Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store.
You submit your app.
Apple checks it.
If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active.
When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store.
Your app does not show up in App Store searches.
No editorial help in selling your app.
No reviews on the App Store.
You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated.
You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment.
Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app.
I like that idea. The only downside I see is that Apple would still have to invest resources into vetting the app and all it’s updates. That might be a minimal cost to pay to keep customers and iOS safe while also getting an annoyance off their back. I wonder how many devs would chose to go that route. My guess is the bigger ones would but the majority wouldn’t.
Ray, this is a bit like enterprise iOS software where the customer uploads its own software using MDM software. Everything is up to the developer and customer to make sure it works and doesn't brick your iOS device. I believe you agree it isn't something that 99.99999999% of iOS users would want to use.
Ray and ihatescreennames, Yes, Apple would still have to invest resources, which would not be free. How much would Apple charge for this (unnecessary) service? Maybe 5-10%? I'd also like to see exactly how much larger developers actually have to pay. Does everyone pay 30% or is it a sliding scale depending on how much you sell or how many apps you have?
I'm happy Apple got rid of software sales at Apple stores. There's no reason for people to buy a CD/DVD in a paper box with worthless paper manuals and advertisements when everything is available on-line. This is the 21st century, time to get with the program!
avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
The first step is for competition to exist. Everything else comes later.
Security is based on standard practices by default and then each store adds on what they see fit.
The nature of the beast means that there is no fault proof system. This applies to everyone but by implementing industry standards you are off to a good start.
Consumers benefit through choice and preference. Some apps may be available via some app stores and not others.
Developers also benefit through choice and obviously economic interests. It also allows for competition on a services level (all the different hooks apps can tie into behind the scenes).
App Stores will ultimately live or die by the services and security they offer.
Well, that's not true though is it.
Android has suffered from malware since its inception, in the Play Store and elsewhere, and none of these stores has actually died. They're still pumping this crap out into the ecosystem.
The problem is that the vast majority of phone users don't know very much about security, and so will continue to download weird stuff from weird places, and the only way that stores will be able offer cheaper fees for hosting apps is by skimping services such as app checking and security.
avon b7 said: Again, this all boils down to choice at the end of the day. People having the option of going elsewhere if they want.
But the "going elsewhere" part hasn't produced lower prices or better security for desktop/laptop software vs mobile software. Why should the consumer care about different store names or locations if they don't provide any clear advantages for the software they're interested in?
So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).
At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money?
I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this antitrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.
Would you ask your boss, to simply cut your salary with 50% because you think is to high, and then let your home door wide open for everyone who is passing the street, to com in and do what he wants and stay as long as he wants? And this all on your expenses. This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).
At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money?
I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this antitrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.
Would you ask your boss, to simply cut your salary with 50% because you think is to high, and then let your home door wide open for everyone who is passing the street, to com in and do what he wants and stay as long as he wants? And this all on your expenses. This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
You miss the point. Just like my suggestions for Apple to drop their annual cost for macOS, adjust rates for app subscriptions, and several other changes Apple has adopted, it’s about increasing their bottom line, not reducing it, you just have to be able to see past short-term gains to see how it could benefit Apple.
So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).
At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money?
I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this antitrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.
Would you ask your boss, to simply cut your salary with 50% because you think is to high, and then let your home door wide open for everyone who is passing the street, to com in and do what he wants and stay as long as he wants? And this all on your expenses. This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
Looks like Tim and Phil are wilfully ignoring the root issue. Just like they did with other areas where Apple has been open to scrutiny.
Apple can charge what it wants in its App Store. It can lay down the so-called guidelines on what is acceptable for inclusion although 'guidelines' they are mostly not. They are more like strict requirements with little to flexibility around them.
The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself.
Not having a dominant place in the overall market is irrevelant when you are the only controlling factor on the entire platform (however small that platform may be).
When was the last time users were explicitly informed prior to purchase that the apps they will require to actually make good use of the phone will be subject to Apple's blessing (to even be available) and that Apple will sit as an obligatory intermediary feeding off all transactions between the user and third party apps?
