No. All that happy talk about differentiation and market forces only makes sense when there is an actual competition. We have an effective oligopoly with no real choices between them. If there is no real choice, as consumers we have to force companies to adopt more consumer-friendly posture ( and yes, that means sideloading and all the dangers that entails ).
An oligopoly is not a monopoly. You can argue that there needs to be more differentiation, not that there isn't any.
Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android. But some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings, and the other perceived positive side-effects they see.
What did I say though >> "We have an effective oligopoly"
I did not argue we have a monopoly. I argued we have an oligopoly at best ( if you count Pine and similar as viable candidates ) and duopoly at worst, which somehow manages to be worse than a monopoly for one reason and one reason only.. monopolies are more tightly regulated. Try talking about regulating current batch of market leaders and you will only hear 'private enterprise','if you don't like it, start your own', which completely manages to ignore the problem to begin with.
<< Some people want to sideload, and they can have an Android.
Hmm. Why is that statement somehow appear axiomatic why and does each sentence fragment logically follows one another? Why is it not 'some people want to use their purchase as they see fit so any device they pick they can do what they please with including "sideload"'?
<< some other people are pretty much satisfied with not being able to sideload, the uniformity it brings,
I would argue with that.
One. Not all users know it is an option.
Two. Existence of various workaround to allow sideloading suggests otherwise.
<< the uniformity it brings
If there is one thing world needs now, it is not uniformity.
<< other perceived positive side-effects they see.
