The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
It's Apple store, not general store or mix market. They have every rights to prioritize their own services. If Apple services were prioritized in Google's Play Store for example, you can come back and complain.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Apple excempts itself from the rules in the App Store for its own services. It can offer the same services cheaper than the compeition and easier to access. I think they even violated the rule that prohibits ads in the notifications once. And that is the problem, because the App Store is the only store on iOS. And therefore I think they don't have the right to priotise their own services. Apple's own services should follow the same rules like third party services, w/o exceptions, and before you ask: this should also be valid for Google's Play Store or any other store on any other platform.
When I go to my local grocery store they advertise the store brand of meats and cheeses on the monitors behind the deli counter, along with ads from insurance companies and dance studios, but not other food brands.
When I’m not at the deli I hear them promoting the store brand items over the PA system. Sometimes they even give their own brand the prime spot on the shelf.
Those are all examples of the store prioritizing their own products but, so far, no investigations into the practice or pending lawsuits from other vendors claiming unfairness.
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
You mean, Apple should take a 30% cut on the services they sell through their apps? Or from the selling price?
As an app developer for both Android and iOS I can only say that from a developer perspective the App store is a monopoly for the distribution of my iOS apps.
I am 100% OK that Apple define technical requirements for the iOS apps and that there is an approval process, guaranteeing some equality and security. The business requirements, including the 30% commission, are not an issue as such.
But combined with the monopoly on the distribution channel, it smells like power abuse. Especially if you look that Apple exempts its own apps from the requirements it is imposing to others and that Apple can (and has) changed the rules or its interpretation of the rules, in order to fight competitive apps.
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
You mean, Apple should take a 30% cut on the services they sell through their apps? Or from the selling price?
Oh, wait...
Why not? Apple must be forced to treat every app the same. This essentially means also that Apple's applications which compete with others can't use private system APIs to get an advantage over others.
tehabe said: Why not? Apple must be forced to treat every app the same. This essentially means also that Apple's applications which compete with others can't use private system APIs to get an advantage over others.
Don't developers already know what system APIs aren't going to be available when they develop the app? If you develop an app knowing it would be better with access to an unavailable API, how can you then complain at a later date if Apple releases something similar and has access to the API? The example that I would use is Astropad. The developers of that app complained about Apple releasing Sidecar, but they also admitted that they knew it was likely Apple would add functionality like that at some point in the future...so their original strategy was more about releasing first and making money while Apple didn't have it's own solution.
ihatescreennames said: When I go to my local grocery store they advertise the store brand of meats and cheeses on the monitors behind the deli counter, along with ads from insurance companies and dance studios, but not other food brands.
When I’m not at the deli I hear them promoting the store brand items over the PA system. Sometimes they even give their own brand the prime spot on the shelf.
Those are all examples of the store prioritizing their own products but, so far, no investigations into the practice or pending lawsuits from other vendors claiming unfairness.
Another example would be Trader Joe's: their beer/wine/liquor section is predominantly 3rd party products, but the vast majority of everything else in the store is their own 1st party brand. They can pick and choose what sections of the store allow any type of 3rd party competition.
So far in these comments, the best the opponents of Apple's running of the App Store have been able to put up is "they're too big." Not sure what arbitrary figure they're thinking of on that, or if it applies to other industries.
As stated elsewhere, being a monopoly is not illegal. Abusing your monopoly power is illegal. Amazon, IMO, is guilty of abusing its monopoly. Spotify, too. I think Google is as well (which is why they are under numerous investigations, with new ones starting up seemingly monthly). I don't know enough about the developers' side of the App Store issue to be sure if there's any real legit complaint there, or just a sense of entitlement by developers and envy by other digital stores, but as I've pointed out previously -- -15-30 percent "cost of doing business" is not much in the real world, so why its so shocking in the digital one still befuddles me.