It may sound frivolous but this is exactly the kind of issue regulators love to look at.
Third party App Stores exist which take far less than Apple's 30%.
My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Users should have that option open to them and then decide for themselves which store is better.
Enjoy your virus-laden Android apps and App Store alternatives. When you buy Apple, you’re buying an assumed level of quality and trustworthiness.
avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
The first step is for competition to exist. Everything else comes later.
Security is based on standard practices by default and then each store adds on what they see fit.
The nature of the beast means that there is no fault proof system. This applies to everyone but by implementing industry standards you are off to a good start.
Consumers benefit through choice and preference. Some apps may be available via some app stores and not others.
Developers also benefit through choice and obviously economic interests. It also allows for competition on a services level (all the different hooks apps can tie into behind the scenes).
App Stores will ultimately live or die by the services and security they offer.
Well, that's not true though is it.
Android has suffered from malware since its inception, in the Play Store and elsewhere, and none of these stores has actually died. They're still pumping this crap out into the ecosystem.
The problem is that the vast majority of phone users don't know very much about security, and so will continue to download weird stuff from weird places, and the only way that stores will be able offer cheaper fees for hosting apps is by skimping services such as app checking and security.
Once again. No system is fault proof. Not Play Store or App Store.
It is literally impossible to stop malware landing on devices. Any device.
I've been using the Play Store for years and App Gallery for two years and lately Petal Search.
No issues so far.
The more competition the more pressure to keep things improving. For the first time, the classic duopoly has been broken with the arrival of App Gallery. If no stores have died (yet) it is because they are still doing well enough (or have lock in advantage) but they will ultimately depend on the services and security they offer. Moreso if different platforms are forced to open up to more stores.
Users don't need to know anything about security. All they need to know is about the breaches. It's like with banks. Users have little idea about bank security and zero need to know about it. They simply pre-suppose the security is there and pay attention when breaches happen. Exactly the same happens with consumers and app store security.
The vast majority have had zero issues with this aspect. Yes, on Android too.
Looks like Tim and Phil are wilfully ignoring the root issue. Just like they did with other areas where Apple has been open to scrutiny.
Apple can charge what it wants in its App Store. It can lay down the so-called guidelines on what is acceptable for inclusion although 'guidelines' they are mostly not. They are more like strict requirements with little to flexibility around them.
The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself.
Not having a dominant place in the overall market is irrevelant when you are the only controlling factor on the entire platform (however small that platform may be).
When was the last time users were explicitly informed prior to purchase that the apps they will require to actually make good use of the phone will be subject to Apple's blessing (to even be available) and that Apple will sit as an obligatory intermediary feeding off all transactions between the user and third party apps?
It may sound frivolous but this is exactly the kind of issue regulators love to look at.
Third party App Stores exist which take far less than Apple's 30%.
My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Users should have that option open to them and then decide for themselves which store is better.
Enjoy your virus-laden Android apps and App Store alternatives. When you buy Apple, you’re buying an assumed level of quality and trustworthiness.
And there lies the question that various bodies are investigating. The role of Apple in a chain with no competition.
This isn't really about the App Store or how safe it is. It's about the lack of competition and how Apple is the gatekeeper and toll operator of a store for third party apps.
As I said before, this might prove to be completely legal but there may be strings attached, such as Apple being forced to inform potential customers about App Store lock in - prior to purchase.
avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
The first step is for competition to exist. Everything else comes later.
Security is based on standard practices by default and then each store adds on what they see fit.
The nature of the beast means that there is no fault proof system. This applies to everyone but by implementing industry standards you are off to a good start.
Consumers benefit through choice and preference. Some apps may be available via some app stores and not others.
Developers also benefit through choice and obviously economic interests. It also allows for competition on a services level (all the different hooks apps can tie into behind the scenes).
App Stores will ultimately live or die by the services and security they offer.
Well, that's not true though is it.
Android has suffered from malware since its inception, in the Play Store and elsewhere, and none of these stores has actually died. They're still pumping this crap out into the ecosystem.
