You are being polite, so I'll try to return the favour. I like people like you who remain civil even when disagreeing. I like being civil myself, although occasionally I cross a line and call someone's arguments "ridiculous."
1) You said that you want control over the app store's restrictive policies "done by law". That is ambiguous on several levels. First of all, are you saying Apple shouldn't have restrictions against tobacco or porn because these things are NOT currently "restricted by law"? It really sounds like you are probably saying that. Or maybe you meant that Apple's App Store rules shouldn't be written by Apple but should be written "by law" (the government)? If so, which government? I really can't tell what you are saying here so I won't spend much time disputing you. But I will say that Apple's App Store Guidelines comply with all US law. And I will also say that if the US government is prohibited from restricting people's free speech, but private companies are PERMITTED under the constitution to limit free speech, then it sounds very much like Apple has every constitutional right to restrict whatever it wants from running in its OSs. Have you considered my point that Apple prohibits watch apps from being sold on watchOS? Doesn't this sound like an abuse by a monopoly on their "rights" to write watch apps and sell them to the public? You didn't answer this question earlier. Why didn't you answer it? Because it's a tough question for you to answer. Whatever you answer, I'm prepared to jump back on you.
2) Even if I concede that Apple's ecosystem is good for both users and developers, I don't see how that can be used to argue that Apple shouldn't be able to restrict apps or charge users a fee for using software that runs on their OS and/or contacts Apple's servers for services. It's only a slippery slope if you want various different parties partly responsible for Apple's policies. There is no slippery slope if Apple has the sole discretion to decide what can be run on iOS, after all, nobody is forced to use iOS (people often forget this.)
3) Okay, the lawmakers are at fault, if indeed something is wrong, (and I'm not saying there is because I'm not a tax expert, especially for countries that I don't live in) but your original point said, "Is it fair that Apple..." so your words strongly imply that you were blaming Apple initially for this. I infer that you would reword your original comment now.
4) So you don't believe in "the virtue of the free market" but you say "free markets... should operate freely under some rules that guarantee rights of individuals". We already have rules, and they are called laws and constitutions. What is it that you don't like about the current laws and constitutions that don't "guarantee the rights of individuals"? And where is an individual's rights violated if Apple charges for apps that use Apple's online services? I've read the US constitution (even though I'm not American), which is the only "document" that defines the "rights" of US citizens. I didn't see anything about "rights to unrestricted app downloads onto my computer." Even the first amendment talks only about the government not being able to restrict people's free speech, it doesn't say anything about private companies like Apple or Facebook from restricting your speech. If anything, the first amendment of the US constitution EXPLICITLYPERMITS private companies to restrict what people say in the company's publications (eg, in their newspapers) , or on their property, or under their employment, or on their servers or operating systems.
I'm not being silly when I say that the US Constitution's First Amendment strongly suggests that the government cannot pass any law that would restrict what Apple can "say" in its own OSs and policies. Even if the government somehow passed a "law" that prohibits Apple from denying people a third party app store, that law would be in danger of being overthrown by the US Supreme Court because of the First Amendment which says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". An OS and its rules could potentially be considered "free speech rights" under the Constitution. But it's up to the US Supreme Court to see it this way. The Supreme Court currently leans in the direction of literal interpretation, not liberal interpretation, so Apple's rights to control what goes on within its OS is likely to stand firm.
Thank you for your kind words. I think that if you want to be respected and listened you need to respect and listen to others.
In this specific case I don't know if we disagree. I have the impression I'm not being very clear (maybe my English is not as good as I think it is ). Let me try it one more time.
I agree that Apple created a very profitable ecosystem, that they are entitled to create the rules they feel appropriate, they are entitled to a compensation by developers who use their services/API's. I have no problem with all of that. However, given their size and their power, I think we all should think if we need to regulate it somehow. Not sure how or what, but I think a discussion about it is in order. Thus my questions. We may even conclude that things are fine the way they are right now...
I agree with most of the things you say. I don't have the answers just the questions .