I agree. People tend to get overwhelmed by big numbers without considering how these big numbers are possible. The pervasive connectivity and global reach of the digital marketplace allows for exponential geometrical expansion unlike anything that we’ve ever experienced. Assigning an arbitrary number, even in the trillions, is an admission that one doesn’t truly understand the actual potential that is now a reality.
Thank you. Can we now move on please and spend effort on real abuse of market power?
And who performs "real abuse of market power" pray tell?ihatescreennames said:
Not a surprise to me but I’m not sure the same can be said for many who post here or to others going after Apple for their “unfair” App Store practices.
”But Apple has a monopoly on iOS!”
Looking at it from the other side of the argument ... compare to Windows back in the day when they were a monopoly. You could actually install a competing web browser - plenty did - but just not make it the default browser. You could also install applications from any source that you wanted, not just applications provided by Microsoft.
Apple does have a monopoly on iOS. Not in the sense that there are no alternatives if you want a mobile device - but more on that later - but rather if you own an iOS device or if you are an app maker who wants to access owners of iOS device them Apple is the only way for you to get apps on that device or reach Apple users. So in that sense Apple has more of a monopoly on the billions of iPhones, iPads, watches and Apple TV devices that it has sold than Microsoft ever did on Windows PCs. The fact that Windows had about 98% of the PC market at the time wasn't the issue. The DoJ never did anything to, say, force the adoption of Macs or Linux. They simply altered the way that Microsoft handled Windows.
Now back to "no alternatives if you want a mobile device" ... I dare say that Apple advocates try to have it both ways. 99% of the time, Android is a garbage ecosystem privacy and security issues and bad products that offers no quality apps to its users and no way for developers to make money that everyone should stay away. That leaves Apple with a monopoly on the ability to reach enterprises and affluent users on a platform that offers privacy, security and quality control. Maybe this isn't a compelling argument for the promulgators of free-to-play mobile games than can effectively run on cheap hardware like Epic Games and Fortnite, but if you are BaseCamp - or Microsoft - and need to be able to offer a secure, private consistent user experience to paying customers then iOS/iPadOS/watchOS/tvOS is the only way to go. And to those customers Apple is the only gate.
Again, Apple advocates are 100% in favor of this argument in every other context. In every other context Apple advocates claim that a developer is wasting is time dedicating any resources to putting apps on Android because he will never make any money on anything except games that force you to watch an ad every 3 minutes or lootbox/gacha type games that target developing countries. Or Apple advocates claim that developers should reject Android on principle even if they could make money because they should want no part of the privacy, security and copyright infringement issues that Google, Samsung, Xiaomi and the rest are clearly guilty of. It is only when the anti-trust arguments are raised that these very same people say "what monopoly? Android exists! Android is a great platform for targeting enterprise and affluent customers! So anyone who doesn't want to play by Apple's rules can just put their apps on Android, advertise them and get rich! The banks, hospitals and government agencies that require security and privacy with their devices, apps and data? Let BaseCamp use Android to target them! They'll be completely fine and NEVER get sued because some data snooping app that Google allowed in the Play Store stole classified government or sensistive user information!"
Again, all the people who believe this in any context other than to avoid Apple getting sued for anti-trust, raise your hands. All the people who are really happy going around reciting "Android is for poor people" and "no one" (or no one but Google and Samsung) makes money off Android" and "Android is just a spyware platform for terrorists and foreign governments" in every other use case ... you know who you are. And the people who are filing these antitrust lawsuits as well as the regulators and judges who are going to weigh them know the arguments of this type that Apple advocates have been advancing in blogs, the mainstream media etc. for over 10 years too. All these plaintiffs have to do in order to stop the "what about Android?" argument in its tracks is cite Tim Cook's own repeated public statements attacking Android over security and privacy. Or cite Phil Schiller's statements stating that school children who use Chromebooks and other Google platform products are going to fail because they aren't going to have the superior engagement that iPads offer. It is going to be impossible to claim that Android is a viable alternative for enterprise app developers when you have Apple executives like Cook and Schiller saying that it isn't! All app developers have to do is say that they avoided Android because Apple executives like Schiller and Cook have spent the last 10 years telling them what a terrible idea it is to put apps on an insecure platform that is based on a stolen product in the first place!
