, they have to actually outlaw and ban any competing business models that they don't like. Again, bioshock nailed it so perfectly - the market is awesome until it picks a solution you don't like/that doesn't make you a profit.