Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
I don’t believe Walmart allows competition at a store level either. As far as I’m aware they don’t allow just anyone to sell their wares there, bypassing the checkout lines without paying rent or other fees to do so. Am I wrong about this?
That's right.
However, it's irrelevant.
These investigations aren't so much about competition within the store but competition from other stores (supposing the complaint are found to have a base).
Your implied analogy would make more sense if there was just one giant mall to shop at but all the stores within it were the same. On top of that, you would have to pay to enter the mall.
I don’t believe it’s entirely irrelevant. But let’s use an iMAX movie theater analogy. You do pay to enter the theater, you cannot use the theater’s iMAX projectors to show your own iMAX movies without making such an agreement/arrangement with the theater management, you aren’t allowed to bring in your own food and you aren’t allowed to sell food, again, without making an agreement/arrangement with the theater management. The theater owns the means to play that which is constructed to provide, in this case, iMAX movies. Just as Apple owns iOS, the means to play [run] iOS apps.
In either case, what is the legal or moral argument that should allow third parties who have not paid to create the infrastructure to use it without cost or agreement/arrangement with its owners?
Let’s begin with the argument on the iMAX theater subject. And then we can see if we can apply that to Apple and iOS.
It's not the same, and some of what you just said is actually illegal in some countries. For example, it is not legal for movie theatres in Spain to forbid you from taking your own food in with you. Even if there is a big sign saying it's forbidden. I know that may be the case in the US but it isn't the case here.
Just like a bar or restaurant here cannot prevent you from using their toilets if you need to use them. It doesn't matter if there is a big sign saying 'for customers only'.
Depending on where the investigations are being carried out, conclusions may vary.
Toilets are not what restaurants are built to make money on. Please forward your legal or moral argument for why a third party should be allowed to utilize the iMAX theater projectors and screens and seating to play their own iMAX movies without compensating the owner of the iMAX theater. And then we can apply that argument to Apple and iOS.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
What?
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
I think you win this argument. So let’s now speak about the ramifications. An app developer wishes to bypass Apple’s App Store so that they need to pay zero to Apple to run apps on iOS devices. So the app developer instead submits his iOS app to a third-party App Store and makes whatever arrangement that store requires for distribution of the app. Maybe it’s an open source, free to distribute App Store. How nice, the app developer gets a free ride. Just one more obstacle....
The third party App Store, or the app developer, now submits the app to Apple for notarization. Apple says, “cool, nice app. Please sign this agreement to use Apple’s libraries for running apps on iOS, which, despite the fact your end users own their iPhones and iPads, do not have any ownership of their operating system; iOS. Along with your app submission, please provide audited statements of your global revenues, and a check for advance payment on 15% of your global revenues, which is our fee to large software vendors for use of the iOS application programming libraries your app will be calling out to in order to actually function on iOS. That’s our code licensing fee. We await your deposit.”
I consider you objective, and authoritative, so I respect your view that he won as an expert opinion. However I already asked him questions like "Would Epic even want Apple to sign certificates for their apps" and he didn't answer, but you are raising the same point with him, and I see he hasn't answered you either. Your tax idea is quite a good one, as I told you earlier today. But this is why Epic and the world will demand that Apple stop signing/notarizing apps. I find his silence on some of my questions to be deafening.
One can't complain about not having a choice of where to purchase apps from, after they bought an iDevice.
The problem is these people won't be satisfied until my freedom to choose this platform and Apple's freedom to make this platform has been demolished. It's all about removing my freedom and Apple's freedom, disguised as a call for freedom to force everyone to have the same unrestricted environments.
So someone enlighten me, if the courts force Apple to allow red party app stores in the name of “consumer choice” does that mean that they will require all software sold on 3rd party stores to be sold on Apples App Store too? Yeah, didn’t think so.
The UK's anti-competition authority is opening up an investigation of continued allegations that Apple uses its App Store to restrict competition, and set "unfair terms" for developers.
So how does having more than 2 million apps on your app store equate to restricting competition?
If the Apple app store is unfair why have so many developers submitted, and continue to submit, apps to the Apple app store?
Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
I don’t believe Walmart allows competition at a store level either. As far as I’m aware they don’t allow just anyone to sell their wares there, bypassing the checkout lines without paying rent or other fees to do so. Am I wrong about this?
That's right.
However, it's irrelevant.