And everyone who sincerely believes that Cook, Schiller etc. are wrong ... say so. And do it in contexts other than Apple getting sued for antitrust. You won't and everyone knows it.
It is very simple: To get in in Walmart store you need to walk through the store’s door. To reach Apple’s customers you need to “walk” through iOS.
What you are saying now is: “I want to go in a Walmart store through the back door, sit somewhere inside and sell my own stuff (which could be drugs, guns, nuclear weapons.....you name it), to the Walmart’s customers, without paying anything.”
Every single word about Android in your quote is true: “...what a terrible idea it is to put apps on an insecure platform that is based on a stolen product in the first place!“
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
It's Apple store, not general store or mix market. They have every rights to prioritize their own services. If Apple services were prioritized in Google's Play Store for example, you can come back and complain.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Apple excempts itself from the rules in the App Store for its own services. It can offer the same services cheaper than the compeition and easier to access. I think they even violated the rule that prohibits ads in the notifications once. And that is the problem, because the App Store is the only store on iOS. And therefore I think they don't have the right to priotise their own services. Apple's own services should follow the same rules like third party services, w/o exceptions, and before you ask: this should also be valid for Google's Play Store or any other store on any other platform.
It’s... APPLE’S... STORE. Their store, their rules. That’s something so fundamental to private property rights in the US. Anti-monopoly laws are potentially in violation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments and frankly I’m shocked no one has yet challenged any of them up to the Supreme Court yet.
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
It's Apple store, not general store or mix market. They have every rights to prioritize their own services. If Apple services were prioritized in Google's Play Store for example, you can come back and complain.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Apple excempts itself from the rules in the App Store for its own services. It can offer the same services cheaper than the compeition and easier to access.
1. Is there an example of how Apple exempts itself from App Store rules for their own services?
2. It is NOT CHEAPER for Apple to offer services on a platform they spend billions of dollars a year developing, supporting and maintaining. All they are doing is attempting to reap the benefits that 3rd parties are from all that investment in the platform.
I'll ask you this, is it fair for Microsoft to be able to build its own hardware, when it is obviously cheaper for them because they don't have to pay Windows licensing fees that all other OEMs have to pay?
But the main argument for EU is people can’t buy app for iOS from other App Store.
To me the security alone is big enough reason. But I also wish Apple can do better job to remove junk app that rip off people.
That's true and it is a valid issue. Does this harm the end user? We all know that it does not, if people were really put off by how Apple runs its platform, they could simply buy competing products.
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
Apple's app store rates are highway robbery. Apple's policies on what can get in the store are restraint of trade.
Apple needs to either allow users to load software from any source, or remove restrictions on everything but actual malware and provide the store service for free. The current monopoly mess cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Apple's app store rates are highway robbery. Apple's policies on what can get in the store are restraint of trade.
Apple needs to either allow users to load software from any source, or remove restrictions on everything but actual malware and provide the store service for free. The current monopoly mess cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
It's Apple store, not general store or mix market. They have every rights to prioritize their own services. If Apple services were prioritized in Google's Play Store for example, you can come back and complain.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Apple excempts itself from the rules in the App Store for its own services. It can offer the same services cheaper than the compeition and easier to access. I think they even violated the rule that prohibits ads in the notifications once. And that is the problem, because the App Store is the only store on iOS. And therefore I think they don't have the right to priotise their own services. Apple's own services should follow the same rules like third party services, w/o exceptions, and before you ask: this should also be valid for Google's Play Store or any other store on any other platform.
It’s... APPLE’S... STORE. Their store, their rules. That’s something so fundamental to private property rights in the US. Anti-monopoly laws are potentially in violation of both the 5th and 14th Amendments and frankly I’m shocked no one has yet challenged any of them up to the Supreme Court yet.