1) Yes it is ambiguous, I would also help you out saying that it is also dangerous. I'm lucky enough to live in a Democracy, and to have free speech, so I think that whatever lawmakers would decide here wouldn't undermine those values. In other not so Democratic countries this could be very dangerous - although I would argue that in those countries the content of the App Store is already being restricted/controlled. I considered your point on the Apple Watch but I have no answer. Yes I think it might be seen as monopoly, but on the other hand it is a watch, right? an Apple Watch... so I would say that it might make sense for them to restrict that specific type of apps on an Apple Watch. Here's a question for you: Facebook wants Apple to be forced to allow Messenger, WhatsApp and others to be set as the default messaging app in iOS. What is you stance on that? I'm completely against it and I can give several reasons why (one of which is that I don't trust Facebook) but here is one: it's an Apple iPhone so everything about the basic Phone features part of it should be Apple. All other messaging systems may coexist in the platform, that is up to Apple to decide, but SMS are a basic function of a mobile phone.
2) Again I don't think iOS is a monopoly. I'm happy with how things work on iOS right now. I just think Apple will loose this battle (for the wrong reasons if you ask me) so that it is time for them to find a solution, which I'm sure they already have. Someone talked about bringing Gatekeeper to iOS - that is one possible solution. Also, if Apple is prohibited to prohibit other App Stores I think they are still entitled for some sort of compensation because of their API's.
3) Listen, as a business owner, I think that what Apple pays in taxes in Europe is an outrage. I'm sure you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland. There are several other smart tricks big companies are using. It's not fair for other companies doing business, it doesn't foster competition. Again I believe that they didn't make anything illegal, they did what was allowed them to do. That's why I blame lawmakers and not Apple.
4) I'm not saying we don't have rules, maybe I jumped to soon. I was under the impression that you were defending the virtues of liberal capitalism, that the markets are able to regulate themselves without the need of laws or Government intervention. I don't believe in that.
I don't know the American Constitution that well. I' don't understand why prohibiting Apple from denying people a third party app store would undermine Apple's right to free speech. It's not like they would be silencing Apple. I wouldn't go that way, it seems the wrong approach but I'm not an expert on constitutional law.
Listen, I don't want my iPhone to change - I LOVE the walled garden. But you need to recognise the wind is changing and that Apple will have to adapt somehow, even if it is just for marketing reasons...
We are getting a little closer to each other so I'm substantially trimming down my responses.
You asked me if Apple should be allowed to prevent Facebook's apps from being selected as defaults. Well, naturally, because Apple doesn't even have any obligation to permit Facebook's apps on their App Store. Just as you stated, a watch tells time, and a messaging app is largely what a smart phone is for. You don't object to Apple restricting watch apps, so you can't object to Apple restricting messaging apps.
You said "if Apple is prohibited to prohibit other App Stores I think they are still entitled for some sort of compensation because of their API's". Yes well how do you propose Apple get this compensation? I've asked this question several times and NOBODY proposed a solution. Remember, Apple doesn't even know who the developers are because the developers can sell STRICTLY through the third party app store.
You cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland to justify the argument that Apple was doing something illegal. Did you read the article? Did you see that Apple won the case, that it wasn't illegal? "In July 2020, the European General Court struck down EU tax decision as illegal, ruling in favor of Apple."
You asked me "why prohibiting Apple from denying people a third party app store would undermine Apple's right to free speech". I said it might deny Apple's free speech rights because an OS is like a book, it is a series of words. Denying Apple the right to "speak those words" would be like denying free speech. I am not a lawyer either but it is certainly a valid argument. Your iPhone reads those words and takes action based on Apple's words. If you tell Apple that it can't speak "certain words" you may be denying Apple's right to free speech. Do you see the argument now?
I hope the bill succeeds. It’s time these giant tech companies and their lobbyist start to abide to free market values.
These ‘stores’ are marketed as stores, but are in fact monopolist, world-wide gatekeepers to content distribution, especially Apple.
I don't think you've really thought this through.
You're perfectly within your rights to disagree with the METHOD by which Apple recoups its cost to run the App Store, but you're outside of your rights to demand that Apple effectively run the App Store for free. That storefront costs billions per year to operate on its global scale, and provides a huge range of services from payment processing to performance reports to marketing that developers would find far more expensive to do themselves (and we know this because there was a period before the App Store where these problems caused apps to be far more expensive).
Prior to the App Store coming along, distributors and the stores that sold boxed software took around 60-70 percent of the retail price. Developers that tried to sell software online-only rarely made significant money because the cost of running their own webhost/payment processor/web support team/app support team/advertising & marketing/legal team was too high, and the public didn't like the idea of not getting physical media/lifetime support for non-boxed software without a huge discount compared to the price they would pay for boxed software.
