In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.
In order to sell goods in a place like Walmart, a manufacturer is subject to onerous terms. Why is the app store different than a retailer limiting access to their shelf space? I personally feel they are different but I cannot put into words why.
Avoiding Google surveillance meant you could only buy an Apple car. You could then only buy gasoline at Apple gas stations. People in your town who wanted to change your oil had to pay an annual fee to Apple to even be considered, would have to pay 30% of revenue to Apple if approved, and could be put out of business at any moment with no recourse by whatever happened in secret behind the Apple fortress walls.
You as a car owner could not choose to buy tires or get "your" car painted or even get your car washed by anyone without going through Apple. You paid Apple for the car wash, because (no matter what you or the people washing your car would prefer) you were Apple's customer and the car you paid for was Apple's car.
For your "safety", of course.
A phone is as fundamental to the infrastructure of your life today as a car. Any company that could utterly control it would probably become a trillion-dollar company.
The problem with most comments shouting “30% is too high!” is that it’s impossible to throw out a better number that isn’t entirely arbitrary. The issue isn’t the number.
The issue is the mechanism by which that number can be enforced.
If we agree smartphones have become essential infrastructure, needed for the modern economy to function, we should not allow just 2 companies to have such power over it.
What makes people uncomfortable about this though, is that Apple has really done nothing wrong to get here. It’s just that their product and the App Store concept they popularized became so successful, that it’s now essential to modern life.
For the people arguing against regulation, I totally understand the uncomfortable feeling that creates.
(That may not even be 100% hypothetical. They have lots of money, so can afford getting delayed payment for phones. They might even be able to become a global phone company, too, and rent you a phone and a network subscription)
Plus, you could unlock your phone (in some cases) and move to another carrier, which theoretically meant a different store! True freedom.
Of course actually using these phones and putting apps on them was MISERABLE, mostly because they were symbian and/or j2me apps
Imagine if you could buy shoes only at Walmart because you bought the shoe rack there.
No you can't. Walmart often requires vendors to make a special Walmart-only version of their product. So there is nothing that's truly comparable.
There is no "vendor lock in" for t-shirts
You are not forced to buy walmart special editions using Walmart payment gateway and vendors don't have to pay Walmart a 30% cut, the opposite is true, Walmart HS to buy at least N items and pay in advance to be able to require a special edition, even though they don't know if they are going to sell all of them
This analogy only works if Walmart had a contract with 50% of Americans to buy everything from Walmart only and nowhere else. Those people would not be allowed to even grow their own tomatoes in their gardens, unless they pay Walmart $99 per year for that privilege.