Oh my, nobody is talking about taking away the App Store from Apple, event though it would be better if Apple were forced to put the the App Store into a independent entity. It is about regulating platforms, so that everyone on that platform can be sure what the rules are and how they are interpreted and how they are enforced and how they can be checked. Not different from net-neutrality which is a fundamental part of network regulation to ensure a free and innovative internet. The same is true for the App Store.
But the main argument for EU is people can’t buy app for iOS from other App Store.
To me the security alone is big enough reason. But I also wish Apple can do better job to remove junk app that rip off people.
That's true and it is a valid issue. Does this harm the end user? We all know that it does not, if people were really put off by how Apple runs its platform, they could simply buy competing products.
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
No. You just don't understand their argument. Switching platforms is not an easy task, especially if you have invested a lot in software and services. I would say, switching is expensive and time consuming. Most people won't switch. But just because thay using iOS doesn't mean they have to accept the awful App Store experience.
The study missed the point completely, it is not about a comparison between Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store but how certain services are treated on the App Store it self. Especially when you have a service by Apple and a service by a third party. To offer their service to iOS users services like Spotify or Netflix has to play by the rules of a company which also offers those services. The same is true for Google's Play Store btw. And I think Apple and Google should be forced to equal treatment of those services on their platform.
It's Apple store, not general store or mix market. They have every rights to prioritize their own services. If Apple services were prioritized in Google's Play Store for example, you can come back and complain.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Apple excempts itself from the rules in the App Store for its own services. It can offer the same services cheaper than the compeition and easier to access. I think they even violated the rule that prohibits ads in the notifications once. And that is the problem, because the App Store is the only store on iOS. And therefore I think they don't have the right to priotise their own services. Apple's own services should follow the same rules like third party services, w/o exceptions, and before you ask: this should also be valid for Google's Play Store or any other store on any other platform.
When I go to my local grocery store they advertise the store brand of meats and cheeses on the monitors behind the deli counter, along with ads from insurance companies and dance studios, but not other food brands.
When I’m not at the deli I hear them promoting the store brand items over the PA system. Sometimes they even give their own brand the prime spot on the shelf.
Those are all examples of the store prioritizing their own products but, so far, no investigations into the practice or pending lawsuits from other vendors claiming unfairness.
The Apple App Store is not a local grocery or anything like that. Stop comparing apple with oranges! Also the priorisation of store brands is seen by some as a problem. And it is being researched a lot. But it is not comparable to the App Store and the issue of unfair competition in the App Store. For example, I have five different super markets in my area I can reach w/o a car. I can decide every day to go to another store. It doesn't matter which store I use, because all have the items I need. So i can choose freely. How does this compare even remotely to a smartphone app store? Do you switch phones on a daily basis?
But the main argument for EU is people can’t buy app for iOS from other App Store.
To me the security alone is big enough reason. But I also wish Apple can do better job to remove junk app that rip off people.
That's true and it is a valid issue. Does this harm the end user? We all know that it does not, if people were really put off by how Apple runs its platform, they could simply buy competing products.
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
No. You just don't understand their argument. Switching platforms is not an easy task, especially if you have invested a lot in software and services. I would say, switching is expensive and time consuming. Most people won't switch. But just because thay using iOS doesn't mean they have to accept the awful App Store experience.
Umm... Sorry. but you are completely wrong.. I bought a shit ton of VHS tapes.. I did not get free DVDs when they came out. When you switch to a new platform there is always an inherent cost. It does not matter. It's the same for Apple's ecosystem.. those apps will not work ON ANY PLATFORM NO MATTER WHERE YOU GOT THEM! NO MATTER HOW BIG AND POPULAR IT HAS BECOME
And... you are completely wrong about the App Store's awful rules... IT NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AS BIG AS IT IS IF IT WAS AWFUL!!! Just ask Microsoft about Zune. People are trying to twist this into something it is not... It started out just as it is now... the only place to buy software for iOS devices... NOTHING HAS EVER CHANGED ABOUT IT, other than its popularity, which ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE WAY APPLE HAS RUN IT.
