In tabletop board games, I often give advice to the other players that genuinely helps them. Sometimes--not always--the advice is tweaked such that it also helps me or hurts one of my opponents. After a while, this can instill "Iocaine Powder" doubt whenever I advise someone to do something they were probably already considering. It's fun to watch when someone does something other than the clearly optimal move, just because I said it was clearly optimal. My sibling has adopted the counter-strategy of doing something gratuitously damaging to me, regardless of the strategic cost, whenever I try the manipulative-helpful gambit, but no one else has adopted that yet.
So I can't fault the strategy here. Clearly, Apple is always on its own side, even when it appears to be doing something great for its customers. Whether it did this or not, it would still be reaping 30% from the Apple App Store, where the "leave me alone" versus "pay me" arms race is markedly less obvious to the median user.
The same rationale Apple uses for patching the Web to be more usable could also be used by a jailbreaker who bypasses in-app purchases or advertisements. It should probably expect advertisers to fight back to protect their business just as fiercely as Apple guards its App Store revenue.
You offered no evidence for the statement "Clearly, Apple is always on its own side".
And that's my point.
This is a thing people say, sans evidence, that is then excepted as a gospel truth because it makes some amount of
"evil businesses are always evil" sense.
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $45.4 billion and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $1.67. These results compare to revenue of $42.4 billion and earnings per diluted share of $1.42 in the year-ago quarter....
"Apple’s board of directors has declared a cash dividend of $0.63 per share of the Company’s common stock. The dividend is payable on August 17, 2017 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on August 14, 2017...."
Apple is on its own side, and it is winning. It occasionally allies itself with users, and they mutually benefit from the arrangement. The users, of course, do not release quarterly reports on how happy they are, and don't break that down by any particular company, so we can't compare to see who benefits more.
But Apple also--more rarely--does something hostile to users. I would cite as an example the removal of TRRS connectors from newer iPhones. Clearly, in that, Apple was squarely on its own side, and users that didn't like the change could use a dongle or sod off.
So far the evidence you've presented is that Apple makes money, and that they abandoned a technology they no longer felt merited inclusion in a product.
That is not evidence of malevolence on Apple's part, nor specifically that the inclusion of anti-tracking technology has malicious business-case intent.
So I can't fault the strategy here. Clearly, Apple is always on its own side, even when it appears to be doing something great for its customers. Whether it did this or not, it would still be reaping 30% from the Apple App Store, where the "leave me alone" versus "pay me" arms race is markedly less obvious to the median user.
The same rationale Apple uses for patching the Web to be more usable could also be used by a jailbreaker who bypasses in-app purchases or advertisements. It should probably expect advertisers to fight back to protect their business just as fiercely as Apple guards its App Store revenue.