[xyzzy4747]

If the customers prefer the walled garden then what’s the big deal? There are a number of other phones people can buy.

[dns_snek]

> If the customers prefer the walled garden then what’s the big deal?

What the customers "prefer" and what's good for society are two very different questions. Anti-competitive behavior for one, like charging your direct competitors a 30% tax on their revenue because you own the platform, ensuring that you always come out ahead.

> There are a number of other phones people can buy

I don't understand this argument. For smartphones there's just one viable alternative which is itself trending in the walled garden direction. Google has been imposing additional restrictions for sideloading and adding various roadblocks that are slowly reeling back user freedoms.

Both companies have a long list of customer-hostile behaviors and we have to pick one of them because interoperability is dead. Because we have to pick one, there's no real pressure to address those grievances on either side.

It's always "just use Android" when we complain about Apple and "just use iOS" when we complain about Google. It's like that scene out of South park with the Cable company people rubbing their nipples listening to disgruntled customers.

[dialup_sounds]

There are at least a dozen companies making Android-based phones without Google. Are none of them "viable"? If not, whose fault is that?

[margana]

There are Apple phones and there are Android phones, that's pretty much it. It's a duopoly. It is practically impossible for a third player to enter the market. This circular logic of "if Android does not offer enough liberties, use an Apple phone" and "if Apple does not offer enough liberties, use an Android phone" doesn't make any logical sense and everyone who uses your argument knows it, but chooses to continue making it to push an agenda.