The only thing that has changed is peoples attitude towards it. Apple has always collected 30%. And when they started subscriptions... it was 30%. And they change that to 15% after a year.
But the main argument for EU is people can’t buy app for iOS from other App Store.
To me the security alone is big enough reason. But I also wish Apple can do better job to remove junk app that rip off people.
That's true and it is a valid issue. Does this harm the end user? We all know that it does not, if people were really put off by how Apple runs its platform, they could simply buy competing products.
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
No. You just don't understand their argument. Switching platforms is not an easy task, especially if you have invested a lot in software and services. I would say, switching is expensive and time consuming. Most people won't switch. But just because thay using iOS doesn't mean they have to accept the awful App Store experience.
And I also call bullshit on the switching thing... you can still switch to another platform and still use apps on the old platform. That device does not become completely useless just because you switched. If owned a Mac and switched to Windows, but there was still a few apps on Mac I needed to use, I would keep that Mac around so I could use those apps when I needed, but use the Windows machine as my main computer.
Your argument is ridiculous. Why don't developers make the apps available on both platforms? and offer free side-grades?
I run my webserver off OpenBSD, but I'm also completely an Apple user... how can that possibly happen!?!?!?!
*POOF* YOUR MIND COMPLETELY BLOWN
Seriously getting tired of this argument when it applies TO EVERTY PLATFORM ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH
"Oh I'm stuck on Windows because Linux won't run my applications." "Oh I'm stuck on PS4 because the Wii won't run those games" "Oh I'm stuck on Alexa, because, all my appliances only use its voice system" "Oh, I'm stuck on my LaserDisc player because Blu-ray won't play them."
Guess what... keep the fu**ing hardware around to continue using those things. And stop fu**ing whining about it.
Apple's app store rates are highway robbery. Apple's policies on what can get in the store are restraint of trade.
Apple needs to either allow users to load software from any source, or remove restrictions on everything but actual malware and provide the store service for free. The current monopoly mess cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Bullshit!
These devices are Apple's products, not some 3rd party OEM products. Apple is ONLY controlling what CAN AND CANNOT happen on their devices. Including being able to control where applications can be downloaded from. They actually do not have to allow ANY applications on their devices as THEY DID WHEN THE IPHONE WAS FIRST RELEASED. Or they could have only allowed/invited specific developers on their system. They opted for a closed "membership" policy.
It is a completely different matter if say Microsoft where to tell other OEMs where and how their users can download software ... That is blatant anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior because it involves one company controlling another disparate market. Just as they did in the 90's when they got in trouble.
But the main argument for EU is people can’t buy app for iOS from other App Store.
To me the security alone is big enough reason. But I also wish Apple can do better job to remove junk app that rip off people.
That's true and it is a valid issue. Does this harm the end user? We all know that it does not, if people were really put off by how Apple runs its platform, they could simply buy competing products.
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
No. You just don't understand their argument. Switching platforms is not an easy task, especially if you have invested a lot in software and services. I would say, switching is expensive and time consuming. Most people won't switch. But just because thay using iOS doesn't mean they have to accept the awful App Store experience.
And I also call bullshit on the switching thing... you can still switch to another platform and still use apps on the old platform. That device does not become completely useless just because you switched. If owned a Mac and switched to Windows, but there was still a few apps on Mac I needed to use, I would keep that Mac around so I could use those apps when I needed, but use the Windows machine as my main computer.
Your argument is ridiculous. Why don't developers make the apps available on both platforms? and offer free side-grades?
I run my webserver off OpenBSD, but I'm also completely an Apple user... how can that possibly happen!?!?!?!
*POOF* YOUR MIND COMPLETELY BLOWN
Seriously getting tired of this argument when it applies TO EVERTY PLATFORM ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH
"Oh I'm stuck on Windows because Linux won't run my applications." "Oh I'm stuck on PS4 because the Wii won't run those games" "Oh I'm stuck on Alexa, because, all my appliances only use its voice system" "Oh, I'm stuck on my LaserDisc player because Blu-ray won't play them."