These investigations aren't so much about competition within the store but competition from other stores (supposing the complaint are found to have a base).
Your implied analogy would make more sense if there was just one giant mall to shop at but all the stores within it were the same. On top of that, you would have to pay to enter the mall.
I don’t believe it’s entirely irrelevant. But let’s use an iMAX movie theater analogy. You do pay to enter the theater, you cannot use the theater’s iMAX projectors to show your own iMAX movies without making such an agreement/arrangement with the theater management, you aren’t allowed to bring in your own food and you aren’t allowed to sell food, again, without making an agreement/arrangement with the theater management. The theater owns the means to play that which is constructed to provide, in this case, iMAX movies. Just as Apple owns iOS, the means to play [run] iOS apps.
In either case, what is the legal or moral argument that should allow third parties who have not paid to create the infrastructure to use it without cost or agreement/arrangement with its owners?
Let’s begin with the argument on the iMAX theater subject. And then we can see if we can apply that to Apple and iOS.
It's not the same, and some of what you just said is actually illegal in some countries. For example, it is not legal for movie theatres in Spain to forbid you from taking your own food in with you. Even if there is a big sign saying it's forbidden. I know that may be the case in the US but it isn't the case here.
Just like a bar or restaurant here cannot prevent you from using their toilets if you need to use them. It doesn't matter if there is a big sign saying 'for customers only'.
Depending on where the investigations are being carried out, conclusions may vary.
Toilets are not what restaurants are built to make money on. Please forward your legal or moral argument for why a third party should be allowed to utilize the iMAX theater projectors and screens and seating to play their own iMAX movies without compensating the owner of the iMAX theater. And then we can apply that argument to Apple and iOS.
There is no valid comparison between the two.
When you purchase a ticket to watch an IMAX film you are purchasing a short, time limited, one time, clearly defined experience. By definition it is a throwaway purchase with no further commitment from the tickholder. Also you are not purchasing the 'platform' to be able to access the film.
If you were in some way purchasing the platform and were then told you could not watch any other non-IMAX content without buying another platform to do so, you would run into the same investigations as Apple.
The UK's anti-competition authority is opening up an investigation of continued allegations that Apple uses its App Store to restrict competition, and set "unfair terms" for developers.
So how does having more than 2 million apps on your app store equate to restricting competition?
If the Apple app store is unfair why have so many developers submitted, and continue to submit, apps to the Apple app store?
The amount of Apps is irrelevant.
Developers submit apps because there is money to be made but that fact alone has zero relevance to competition.
I absolutely did answer that, and you replied to my answer. For the avoidance of any doubt, the answer was:
For the same reason they do it for Mac apps that aren't sold through the Mac App Store; it is in Apple's interest for their operating system to prevent unsafe software from running, whatever it's source, as to do otherwise would muddy the platform, reflect badly on Apple, and be bad for their customers.
That's not an answer because signing those apps provides no security for the reasons I provided. Apple has no information about the app, so there's no reason to sign it. What does Apple have, the NAME of the app? They don't have much more than that. They submission was made to the third party app store, and at no point did you say the third party app store has to submit any data back to Apple to get the notarization. If you explain what information has to be sent to Apple, THEN you would be answering my question.
What?
The developer sends the app to Apple. Notarization is code review, and Apple has all the information they need about the app. How on earth do you suppose Apple would check for malicious code without having the code? I'll post the link again because you clearly didn't even click it last time: Notarizing macOS Software Before Distribution | Apple Developer Documentation
I've already said all of this, but you aren't reading properly, even when I repeat myself:
The question is already answered, I dealt with it in my first reply: "Apple, obviously". Developers submit apps to Apple for notarization, Apple notarizes them (or not, as the case may be), and then the developer sells it themselves or through a third party app store.
Honestly dude, put a minute of effort into understanding what notarization is, it'll save both of us a lot of time.
I think you win this argument. So let’s now speak about the ramifications. An app developer wishes to bypass Apple’s App Store so that they need to pay zero to Apple to run apps on iOS devices. So the app developer instead submits his iOS app to a third-party App Store and makes whatever arrangement that store requires for distribution of the app. Maybe it’s an open source, free to distribute App Store. How nice, the app developer gets a free ride. Just one more obstacle....
