> suppose that all the power tool makers except Granny Smith Tools got together and made a standard for batteries, so now you can use Makita batteries on Ryobi tools, etc. The only exception is Granny Smith tools
The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
> Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves?
Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
> If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies
That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard).
> So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions
At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.
>The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
Huh? That's literally what the smartphone market is like now, though it got there a different way. There's two OSes: iOS and Android. There's a bunch of phone makers who sell Android-based phones, and they all can run apps from the Google Play store (or other Android app stores, or side-loaded .apk files).
If you want to argue that the power tool market can't get there from its current situation, that's fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about smartphones and not power tools. You're the one who brought up power tool batteries as an analogy here, and like all analogies, it's imperfect but can be useful.
>Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
They can buy an Android phone of some kind and use any app from the places I mentioned above.
>say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard
Apple makes the exact same argument for their App Store.
>plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in
There are many places where vendors have tried, but got shot down. Auto parts is one big example.
The problem with that hypothesis is that in reality they just wouldn't do that. Once a fragmented market based on vendor lock-in is established, every manufacturer is afraid to break it because the first that breaks it has the most to lose.
> Is it correct for the government to step and and protect stupid consumers from themselves?
Do consumers have an option for interoperability today? They don't.
> If the government did this for everything that consumers buy, we might as well just have government ownership and operation of all companies
That doesn't follow, plenty of things consumers buy don't have vendor lock-in, and plenty of things that do have vendor lock-in also have available options without lock-in. Other products even have vendor lock-in, without interoperable options, but where lock-in isn't an actual problem (say, blades for electric razors: sure they are not interoperable, but they are a minor expense and have actual technical reasons for not having a standard).
> So at what point should government just let people make bad decisions
At an arbitrary point that is chosen by the regulatory bodies taking into account many of the variables that affect the markets of consumer goods.