I'm sure the Apple-haters will come out of the woodwork again, today. Bear in mind that even 30% is a lot less than the 100% markup that was always the case when selling software in boxes in retail outlets.
Apple haters might come out somewhere but not here.
I was in favour of this reduction before it happened. That made me, no doubt, an Apple hater in your mind. I just saw it as a good anti trust move.
Since Apple agrees it looks like Apple are also the Apple haters.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
To be honest, this is an appealing point of the Apple ecosystem. I don’t want to have to install multiple store apps. I don’t want to have to give my credit card to other app stores, some of probably questionable quality. I don’t want to have to figure out which App Store to to go to check for updates. I don’t want to have to search through multiple app stores (or worse each app individually) to figure out what subscriptions I have. The single store brings a lot of advantages that I don’t want to give up and probably more I’m forgetting to list. I think people get too concerned about only cost and don’t see the chaos multiple stores could bring. The idea that costs would go down I don’t think is a sure thing either. it just means money going into different pockets, not less money. Apple spend a lot of money developing the chips and other technology in the phones. They spend a ton of money on the compiler and developer tools. They spend money developing the APIs the developers use. They aren’t going to just open this to other stores completely bypassing Apple. if it’s mandated, the stores are going to have to pay Apple something.
If it is mandated then you are free to not install from the non App Store stores or the web.
Most users won’t care for sure. The App Store is a good guarantor of quality. Apple can also alert you on launch if you download from somewhere else, force the app to be certified and block unknown devs. They have that technology. It is in Mac OS.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
Non-issue. There is only one store on Xbox, one store on Nintendo, one store on PlayStation, etc.. Just as there is only one available menu at McDonald's, no sushi vendors allowed, etc etc. It's their platform...Your freedom of choice is to visit another restaurant, or another game console, etc.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Apple truly believes that you the user should have no power, freedom or responsibility to use your iPhones however you want. This was demonstrated today when given the choice between loss of revenues from App Store fees and loss of power by allowing third party app stores, Apple chose to maintain control. You have no idea how many cool things you could do with your iPhone if Apple allowed third party developers to create any app that is possible to make. Just think about what an open WiFi SDK could do for example. You could control any device in your home with an app. The only thing that stands in the way of that today is Apple's requirement that all developers use HomeKit and pay a licensing fee to Apple. Apple is one of the biggest reasons why home automation has not happened in a big way.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
I've mentioned it countless times in the past. My position hasn't changed.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
You don't just want multiple App Stores, you also want those extra app stores to be free from ALL the rules of the Apple App Store. There are several hundred existing rules and you want all of them abolished. Just to pick one rule at random, you don't want those other app stores to have to adhere to Apple's prohibition against pornography. But you are too cowardly to say what you want, so I have to say it for you.
If you really want complete freedom for software developers to violate all of Apple's policies on software, just get an Android device. Don't make the rest of us suffer from lack of security and privacy just because you're happy with unsafe computing devices. Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.
Aside from alternate App Stores, what exactly is it that you are unable to purchase on Apple's App Store that you think you can get on another store?
Apple truly believes that you the user should have no power, freedom or responsibility to use your iPhones however you want. This was demonstrated today when given the choice between loss of revenues from App Store fees and loss of power by allowing third party app stores, Apple chose to maintain control. You have no idea how many cool things you could do with your iPhone if Apple allowed third party developers to create any app that is possible to make. Just think about what an open WiFi SDK could do for example. You could control any device in your home with an app. The only thing that stands in the way of that today is Apple's requirement that all developers use HomeKit and pay a licensing fee to Apple. Apple is one of the biggest reasons why home automation has not happened in a big way.