The problem is that the vast majority of phone users don't know very much about security, and so will continue to download weird stuff from weird places, and the only way that stores will be able offer cheaper fees for hosting apps is by skimping services such as app checking and security.
Once again. No system is fault proof. Not Play Store or App Store.
No system is perfect so why bother trying to have any protections at all? Get make everything a free for all? What could go wrong?
avon b7 said: My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Do consumers benefit in any significant way from this competition, or is it more about giving a piece of the action to companies that aren't really that interested in providing better prices or better security?
The first step is for competition to exist. Everything else comes later.
Security is based on standard practices by default and then each store adds on what they see fit.
The nature of the beast means that there is no fault proof system. This applies to everyone but by implementing industry standards you are off to a good start.
Consumers benefit through choice and preference. Some apps may be available via some app stores and not others.
Developers also benefit through choice and obviously economic interests. It also allows for competition on a services level (all the different hooks apps can tie into behind the scenes).
App Stores will ultimately live or die by the services and security they offer.
Well, that's not true though is it.
Android has suffered from malware since its inception, in the Play Store and elsewhere, and none of these stores has actually died. They're still pumping this crap out into the ecosystem.
The problem is that the vast majority of phone users don't know very much about security, and so will continue to download weird stuff from weird places, and the only way that stores will be able offer cheaper fees for hosting apps is by skimping services such as app checking and security.
Once again. No system is fault proof. Not Play Store or App Store.
No system is perfect so why bother trying to have any protections at all? Get make everything a free for all? What could go wrong?
No one said protections aren't necessary.
Where did you get that from?
This is just the marketing spiel but obviously some thought has gone into security.
Looks like Tim and Phil are wilfully ignoring the root issue. Just like they did with other areas where Apple has been open to scrutiny.
Apple can charge what it wants in its App Store. It can lay down the so-called guidelines on what is acceptable for inclusion although 'guidelines' they are mostly not. They are more like strict requirements with little to flexibility around them.
The problem is that basically Apple allows very little competition to challenge the App Store itself.
Not having a dominant place in the overall market is irrevelant when you are the only controlling factor on the entire platform (however small that platform may be).
When was the last time users were explicitly informed prior to purchase that the apps they will require to actually make good use of the phone will be subject to Apple's blessing (to even be available) and that Apple will sit as an obligatory intermediary feeding off all transactions between the user and third party apps?
It may sound frivolous but this is exactly the kind of issue regulators love to look at.
Third party App Stores exist which take far less than Apple's 30%.
My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
That's competition.
Users should have that option open to them and then decide for themselves which store is better.
Enjoy your virus-laden Android apps and App Store alternatives. When you buy Apple, you’re buying an assumed level of quality and trustworthiness.
And there lies the question that various bodies are investigating. The role of Apple in a chain with no competition.
This isn't really about the App Store or how safe it is. It's about the lack of competition and how Apple is the gatekeeper and toll operator of a store for third party apps.
As I said before, this might prove to be completely legal but there may be strings attached, such as Apple being forced to inform potential customers about App Store lock in - prior to purchase.
Your last paragraph may be true in this era of incapable idiots barely able to think who seem to be everywhere.
So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).
At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money?
I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this antitrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.
Would you ask your boss, to simply cut your salary with 50% because you think is to high, and then let your home door wide open for everyone who is passing the street, to com in and do what he wants and stay as long as he wants? And this all on your expenses. This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
You miss the point. Just like my suggestions for Apple to drop their annual cost for macOS, adjust rates for app subscriptions, and several other changes Apple has adopted, it’s about increasing their bottom line, not reducing it, you just have to be able to see past short-term gains to see how it could benefit Apple.
Oh yes we will ignore most if not all costs, and work on volume. Works great on hardware, $1.99 iPhones anyone? Works great on Android, you may only keep the phone a year or two and get very little updates, but it is a great model!!!!
I watched the entire "show" on CNBC and my take away was that it was all theater, and it just provided further proof to me just how incompetent and ignorant our elected federal officials are.
