>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.

Tell me the name of your dispensary because I also want to buy what you've been smoking.

>But exactly because we want open platforms in the future, we need to be on Apple's side on this one.

It sounds counter intuitive because it totally is.

>Because it's clear we need both closed and open platforms on the market - each has its use cases and customers.

Why in the name of Christ do we need closed platforms? People(mostly Apple shills) keep harping on about how closed platform = security, but you can secure open platforms too if there's the will for that. Servers exposed to the web run almost exclusively open platforms(linux and FOSS SW stacks) and those who are run by competent companies and people are very secure. The "closed = more secure" argument is totally bullshit and you know it.

Do you think Windows would have been that much better if only Microsoft would have been allowed to decide what you can do with their OS and what apps you can sell/run? Honestly. The correct solution Microsoft implemented was to better secure Windows with firewall, antivirus, virtualization, core isolation, etc., not lock it down so they own it instead of you. It's not perfect, but better than being locked down. If Microsoft can secure Windows against malicious threats to protect its users then so can Apple secure iOS if they want to, instead of selling you the BS argument that the only way to secure it is to lock it down and give them exclusive control.

>Regulation ensures startups have a harder job while big corporations simply add another lawyer on the payroll.

Not this regulation. You are confused.

>Regulation is why Europe is so far behind in the high-tech field.

Super false again. Europe can't keep up with the US in this field because it's not a single 300 million people country with a single culture, language, defense and legal framework, but a collection of 26 countries with different languages, cultures, laws, militaries and spending habits, each doing their own thing, so scaling up a consumer product of one country across that many members is much more difficult to gain escape velocity and become a global leader than it is in the US. And this is after we gloss over the fact that the US is the No. 1 world economy, owns the money printer to the world reserve currency being able to dump trillion in a sector, and is the sole WW1 and WW2 victor and their tech supremacy in SV is an extension of their investments in WW2 tech that continued to bore fruit decades alter and keep them No. 1 while Europe was bombed to shit. This is why the US rules tech, not because EU has some more regulations.

>Personally, I'd rather have a whole bunch of chaotic startups trying everything and fighting Apple every which way.

Start-ups have absolutely no chance against Apple in the smartphone space anyway (how many people do you know who will buy a phone today, made by a start-up, that can't run iOS nor Android?), but this regulation will help a little.

And these regulations aren't in palce to create startups to compete with Appel, but to prevent startups ad iOS developers being abused by Apple's ban hammer. Apple won't allow your app on their store? No problem, just distribute it on another store. Why does this seem bad to you? Why should Appel decide what you can run on the device you bought and own?