What you think is bad, IE control, I think is security. Stop developing for Apple devices and just do android devices. LOT/home automation is a bunch of fly by night garbage because of a lack of standards that you don’t like adhering to. Fridges that should last over a decade have their wiz bang features inop because of unable to get updates or they get hacked. WiFi API? What a great load of garbage. I can see apps tracking my internet traffic or where I go. I can see apps blocking access to updates or other sites. Sure Apple could fix those possibilities by people like you would complain about Apple controlling things.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
Give it a rest will ya? The iPhone & iPad are proprietary, sealed devices, running on proprietary hardware, running on a proprietary OS. App developers are given PERMISSION to run their apps on it, and are essentially charged "rent" - 15%-30% - for that privilege. No government is going to force Apple to allow other players access to its closed system because people like you got your feelings hurt for not hitching a free ride on the backs of others.
If it does, then Xbox, Sony, and just about every retail store better brace for the crosshairs to turn on them.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
There’s always that one guy that finds the negative in everything. In this case that one guy can’t even conjure up a reason or articulate the mysterious “root issue.”
I've mentioned it countless times in the past. My position hasn't changed.
In fact that root issue was outlined in the very same paragraph you are quoting :
"That there is only one App Store on Apple devices."
If you really want complete freedom for software developers to violate all of Apple's policies on software, just get an Android device. Don't make the rest of us suffer from lack of security and privacy just because you're happy with unsafe computing devices. Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.
I am curious to understand your logic when you make the statements bolded above. Why do you think you would lose the ability to use Apple's secure/restricted/moderated app store IF alternate App stores are allowed by Apple in iPhones/iPads? You can "choose" to NOT install any of those alternate App stores, right? I am not clear what exactly is that you would be losing when the choice would still be yours to make - which App store(s) to use for downloading the Apps for your iPhone/iPad.
Most of the Android users outside of China use Google Play store only for installing the Apps. A very tiny minority of people choose to install Apps from outside Google Play store. None of the Google Play store users "complain" about losing their "freedom" to use Google App store ONLY, because they can very well do that. That "freedom" of choice is very much with them, so no one complains. You would be in a similar situation, with Apple's App store, isn't it?
Maybe. Or maybe this move is too little too late for Apple. Time will tell. But either way, it sure seems like Apple bowed down to Facebook this time.
Pretty sure that Facebook (and Epic) won't fit under the $1 million bar. In a way, this is a "screw you" to those guys. Most companies lower prices at higher volumes; Apple is now doing the opposite.
I'm not opposed to it, I would have loved a few extra thousand bucks when I had app in the app store. But it wouldn't have change my behavior one iota. 30% was a bargain.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
No.
Let me break it down for you. Apple makes a platform. It is theirs. No one elses. They can provide other people access to that platform (or not) and dictate the terms. Dont like the terms? Then move along. There are other platforms. The end.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
No.
Let me break it down for you. Apple makes a platform. It is theirs. No one elses. They can provide other people access to that platform (or not) and dictate the terms. Dont like the terms? Then move along. There are other platforms. The end.
Let me provide an example of why your statement is wrong. Microsoft makes a platform, Windows. It is theirs. No one else's. Microsoft tried to stop Netscape using their platform. Regulators told Microsoft that was illegal and forced MS to allow Netscape to operate freely on their platform. There were platforms other than Windows at the time, but Microsoft still lost the case and had to allow Netscape access to their platform. The end. Does that help your understanding?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
I think Apple feels good news won't result from the different investigations and this reduction is a move to leave them in slightly better light when final rulings are delivered.
I think know what you mean by "root issue," although you didn't define it. If Apple's overall App Store requirements are rejected by the court, as I infer you want to see, then I sure hope Apple declares the App Store to be a "money losing venture" and completely removes its "third party App Store" from iOS. I think that would be great for Apple's profits because it means that Apple has exclusive rights to sell software for iOS. So for that reason, I'd be somewhat happy if Apple lost in court.
The root issue is if Apple limits competition and also abuses its position.
That is to be determined. As things stand I feel the EU could rule against Apple but it's still up in the air. One possible outcome could be for Apple to be required to make customers aware (before purchase and in simple terms) that purchasing iOS devices with the App Store, requires tacit acceptance that Apple will have sole control of App Store management and fees.
Not dissimilar to the cookie situation in the EU.
