The article states that Apple is extorting users.
Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?
Because only the worst developers believe they are more important than the consumer.
In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not use that?
So I am forced to use an iPhone. Regulation is necessary in Oligopolys.
You can, on the other hand, support businesses or communities that are.
> If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism.
I think that's just called bad decision making, which vendors are completely free to make. There are plenty of apps that are Android only, and I'm sure they fully realize their revenue will be less as a result. There are also plenty of third party game developers making exclusive titles for Playstation or Xbox all the time. They're roughly neck and neck outside of Japan, but in Japan, it's no contest, Playstation is completely dominant. Assuming we ignore Nintendo, would you then suggest that Sony has a monopoly on consoles there? One could claim that if you're a developer in Japan and you don't target Playstation in Japan, you're going to lose. But if the goal is maximum revenue ...that's just bad decision making. If the Xbox market in Japan just isn't coughing up dollars, how is that Sony's problem?
Rather than continuously trying to compare Apple to a monopoly, which it isn't, I think the more effective comparison would be with RAND and FRAND. I don't know what kind of legal hoops would need to be jumped through to make the legal justification work, but it seems like Apple has an essential technology (the App Store), and must be obligated to license it (arguably reflected via the fee it charges), but that is an extant example of government regulation where the fee could be legally managed.
Now, don't get me wrong, as a consumer I do want to _own_ my device and have the freedom to do anything with it, even if I never exercise that freedom. And as a consumer I use my right to vote with my wallet by never purchasing iPhones and explain my decision to anyone that cares to listen. But in no way does that mean that I think what Apple is doing is wrong or illegal nor do I think they should be forced to change their business model because some people think they can have the cake and eat it too.
Just because 2 bad actors exist doesn’t mean we can’t stop them.
If, however, you want to impose the support of other stores on Apple by the means of regulations, you're effectively supporting the use of the government's monopoly of force against a company that is building products that people are happy to pay a premium to buy products from (and therefore are perfectly fine with the app store).
There's a name for this: Crony Capitalism.
Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants.
This brand of laissez-faire sentimentalism is very predictable, but it is neither here nor there.
> unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market.
Given that Apple's control of its platform comes with forcing of 30% fees on its competitors (such as ProtonMail, the OP), it would be less giving advantages to other competitors, than refusing unfair advantages that Apple itself has exploited and enjoyed under the current state of affairs.
> Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants.
Then it should rest its laurels on the quality of its products and not on restrictive anti-competitive behavior levied upon its competitors. After all the App Store would be nothing without 3rd party developers, and the world in which Steve Jobs had chosen to never open up the platform to such developers would be a much barer one indeed.
I mean, i thought everyone agreed across the political spectrum that what China is doing in Hong-kong is bad. Reading this thread, i stand corrected.
On the other hand, are you saying that because of your ideas on how the world should run that contract is invalid and that Apple should be forced to change it retroactively, despite the fact they are not causing harm to anyone?
China invading Hong Kong is an aggression, for sure, but so is the EU interference in the free market and private contracts under whatever justification.
The case here is driven mostly by Spotify who claim (my paraphrasing) they cannot benefit Apple customers equaly because of Apple restrictive practices and fee model.
You may not have purchased a Apple device with intention to use with Spotify, but others may.
(Now extrapolate the Spotify story to any appmaker who wish to sell to Apple customers)
The better question is why hasn’t Spotify made a decent watch app that can stream directly to it and download music for off line use? Apple added the ability last year.
How much of a cut does Spotify take from musicians to be on its platform?
The problem is: all of these big techs want to be a platform, and all of them sell (to their investors) the idea that their platform will be very profitable precisely because it will lock the participants inside a ecosystem hard to escape from.
Apple wasn't always in this business.
Spotify also wants to be a “platform”. The creators get a far smaller percentage and they are locking up “podcasts” behind their “walled garden”
> And Spotify may well be target of investigation one day. They are also in the monopolistic platform business model.
So, not only can you can only use Apple's payment methods, but you have to lie (by omission) to consumers about their options.
This is the market distortion of the App Store.
The rules only oblige app vendors if they agree with that contract. Users also only engage in doing business with Apple on a voluntary basis. That's not extortion, by definition.
What is unlawful, at least in my enlightened jurisdiction, is abusing market power to mislead the consumer, and even more so obliging other parties to do so.
Have you ever heard of anybody releasing a wildly successful app and it not being in the Apple app store?
Are you aware that there are many many many more stores like Walmart than there are stores like the Apple app store?
Tell that to all of the low end TV manufacturers, game systems (see Sega), toy manufacturers, and back in the day musicians who went out of their way to create an edited version just for Walmart.
Target? Best Buy? Costco? Amazon???
And the list doesn't end there - even Khol's sells toys - https://www.kohls.com/catalog/toys.jsp?CN=Department:Toys&se...
Try harder.
Best Buy sells electronic games but there is far more to toys than that.
B&N, Target, Costco, IKEA, and a number of others on the list do, in fact, sell toys in their brick and mortar stores.
I would have thought that is obvious to be honest.
In fact, the vast majority of people get something other than an iPhone.
Not sure how you equate that with a monopoly.