In article <rtq4od$vf3$1@dont-email.me>,
Unbreakable Disease <unbreakable@secmail.pro> writes:
[...]
> That's why we need to develop a new mobile operating system, preferably
> cross-platform so it's the similar experience on phones, tablets,
> laptops, desktop computers, TVs and watches. If people want to play the
> game, let them play. After more than 30 years of using Apple computers,
> goodbye! My current Macintosh will be the last one.
>
> As for Epic's games, I didn't like Unreal Tournament and played Quake
> III. I don't understand Fortnite maybe I'm too old.
>
>

Granted that any company that wants to stay in business is motivated by
profit (although perhaps not ONLY by profit), there are counter-arguments
to what you've said:

* desktops, laptops, tablets, phones, TVs, and watches are only similar
to a limited degree. The input devices vary WIDELY, as does the available
screen real estate, and unless one makes very awkward tradeoffs, that
limits how similar they can appear or be interacted with. I think Apple does
a quite good job balancing that; and I understand that the new Apple Silicon
Macs can also run quite a few iPad apps.

* desktops and laptops are general purpose devices, and to the extent they're
locked down, the administrator at least is free to reduce the lockdown to
what serves their purposes. Phones and watches and TVs are less general
purpose (tablets started out like phones, but are kind of in the middle now).
Special purpose devices IMO _should_ be locked down and/or curated, not
forcing parental controls on adults, but having standards of what can be
put on them. You can still put your own code on an iDevice, but only with
the $200/yr (last I checked) certificate can you distribute it independently
and without regard to App Store rules, and then only to your own employees
(or perhaps partners) that have installed the profile that allows it; and
if Apple revokes certificates used for defacto competing app stores that
distribute their profiles more widely than the agreemenet allows, I just
don't see the problem.

I COULD see that the rate they charge for in-app purchases that don't
compete with them for media or services and dont significantly burden
Apple's infrastructure, could be reduced, not to zero, but perhaps by
1/2 to 2/3; they've done 1/2 for small developers (< $1 million/yr, I think
it was). But that's a business choice IMO (with plausible arguments pro
at least as much as con), and not something that should be forced on them.
But other terms for the App Store, esp, relating to privacy, security,
required notifications, permitted interfaces, use of location data,
etc seem perfectly reasonable, and likely to uphold user privacy and
device stability.

The last of those is a particular deal with special purpose devices. Yes,
you can add apps, but in the final analysis, a phone needs to do its
communications tasks, and a TV is a video display for fairly mindless uses,
needing to be reliable for those who never could figure out how to get their
VCR to stop blinking 12:00. And connected devices like phones, in their
vast numbers, if subverted into 'bots, could be a nightmare seldom seen before.