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start. Allowing for side-loading will be next.
Allowing side-loading of apps is the worst possible "solution." That's not "better for the consumer." I choose iOS devices in part because they are relatively secure and stable. Allowing for side-loading opens the door for anything to be loaded on an iOS device, and would be a huge degradation of security. If you want that, get an Android device. Don't take away my choice to have a device with a secure OS.
Side loading on iOS is already a thing, and yet there has not been "a huge degradation of security". Why is that?
Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.
I am curious to understand your logic when you make the statements bolded above. Why do you think you would lose the ability to use Apple's secure/restricted/moderated app store IF alternate App stores are allowed by Apple in iPhones/iPads? You can "choose" to NOT install any of those alternate App stores, right? I am not clear what exactly is that you would be losing when the choice would still be yours to make - which App store(s) to use for downloading the Apps for your iPhone/iPad.
If I have the option to "choose" not to install a third party app store, then YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION to choose not to buy an iPhone and use Android instead. Why does this choice only apply to me and not to you? How can you not see this double standard that you are creating? Why do you get to impose your rules for software on me and on Apple?
I choose to buy from a company that curates its software. You want software everywhere to be uncurated. You already have Android for that. Why are you trying to force competitors of Android to follow the Android model? Why do you want Apple to plagiarize the Android license agreement? What makes you so special that you can enforce your rules of business on other companies in a free market? Why do you hate competition? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate choice? Why don't you go live in North Korea if you hate choice and competition and capitalism and freedom and security so much?
These arguments have been going on for months. Are you just trolling me? Do you actually believe this? If so, you got me. I never realized anyone could believe that companies and customers are not allowed to do business the way they both want to.
Most of the Android users outside of China use Google Play store only for installing the Apps. A very tiny minority of people choose to install Apps from outside Google Play store. None of the Google Play store users "complain" about losing their "freedom" to use Google App store ONLY, because they can very well do that. That "freedom" of choice is very much with them, so no one complains. You would be in a similar situation, with Apple's App store, isn't it?
You are trying to say that because Google users aren't losing their freedom when they have only one app store that therefore Apple users should not feel any less constrained. What a contrived argument. Google's users are irrelevant. All that's relevant is what Apple's users want. Apple users want a curated environment with all 500 rules in the Apple App Store License Agreement. You want to take away those 500 rules, even though you haven't read them, and replace them by the Android rules. We Apple users think of you as a dictator who is trying to take away Apple's processes and rules which are the very things that brought us to Apple in the first place. Somehow you are incapable of understanding that it's those restrictive Apple App Store rules that make Apple what it is and make customers go to Apple. And you are trying to destroy that. If you destroy that, I'll probably stop buying from Apple. So I sure hope you fail because I love the Apple ecosystem and its 500 rules.
Aside from alternate App Stores, what exactly is it that you are unable to purchase on Apple's App Store that you think you can get on another store?
This move doesn't tackle the root issue that is being investigated on multiple fronts. That there is only one App Store on Apple devices.
Apple can legitimately charge whatever it wants but that isn't, and has never been, the root issue.
Non-issue. There is only one store on Xbox, one store on Nintendo, one store on PlayStation, etc.. Just as there is only one available menu at McDonald's, no sushi vendors allowed, etc etc. It's their platform...Your freedom of choice is to visit another restaurant, or another game console, etc.
Your 'non-issue' doesn't relate to the root issue.
Has anyone complained about the Xbox?
The root issue doesn't only apply to Apple either and it isn't clear which way the findings will go. Those findings could have reverberations for companies in a similar situation.
This is a very good move. 30% made sense when things were getting started and had to be built from the ground up. It’s up and running now, and 15% is more appropriate. This will help a lot of small developers.Epic of course wouldn't make the cut, so even better.
Now to end Apple’s commission on sales that don’t go through their store.
What “commission on sales that don’t go through their store” are you referring to?