Guess what... keep the fu**ing hardware around to continue using those things. And stop fu**ing whining about it.
My only point is, that switching platforms is not free, and you at least agreed with that. Even if you keep the old devices it is not free. Also keeping old devices is not free. But we're really off-topic now.
Comments
Another example would be Trader Joe's: their beer/wine/liquor section is predominantly 3rd party products, but the vast majority of everything else in the store is their own 1st party brand. They can pick and choose what sections of the store allow any type of 3rd party competition.
iOS.
Every single word about Android in your quote is true: “...what a terrible idea it is to put apps on an insecure platform that is based on a stolen product in the first place!“
1. Is there an example of how Apple exempts itself from App Store rules for their own services?
2. It is NOT CHEAPER for Apple to offer services on a platform they spend billions of dollars a year developing, supporting and maintaining. All they are doing is attempting to reap the benefits that 3rd parties are from all that investment in the platform.
I'll ask you this, is it fair for Microsoft to be able to build its own hardware, when it is obviously cheaper for them because they don't have to pay Windows licensing fees that all other OEMs have to pay?
The bigger arguments come from 3rd party developers and service providers, but they don't have a real argument in this case. There are many other platforms they can write apps for and offer their services on. Much bigger platforms in fact. Windows is 10x larger than the Mac user base, and Android is a little over twice the size of iOS.
Umm... Sorry. but you are completely wrong.. I bought a shit ton of VHS tapes.. I did not get free DVDs when they came out. When you switch to a new platform there is always an inherent cost. It does not matter. It's the same for Apple's ecosystem.. those apps will not work ON ANY PLATFORM NO MATTER WHERE YOU GOT THEM! NO MATTER HOW BIG AND POPULAR IT HAS BECOME
And... you are completely wrong about the App Store's awful rules... IT NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AS BIG AS IT IS IF IT WAS AWFUL!!! Just ask Microsoft about Zune. People are trying to twist this into something it is not... It started out just as it is now... the only place to buy software for iOS devices... NOTHING HAS EVER CHANGED ABOUT IT, other than its popularity, which ONLY HAPPENED BECAUSE OF THE WAY APPLE HAS RUN IT.
The only thing that has changed is peoples attitude towards it. Apple has always collected 30%. And when they started subscriptions... it was 30%. And they change that to 15% after a year.
And I also call bullshit on the switching thing... you can still switch to another platform and still use apps on the old platform. That device does not become completely useless just because you switched. If owned a Mac and switched to Windows, but there was still a few apps on Mac I needed to use, I would keep that Mac around so I could use those apps when I needed, but use the Windows machine as my main computer.
Your argument is ridiculous. Why don't developers make the apps available on both platforms? and offer free side-grades?
I run my webserver off OpenBSD, but I'm also completely an Apple user... how can that possibly happen!?!?!?!
*POOF* YOUR MIND COMPLETELY BLOWN
Seriously getting tired of this argument when it applies TO EVERTY PLATFORM ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH
"Oh I'm stuck on Windows because Linux won't run my applications."
"Oh I'm stuck on PS4 because the Wii won't run those games"
"Oh I'm stuck on Alexa, because, all my appliances only use its voice system"
"Oh, I'm stuck on my LaserDisc player because Blu-ray won't play them."
Guess what... keep the fu**ing hardware around to continue using those things. And stop fu**ing whining about it.
Bullshit!
These devices are Apple's products, not some 3rd party OEM products. Apple is ONLY controlling what CAN AND CANNOT happen on their devices. Including being able to control where applications can be downloaded from. They actually do not have to allow ANY applications on their devices as THEY DID WHEN THE IPHONE WAS FIRST RELEASED. Or they could have only allowed/invited specific developers on their system. They opted for a closed "membership" policy.
It is a completely different matter if say Microsoft where to tell other OEMs where and how their users can download software ... That is blatant anti-trust and anti-competitive behavior because it involves one company controlling another disparate market. Just as they did in the 90's when they got in trouble.