I don't think that Apple should reduce their 30% fee. People only countenance the idea because Apple is making so much money. So they arbitrarily decide that it is "too much for one company to have." It has nothing to do with trusts or markets. Note that no one talks about Amazon's 30% fee for their AppStore. It is only because while the Amazon AppStore is certainly profitable, Apple's store makes magnitutes more money.
It wouldn't "stick anything" to Android-based stores. First of all, how is that possible in the first place with Android's market share? Also, it isn't as if there is true competition in the first place. True competition is going to the same store with Kelloggs cereals right next to General Mills on the same aisle. Or it is going to an intersection where a Burger King is across the street from McDonald's. But with Android, you can only buy or download apps from Android app stores. With iOS the same: only Apple's store. So the apps and how their gatekeepers handle them on the other platforms don't matter. If it did, Apple having more and better quality apps would have affected market share long ago. Instead, Android retains 85% with phones and 65% with tablets because Android users don't care about the higher quality and better vetted apps on iOS any more than iOS users care that the Android apps that do exist often allow you to do way more because they aren't as restricted.
As for Tim Cook's comments ... they only evade the issue, which is that why should the App Store be the only method of installing software on Apple devices. Saying "if you don't want to deal with that then just buy an LG phone" is a problematic stance for both consumers and developers. It will be curious to see how he responds to the actual issue when he is forced to confront it by direct questioning. The folks in Congress aren't the same as the ones in the media who are so in love with their iPhones, iPads and Macs that they never challenge Apple in the same way they do other large companies. You will see more negative articles about Facebook, Amazon, Google, Disney, Comcast, AT&T or Wal-Mart in a day than you will see about Apple in 5 years. Especially with some of the more agenda-driven ideological types in the media who insist that it is the job of the free press to challenge large corporations ... except Apple of course. We love them and everything they do and stand for! It would be curious to see how he handles the "tough room" that he never encounters otherwise.
You think people in the media don’t challenge Apple?
You really do live under a rock.
Neil Cybart:
Oh Goodness, THAT guy. He claims the media loves Apple! LMFAO.
My phone has two massive App Stores on it plus Petal Search which allows me to dig into yet more stores.
Apple INVENTED the App Store, they have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to help 3rd party wannabe App Stores where developers can simply cut and paste there. Apps that USE Apple technology to function.
No way in fu**ing hell.
If you believe that then you make a business and allow others to feed off your work. If you REALLY believe that, why not criticize Amazon for not allowing links to Wal-Mart and Target products on their website?
Apple introduces a hosting-only tier for the App Store.
You submit your app.
Apple checks it.
If it passes the checks, Apple sends you a checksummed URL, that is tied to your site, for you to put in your website, and the address on an admin page where you can buy the number of downloads you want. When you’ve paid, the link becomes active.
When someone clicks on the link, they get a warning that purchasing this app is outside of the App Store regulations and that any disputes are settled between you and the vendor. The app is downloaded straight onto the customer’s iDevice without going through the App Store.
Your app does not show up in App Store searches.
No editorial help in selling your app.
No reviews on the App Store.
You are responsible for informing users that your app has been updated.
You are responsible for handling payments and for making sure that the download link does not appear until you have received payment.
Apple does not keep a record of who has downloaded the app.
If this is what you want why not make a web app?
Oh, I don’t want it, and I would never download an app that used it, but I’m trying to think of ways for Apple to give the developers who’re complaining what they want.
They(and iKnockoff users) would complain that Apple is unfair and not helping the little guy. LOL
So.. free apps, right? All other apps, either paid or subscription, would funnel some of the revenue to Apple (which is a completely reasonable expectation for running a curated shop).
At this point I think it's likely that Apple is making a lot of profit with the store. I'd love to see two things happen: 1) Apple reduces their profit-share, and 2) develop more intense protections for customers with better testing of 3rd-party apps. This would help lead the industry as well as stick it to Android-based stores.
So you want Apple to receive less money and spend more time and money?