You get the app from the app store, but then subscribe, purchase, rent something from the company who made the app. Ex; Netflix though there are many others. The sale does not go through Apple. Apple has no say over the content. Apple does not develop or produce any of the content or products. Apple does not host or stream any of the data. Apple has no tie at all to any later business transactions. Yet by virtue of hosting a few hundred mb of data sometimes years before Apple claims a cut of all later profits. That’s just wrong. Ive compared it to Toyota or Ford claiming a third of what you take as an Uber driver just because you bought one of their cars years before.
I understand wanting to compare it to something, but using Toyota/Ford vs Uber doesn't quite seem right to me. Uber is a totally separate service people can use regardless of which car they have. The car makes no difference in that scenario.
In my mind, it would make more sense to use things like aftermarket parts/accessories. Most car manufacturers have aftermarket accessories that they either offer or work with specific companies to manufacture (and maybe have specific requirements that would have to be followed for those to work properly - think App Store requirements). Car manufacturers could require some royalty or licensing payment to certify those accessories would work properly and not cause any reliability issues with the vehicle to protect their relationship with the customer.
However, other companies could choose to make their own accessories, bypassing this (think open source technologies on iPhone like web/javascript apps). It's not a perfect comparison, but I feel is more accurate than trying to shoehorn the App Store into a comparison with Toyota/Uber.
Let me provide an example of why your statement is wrong. Microsoft makes a platform, Windows. It is theirs. No one else's. Microsoft tried to stop Netscape using their platform. Regulators told Microsoft that was illegal and forced MS to allow Netscape to operate freely on their platform. There were platforms other than Windows at the time, but Microsoft still lost the case and had to allow Netscape access to their platform. The end. Does that help your understanding?
Wrong. You're partaking into revisionist history.
In order for Windows to work, it needs cooperation from hardware companies to make the hardware. Microsoft/Windows would never have survived back then if the manufacturers decided to use Linux, BeOS, etc..
What got Microsoft in hot water back in the 90's and 2000's was that it was forcing/bullying hardware manufacturers - companies not owned by Microsoft - on how they are to sell hardware with (or without) Windows installed.
Computer makers often had agreements with other companies (i.e. Netscape, Norton, Symantec, etc..) to pre-install their software and get paid for it. Microsoft was threatening to deny windows licenses to these manufacturers if they didn't adhere to its demands. Microsoft was also forcing PC makers to pay Microsoft for licenses on PC's that didn't even have Windows installed! Windows was the life-blood for many computer manufacturers and Microsoft knew that.
So not, your comparison with Apple is not remotely the same thing.
Apple's business model is an entirely different scenario, and you know that. Apple owns the hardware and software. There is no collusion. Apple sets the rules on what App developers can and cannot do, and that's okay because app developers are essentially "tenants" doing business in Apple's house.
There's even more competition now than there were back in the earlier days. An app developer can choose to not do business with Apple and take their app to then former-evil offender Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (Playstation), and Android.
iOS users buy into the hardware/ecosystem for the benefits that the platform provides, to the chagrin of vocal, mooching app developers. Most developers don't have issues with how Apple runs the App Store. Those vocal whiners feel Apple ecosystem and loyal (and profitable) users do not provide value that is worth paying Apple for.
Apple continuously makes new iOS devices and software to keep that profitable user community happy and coming back. You think that kind of commitment requires zero effort and doesn't provide value to app developers? Real developers know the value that Apple provides. Wannabe, weekend script-kiddies and freeloaders wants Apple to do all the work keeping customers, yet sell their crap to those customers without paying Apple its cut.
Comments
That's not the "root" issue with the App Store. That's just the guise. The real root is and always will be about who's getting paid. No one is interested in whether it's better for the consumer (it has been proven that the App Store works and most user don't have an issue with it). Apple is the single app distribution point for iOS apps, so everyone is "forced" to pay Apple's toll. Apple can solve part of that not by allowing for another App Store on iOS, but by allowing for side-loading of apps direct from a developer's website. Where the developer is free to use any payment system they want. But you can believe Apple still won't allow website App Stores either.
