They also don't make the Apple Watch compatible with Android, so they are also giving up their own access to a huge chunk of potential buyers (70% of worldwide smartphone users are on Android). So maybe we're missing something.
> In your view, what should Garmin have done if the major Android players blocked 3rd party feature parity from the beginning along with Apple?
In your view, what would happen if only one smart phone manufacturer ever offered any watch integration API? Would that make all of the others (who don't offer an API) anti-competitive? Or would they just have a worse value proposition for their products?
I can't believe this is the hill I'm going to die on- I'm not really an Apple fanboy, and I don't like some of the things they do (like 30% App Store fees or core technology fees in Europe). But I really don't see how Apple not opening up access to their phone constitutes anti-competitive practice. Companies are not obligated to deliver privileged access to their products. It's not a right you have to build a product off of someone else's product. The fact that they have opened up access in some categories does not make it anti-competitive that they didn't open up access in all categories. So many products are closed off in so many categories, why are we complaining about this time?