I do and I'm not the only one to suggest it. Gruber:
Why not pull a Steve Jobs on the App Store? Cut the commission rate to 85/15 across the board and act like it’s innovative and something only Apple could or would do. Open up the Netflix rule to all developers — maintain the rule that if your app charges money as an in-app purchase, you must use Apple’s in-app payment system — but let any and all apps choose to do what Netflix does if they want to opt out of that, and sign up customers on their own outside the app. Just make all of this anttrust stuff disappear before it even starts by eliminating the complaints about money and maintaining what matters more to Apple: independence and control.
Would you ask your boss, to simply cut your salary with 50% because you think is to high, and then let your home door wide open for everyone who is passing the street, to com in and do what he wants and stay as long as he wants? And this all on your expenses. This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
You miss the point. Just like my suggestions for Apple to drop their annual cost for macOS, adjust rates for app subscriptions, and several other changes Apple has adopted, it’s about increasing their bottom line, not reducing it, you just have to be able to see past short-term gains to see how it could benefit Apple.
Ok, maybe I am wrong, but I know it is impossible to run a company like Apple only with wishful thinking’s . The reality in the economical world push you sometimes to take hard decisions which not everyone appreciates. But you have to survive.
And I have problem with the fact, that all criticism is coming from companies, trying for years to copycat the AppStore model, and because they failed to succeed, are trying now everything possible to destroy this AppStore.
Comments
Ray and ihatescreennames, Yes, Apple would still have to invest resources, which would not be free. How much would Apple charge for this (unnecessary) service? Maybe 5-10%? I'd also like to see exactly how much larger developers actually have to pay. Does everyone pay 30% or is it a sliding scale depending on how much you sell or how many apps you have?
I'm happy Apple got rid of software sales at Apple stores. There's no reason for people to buy a CD/DVD in a paper box with worthless paper manuals and advertisements when everything is available on-line. This is the 21st century, time to get with the program!
Well, that's not true though is it.
Android has suffered from malware since its inception, in the Play Store and elsewhere, and none of these stores has actually died. They're still pumping this crap out into the ecosystem.
The problem is that the vast majority of phone users don't know very much about security, and so will continue to download weird stuff from weird places, and the only way that stores will be able offer cheaper fees for hosting apps is by skimping services such as app checking and security.
This is exactly what you ask Apple to do
It is literally impossible to stop malware landing on devices. Any device.
I've been using the Play Store for years and App Gallery for two years and lately Petal Search.
No issues so far.
The more competition the more pressure to keep things improving. For the first time, the classic duopoly has been broken with the arrival of App Gallery. If no stores have died (yet) it is because they are still doing well enough (or have lock in advantage) but they will ultimately depend on the services and security they offer. Moreso if different platforms are forced to open up to more stores.
Users don't need to know anything about security. All they need to know is about the breaches. It's like with banks. Users have little idea about bank security and zero need to know about it. They simply pre-suppose the security is there and pay attention when breaches happen. Exactly the same happens with consumers and app store security.
The vast majority have had zero issues with this aspect. Yes, on Android too.
This isn't really about the App Store or how safe it is. It's about the lack of competition and how Apple is the gatekeeper and toll operator of a store for third party apps.
As I said before, this might prove to be completely legal but there may be strings attached, such as Apple being forced to inform potential customers about App Store lock in - prior to purchase.
Where did you get that from?
This is just the marketing spiel but obviously some thought has gone into security.
https://consumer.huawei.com/en/press/news/2020/how-does-huawei-appgallery-protect-user-privacy-and-security/
But like I said. There is no 100% secure option out there IMO. Not on any platform.
Oh Goodness, THAT guy. He claims the media loves Apple! LMFAO.
People CHOOSE to be ignorant.
Apple INVENTED the App Store, they have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to help 3rd party wannabe App Stores where developers can simply cut and paste there. Apps that USE Apple technology to function.
No way in fu**ing hell.
If you believe that then you make a business and allow others to feed off your work. If you REALLY believe that, why not criticize Amazon for not allowing links to Wal-Mart and Target products on their website?
They(and iKnockoff users) would complain that Apple is unfair and not helping the little guy. LOL