Lowering the fee for smaller developers is a good start.
Allowing for side-loading will be next.
If you really want complete freedom for software developers to violate all of Apple's policies on software, just get an Android device. Don't make the rest of us suffer from lack of security and privacy just because you're happy with unsafe computing devices. Don't take away MY freedom to select a secure, restricted, moderated app store and operating system. I want my freedom, and you are trying to take it away from me by removing my CHOICE to choose a moderated app store.
Aside from alternate App Stores, what exactly is it that you are unable to purchase on Apple's App Store that you think you can get on another store?
I am curious to understand your logic when you make the statements bolded above. Why do you think you would lose the ability to use Apple's secure/restricted/moderated app store IF alternate App stores are allowed by Apple in iPhones/iPads? You can "choose" to NOT install any of those alternate App stores, right? I am not clear what exactly is that you would be losing when the choice would still be yours to make - which App store(s) to use for downloading the Apps for your iPhone/iPad.
Most of the Android users outside of China use Google Play store only for installing the Apps. A very tiny minority of people choose to install Apps from outside Google Play store. None of the Google Play store users "complain" about losing their "freedom" to use Google App store ONLY, because they can very well do that. That "freedom" of choice is very much with them, so no one complains. You would be in a similar situation, with Apple's App store, isn't it?
I'm not opposed to it, I would have loved a few extra thousand bucks when I had app in the app store. But it wouldn't have change my behavior one iota. 30% was a bargain.
Let me break it down for you. Apple makes a platform. It is theirs. No one elses. They can provide other people access to that platform (or not) and dictate the terms. Dont like the terms? Then move along. There are other platforms. The end.
Side loading on iOS is already a thing, and yet there has not been "a huge degradation of security". Why is that?
I choose to buy from a company that curates its software. You want software everywhere to be uncurated. You already have Android for that. Why are you trying to force competitors of Android to follow the Android model? Why do you want Apple to plagiarize the Android license agreement? What makes you so special that you can enforce your rules of business on other companies in a free market? Why do you hate competition? Why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate choice? Why don't you go live in North Korea if you hate choice and competition and capitalism and freedom and security so much?
These arguments have been going on for months. Are you just trolling me? Do you actually believe this? If so, you got me. I never realized anyone could believe that companies and customers are not allowed to do business the way they both want to.
You are trying to say that because Google users aren't losing their freedom when they have only one app store that therefore Apple users should not feel any less constrained. What a contrived argument. Google's users are irrelevant. All that's relevant is what Apple's users want. Apple users want a curated environment with all 500 rules in the Apple App Store License Agreement. You want to take away those 500 rules, even though you haven't read them, and replace them by the Android rules. We Apple users think of you as a dictator who is trying to take away Apple's processes and rules which are the very things that brought us to Apple in the first place. Somehow you are incapable of understanding that it's those restrictive Apple App Store rules that make Apple what it is and make customers go to Apple. And you are trying to destroy that. If you destroy that, I'll probably stop buying from Apple. So I sure hope you fail because I love the Apple ecosystem and its 500 rules.
Aside from alternate App Stores, what exactly is it that you are unable to purchase on Apple's App Store that you think you can get on another store?
Has anyone complained about the Xbox?
The root issue doesn't only apply to Apple either and it isn't clear which way the findings will go. Those findings could have reverberations for companies in a similar situation.
The McDonalds analogy doesn't work here.
In my mind, it would make more sense to use things like aftermarket parts/accessories. Most car manufacturers have aftermarket accessories that they either offer or work with specific companies to manufacture (and maybe have specific requirements that would have to be followed for those to work properly - think App Store requirements). Car manufacturers could require some royalty or licensing payment to certify those accessories would work properly and not cause any reliability issues with the vehicle to protect their relationship with the customer.
However, other companies could choose to make their own accessories, bypassing this (think open source technologies on iPhone like web/javascript apps). It's not a perfect comparison, but I feel is more accurate than trying to shoehorn the App Store into a comparison with Toyota/Uber.