>Can you justify this? These sorts of phones were unthinkable only 20 years ago, even for a billionaire and now they're extremely affordable. That is a net posi

>Can you justify this? These sorts of phones were unthinkable only 20 years ago, even for a billionaire and now they're extremely affordable. That is a net positive impact all of this seems to be at best a tiny dip in. Perhaps I worded this poorly, but I was specifically talking about the 27%-30% apple tax. The tax burden inevitably is either absorbed by the developer entirely leading to less profits and funds for them to innovate or they off board some of that tax burden by bumping their app's cost for the customer. I don't see how anyone but apple benefits in either of these situations. >Let's wait until they are aware, and let them choose. We shouldn't assume other people's choices and "act in their best interests". I'm confused... when did I recommend removing someone's choice? All I want is for the millions of people who have chosen apple to be taken advantage of less. >We have endless periods of time where the setup wasn't conducive to the sort of innovation that's happened over the last 20 years in phones. Yes and often those times coincide with awful exploitation. Industrial revolution was great for innovation, bad for the children who died working 12h a day in factories. Ideally we can strike a balance here and when it comes to preventing apple from charging 27%-30% for developers to innovate on their platform, a reasonably strong argument(s) can be made that it wouldn't prevent innovation.