Because the duopoly you see is the direct consequence of such a free market. There were no regulations saying there must only be two, there have been dozens of competitors free to do whatever they please, and this is the situation we've arrived at.
Moreover, the whole premise of the free market is "survival of the fittest". Well, Apple and Google are the fittest, and they survived.
> You say ‘we’ve arrived here’ as if technology and culture have stopped evolving and all new work is being done within these two companies.
> This simply isn’t so. Apple and Google (especially) are both showing signs of ossification.
One: I never said this. Two: this has nothing to do with "free market will solve things"
> There is no reason an alternative, either from the community as a whole, or from a competitor could not be built over the next 10 years.
Once again: you bemoan that free market should be able to solve the problem of the duopoly. It has already solved it: by creating the duopoly. A free market will always tend towards monopolisation for the simple reason: the best way to stay alive is by destroying and/or buying the competition. The many regulations (from antitrust law to basic things like food and safety regulations) have arisen precisely because free market never arrives at good solutions.
And even if a competitor arises, it will, once again, be a competitor with nearly unlimited power and money creating a yet another, you guessed it, duopoly or monopoly.
> There is no reason an alternative, either from the community as a whole
"Community as a whole" does not "build an alternative". "Community as a whole" is a nation/country. So now you want government intervention for some reason.
> If that seems like too long to wait, consider that it’s less time than it took for the current situation to arise.
The current situation took about 10 years to arise. And Apple and Google are quite deeply entrenched now. So now you're taking a number out of the blue, and pretend it's a given. Try this for size: "there's no reason an alternative could not be built in the next 50 years". Just as out of the blue. Doesn't sound too good now, does it?
“Community as a whole” is anyone who is interested in a different software environment, e.g. open source, corporations who don’t like the duopoly, consumers who pick something that feels better.
If it’s in so many people’s interests to develop an alternative, then there are billions of dollars, and thousands of developers available to do it.
No reason at all it has to be another company with nearly unlimited power.
Those who believe the problem cannot be solved will not be the ones to solve it.
> If it’s in so many people’s interests to develop an alternative, then there are billions of dollars, and thousands of developers available to do it.
Where are those billions of dollars suddenly materialise from?
> No reason at all it has to be another company with nearly unlimited power.
What do you think billions of dollars are?
> Those who believe the problem cannot be solved will not be the ones to solve it.
Riiight. So this problem will be solved by a magical community of thousands of people working in unison and spending billions of dollars that materialise out of thin air. Got you. As we've seen this happen with Firefox phones. And Pine phones. And Librem phones. And Meizu. And PuzzlePhone. And Shiftphone. And...
Your resort to sarcasm suggests that your argument isn’t holding up.
Nobody is talking about money materializing out of thin air. All but two companies would stand to benefit from an alternative to the duopoly. Between them they certainly have many billions of dollars invest in an alternative.
Linux solved the problem of proprietary operating systems, and the Linux we see today was in fact built by a magical community of thousands of people working in unison and spending billions of dollars.
However the billions of dollars didn’t materialize out of thin air. They came from corporations and investors who saw that they could benefit from a free platform that wasn’t under the control of one or two companies.
Moreover, the whole premise of the free market is "survival of the fittest". Well, Apple and Google are the fittest, and they survived.