

I agree, but Apple built this tech for their users, and for whatever reason people choose to use it.
Some people choose not to use it. So why expect Apple to open their walled garden? If all your friends are inside and they love the flowers, maybe the answer isn’t to ask for free flowers from inside, but either go in yourself or choose to stay outside without the flowers?
Isn’t this like going to someone’s house and not liking their cooking, and then demanding they order pizza for you to accommodate what you want?
“36% cut of safari deal”
is very different to
“Google pays 36 percent of its search advertising revenue from Safari to keep its search engine set as the default in Apple’s browser”
The former implies some sort of fixed cost arrangement.
The latter implies a revenue share based on traffic and volume of advertising. It could even include all search revenue for ads displayed in Safari via Google owned ad networks - even if the ad placement did not originate from a google search.
I agree with this in principle.
However this would only make Apple stronger and android weaker.
Apple already does 6 years of updates, whereas android manufacturers are lucky to provide 2 years. Imposing such terms of android manufacturers will make them leave the market - thus reducing competition.
For me the importance is that it’s free - I wouldn’t even pay $5 a month for a service that I’d use in very unlikely situations probably once or twice a year.