Not necessarily, I used to use Apple Reminders initially because it was free, i found the value of a good TODOs app by using it extensively.

Then once I loved using Todo apps, I migrated to Todoist and started paying for a Todo app.

Apple Reminders is the reason why I pay for Todoist app, it helped me learn it, same reason why I moved from free iMovies app to a paid video editing app.

Same reason why I moved from Free Apple Notes to Bear Notes + Muse App (both paid subscriptions)

In a way, provided other apps keep accelerating and moving ahead of apple, apple’s free apps kinda end up working as free trial sessions for showcasing the Utility of a good App.

Also, its a good thing apple ends up commoditizing free entry-level apps, there’s a billion software out there to build for different industries, its the only way, the prices of software will fall, which means more money in our pockets to spend on other things. So it’s fine, just as long as people don’t forget to innovate, that’s the way a free market should be.

What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything. But as long as apple is commoditizing entry-level apps, for other fast moving startups that can be a good thing, as they can show better value to customers who already have tried out free apple apps and see the value of those softwares.

I would have never paid for all those apps each month, were it not for apple’s free apps that helped me see the value in it.

That's a great way to view it, I haven't looked at it from this angle before, thanks.

> What is anti-competitive tho, is stuff like Apple Music and Spotify, where spotify has to pay 30% cut to apple while apple music doesnt have to pay anything.

Yeah, that's why the monopoly is rarely a good idea for the customers, in my opinion.

To point 2: who cares? As a consumer I prefer (1) a team that will not run out of money and sell my data and (2) a free service built-in and well integrated, and (3) not yet another subscription to forget to cancel

I see your point. There are a few objective moments, imho, that I'd consider, though:

> a team that will not run out of money and sell my data

While "not run out of money" is true, the "sell my data" part is not given. For example, in 2023 Google sold its domains business (https://domains.google/) to Squarespace. Also, while not directly selling your data, they might sell the outcomes of your data in a form of ads or AI models, for example. I believe that can objectively bother some people.

Another point: this is the way to build a monopoly, or a global dominance on the market, and then dictate the rules. I see that stories about some Big Tech monopoly controversial moves are often quite popular on HN, as those situations resonate with many tech enthusiasts.

As for the rest of the point, I agree with you, that a free, high-quality, and decent service is a benefit for us, consumers, over another subscription. I still feel sorry for small bootstrapped services. But that's my subjective feeling, I'm aware of that.