This continues to this day: Microsoft sells a "perpetual" license for Microsoft Office ("perpetual" here is defined as "60 days of tech support, no online storage, and obsoleted after five years") that costs $150 (US). It only includes the three apps (Word/Excel/Powerpoint), can be used on only one machine, no updates, and only includes 60 days of support. Compare this to the $70/year Personal subscription, that includes Outlook (ad-free), OneNote, 60 minutes per month of Skype calling (to actual phones), and 1TB of online storage, not to mention full telephone and online support, every update and fix, plus you can install it on every device you have (iOS/Android/Mac/Windows).
Over the course of let's say four years (roughly the amount of time before you'd want/need to upgrade with another "perpetual" license), Microsoft is definitely making more money off a subscriber over a one-off buyer: $280 vs $150. But it's pretty hard to argue the subscriber didn't get far more VALUE from their package than the "perpetual" buyer did from theirs. So I think it is clear that, putting aside stores like Google and Apple et al, developers can clearly afford to offer more value through subscriptions than through one-off, you-might-not-be-back-until-the-app-literally-doesn't-work-anymore buyers. It's virtually impossible to make a living as a developer on the one-time purchase model unless you are (and remain) a hot property with a small, affordable team, regardless of platform.
Is the App Store a monopoly since it is the only (legal) source of apps for iOS? Yes, probably.
Is a monopoly illegal? No, it isn't.
Is the present "monopoly" both profitable for Apple AND a vitally important system to ensure safety and security concerns are met? Yes it is.
Would forcing Apple to allow Epic and other freeloaders to install their own "stores" and payment systems create security risks, introduce Android-like malware, and create consumer confusion that hurts Apple's reputation and business? I think the answer here is fairly obvious.
I'm happy to see states push back against Big Tech overreach. It's the only way currently when the feds refuse to act.
I hope to see more of this as time goes on. Someone has to do it.
Apple, Microsoft, and Google's for-profit App Stores are not "Big Tech Overreach."
Google, Amazon, and Facebook's business models are Big Tech Overreach. Webstalking and gathering your data without clear explicit permission is Big Tech Overreach.
Comments
You asked me if Apple should be allowed to prevent Facebook's apps from being selected as defaults. Well, naturally, because Apple doesn't even have any obligation to permit Facebook's apps on their App Store. Just as you stated, a watch tells time, and a messaging app is largely what a smart phone is for. You don't object to Apple restricting watch apps, so you can't object to Apple restricting messaging apps.
You said "if Apple is prohibited to prohibit other App Stores I think they are still entitled for some sort of compensation because of their API's". Yes well how do you propose Apple get this compensation? I've asked this question several times and NOBODY proposed a solution. Remember, Apple doesn't even know who the developers are because the developers can sell STRICTLY through the third party app store.
You cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_state_aid_case_against_Apple_in_Ireland to justify the argument that Apple was doing something illegal. Did you read the article? Did you see that Apple won the case, that it wasn't illegal? "In July 2020, the European General Court struck down EU tax decision as illegal, ruling in favor of Apple."
You asked me "why prohibiting Apple from denying people a third party app store would undermine Apple's right to free speech". I said it might deny Apple's free speech rights because an OS is like a book, it is a series of words. Denying Apple the right to "speak those words" would be like denying free speech. I am not a lawyer either but it is certainly a valid argument. Your iPhone reads those words and takes action based on Apple's words. If you tell Apple that it can't speak "certain words" you may be denying Apple's right to free speech. Do you see the argument now?
Prior to the App Store coming along, distributors and the stores that sold boxed software took around 60-70 percent of the retail price. Developers that tried to sell software online-only rarely made significant money because the cost of running their own webhost/payment processor/web support team/app support team/advertising & marketing/legal team was too high, and the public didn't like the idea of not getting physical media/lifetime support for non-boxed software without a huge discount compared to the price they would pay for boxed software.
Over the course of let's say four years (roughly the amount of time before you'd want/need to upgrade with another "perpetual" license), Microsoft is definitely making more money off a subscriber over a one-off buyer: $280 vs $150. But it's pretty hard to argue the subscriber didn't get far more VALUE from their package than the "perpetual" buyer did from theirs. So I think it is clear that, putting aside stores like Google and Apple et al, developers can clearly afford to offer more value through subscriptions than through one-off, you-might-not-be-back-until-the-app-literally-doesn't-work-anymore buyers. It's virtually impossible to make a living as a developer on the one-time purchase model unless you are (and remain) a hot property with a small, affordable team, regardless of platform.
Apple, Microsoft, and Google's for-profit App Stores are not "Big Tech Overreach."