The third party App Store, or the app developer, now submits the app to Apple for notarization. Apple says, “cool, nice app. Please sign this agreement to use Apple’s libraries for running apps on iOS, which, despite the fact your end users own their iPhones and iPads, do not have any ownership of their operating system; iOS. Along with your app submission, please provide audited statements of your global revenues, and a check for advance payment on 15% of your global revenues, which is our fee to large software vendors for use of the iOS application programming libraries your app will be calling out to in order to actually function on iOS. That’s our code licensing fee. We await your deposit.”
I consider you objective, and authoritative, so I respect your view that he won as an expert opinion. However I already asked him questions like "Would Epic even want Apple to sign certificates for their apps" and he didn't answer, but you are raising the same point with him, and I see he hasn't answered you either. Your tax idea is quite a good one, as I told you earlier today. But this is why Epic and the world will demand that Apple stop signing/notarizing apps. I find his silence on some of my questions to be deafening.
Deepest apologies, but I do have to sleep sometimes, and please also bear in mind that I don't get paid or any kind of benefit (other than a headache) from answering your incessant and annoying questions, most of which were born of an obstinate ignorance that I tried many times to rectify.
"Would Epic even want Apple to sign certificates for their apps" I don't know, I don't work for Epic, but they'd probably be ok with it, or at worst they wouldn't care. As mentioned many times, app notarization is code review for malicious code, which I can't imagine Epic would want on their store any more than Apple do. Why do you imagine Epic wouldn't want Apple to sign certificates on their apps?
If Apple attached a 15% commission (in advance?!?) to app notarisation then obviously that completely changes the game and any regulator with half a brain will see that as a massively disingenuous solution, and if it's Apple's argument that they aren't anti-competitive then it's laughable. I can't imagine any world in which that happens.
Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
Do you really believe the nonsense you continuously spew? There is competition at the store level. It's called "Android", and Android has more users than the iPhone. It also has the most problems with security and malware since Android lets people do exactly what you harp about. Precisely why people use iOS to get away from all that garbage.
But then, you know that... so just better to shove that crap Apple's way right?
Yes, I read it but you clearly don't.
Android is not relevant here.
If it were, you would be right in what you say, but if that were the case, don't you think all of the current investigations into Apple would never got off the ground in the first place?
Clearly there is more here than simply 'Android'. Can you see that? It doesn't matter which way the final decisions actually go. The simple fact that these investigations got off the ground and have been on going for so long now should tell you that 'Android' is irrelevant in the investigations into Apple.
But as you throw that in without thought, can't you see that Google is also being investigated? Although it isn't in exactly the same situation with regards to app stores as Apple, because on Android you can install other app stores. I have two on my phone.
Both Google and Apple have competition investigations hanging over their heads but they aren't necessarily for exactly the same reasons.
And as for security on Android app stores, what do you know about that?
Now you're getting somewhere. There are two app stores in your phone. That's two app stores that aren't Apple App Store. It doesn't matter that they are on the same phone. They both are competing for consumers that buy apps or make in-app purchases, on all devices. Android is irrelevant here. You made a choice that allowed you to have two app stores in your phone. And it wasn't an iDevice. Others can make the same choice as you, if they had to. You were not limited to using a phone that only had the Apple App Store.
Apple make the vast majority of their revenue from selling iDevices. iPhones accounts for 45% of Apple revenue. Apple is competing with the likes of Samsung, LG, Motorola, Huawei, Sony, Amazon, etc., in order to sell iPhones and iPads. The competition that the Apple App Store have are with the app stores in these other mobile devices. Like you say, Android is irrelevant here. Apple is not using iOS to compete with Android. Apple is using iOS to make their iDevices more attractive to consumers, so they rather choose to buy an iDevice over the devices sold by their competition ........ Samsung, LG, Motorola, Sony, Amazon, etc.. Apple should not have to compromise iOS, if it might mean being less competitive when it comes to selling iDevices.
Consumers can choose from over a dozen app stores, if that what matters the most to them. And developers can choose to develop for over a dozen app stores. Apple should not be forced, so that their iDevice users can choose from a dozen app stores using iOS. For the vast majority of iDevice users, all they need is the Apple App Store. iDevice users that need or want to use other app stores could had bought a mobile device from Samsung, LG, Huawei and others. That's where the competition is for Apple and their App Store and where it should be.
