Indeed, it's about using anti-competitive business practices to lock consumers into a fad.
I'm not saying it's right, but Apple isn't the first and won't be the last to do this... In fact I can easily see Google pulling a similar model down the road some time, should they establish a larger foothold and steady product-based revenue streams. It's only a matter of time, and usually correlates well with fat revenue streams and greater influence through sheer size. All companies seek to be anti-competitive in the end, its the very nature of a company-- you're trying to capture consumers to buy your product and services, and in the end it will always lead to pushing the legal boundaries as far as possible.
Furthermore, Apple has and probably will always have a very closed ecosystem; it's seen as anti-competitive I suppose, but they're not cutting people slick deals and paying people off to support their products. Had you wanted to talk about that in regards to media sales and acquisitions, not phones, then I would have to agree. In fact, Apple's not offering BOGOs and what not, and in doing so is being less competitive, but not
anti competitive. You're always free to go elsewhere. Of course at this point everyone cites that you can't use what you purchased on the iPhone elsewhere, at least in terms of Apps. They cite this as being anti-competitive, when in fact they're just not being logical. It's no different than buying PS for Mac and then expecting it to work under windows... its no less irrational or unjustifiable of an expectation on a phone.
Also, I wouldn't call the iDevices a fad; its clearly proven itself otherwise thus far. Had it not been around for so long, I'd agree, but at this point you really can't call any of their mobile products "fads," especially given the bountiful competition that also has a fair amount of success dependent on what's in vogue at the time.