People restricting "consumers" to just people that uses iOS and saying that it's anti-competitive that they have no choice of app stores, are wrong. That's like saying that it's anti-competitive that "consumers" that walks into a McDonald's have no choice but to order what's on McDonald's menu. The only way to be an iOS "consumer" is to buy or use an iDevice and they could choose to use other companies mobile devices, if they want another choice in app stores. Just like a McDonald's customers that walks into a McDonald's could choose to eat at other fast food diners, if they don't like what's on the menu. It doesn't matter that the next fast food diner is 50 miles down the road or over an hour away in city traffic or the next nearest diner charges twice as much for a burger. The choice is still there. Anti-Completive would be a concern if consumers have no other real choice but to use an iDevice or eat at a McDonald's. Like computer users with Microsoft Windows. Not when no one is forcing them to use an iDevice or walking into a McDonald's.
If developers wants to develop for iOS, Apple is not stopping them. Apple allows tens of thousands of them in the Apple App Store and many of them have apps that competes with Apple own apps. All developers just have to follow the rules that Apple set to be in their store. There is nothing anti-completive about that.
You see, Apple does have competition when it comes to their App Store and consumers (and developers) have many choices as to which app store they want to use. The fact that if consumers want to use the Galaxy App Store, they might have to buy a Samsung device is not a limit on their choices. There are more Samsung devices than there are iDevices. Or if they want to use the LG Smart World app store, they need to buy an LG device. This is no different than consumers having the choice to eat at McDonald's or BK. But if the consumer wants a Whopper, they need to eat at BK. If the consumer want to order without getting out of their car and nearby BK don't have a drive thru, no way should McDonald's be forced to allow BK to use the drive thru window in their store.
Especially when part of the investigation revolves around the competition aspect.
Nothing in Apple's response tackled the root issue. It can't, because Apple doesn't allow for competition at a store level.
Given the circumstances I think they would be better off not saying anything publicly.
Do you really believe the nonsense you continuously spew? There is competition at the store level. It's called "Android", and Android has more users than the iPhone. It also has the most problems with security and malware since Android lets people do exactly what you harp about. Precisely why people use iOS to get away from all that garbage.
But then, you know that... so just better to shove that crap Apple's way right?
Yes, I read it but you clearly don't.
Android is not relevant here.
If it were, you would be right in what you say, but if that were the case, don't you think all of the current investigations into Apple would never got off the ground in the first place?
Clearly there is more here than simply 'Android'. Can you see that? It doesn't matter which way the final decisions actually go. The simple fact that these investigations got off the ground and have been on going for so long now should tell you that 'Android' is irrelevant in the investigations into Apple.
But as you throw that in without thought, can't you see that Google is also being investigated? Although it isn't in exactly the same situation with regards to app stores as Apple, because on Android you can install other app stores. I have two on my phone.
Both Google and Apple have competition investigations hanging over their heads but they aren't necessarily for exactly the same reasons.
And as for security on Android app stores, what do you know about that?
Now you're getting somewhere. There are two app stores in your phone. That's two app stores that aren't Apple App Store. It doesn't matter that they are on the same phone. They both are competing for consumers that buy apps or make in-app purchases, on all devices. Android is irrelevant here. You made a choice that allowed you to have two app stores in your phone. And it wasn't an iDevice. Others can make the same choice as you, if they had to. You were not limited to using a phone that only had the Apple App Store.
Apple make the vast majority of their revenue from selling iDevices. iPhones accounts for 45% of Apple revenue. Apple is competing with the likes of Samsung, LG, Motorola, Huawei, Sony, Amazon, etc., in order to sell iPhones and iPads. The competition that the Apple App Store have are with the app stores in these other mobile devices. Like you say, Android is irrelevant here. Apple is not using iOS to compete with Android. Apple is using iOS to make their iDevices more attractive to consumers, so they rather choose to buy an iDevice over the devices sold by their competition ........ Samsung, LG, Motorola, Sony, Amazon, etc.. Apple should not have to compromise iOS, if it might mean being less competitive when it comes to selling iDevices.
Consumers can choose from over a dozen app stores, if that what matters the most to them. And developers can choose to develop for over a dozen app stores. Apple should not be forced, so that their iDevice users can choose from a dozen app stores using iOS. For the vast majority of iDevice users, all they need is the Apple App Store. iDevice users that need or want to use other app stores could had bought a mobile device from Samsung, LG, Huawei and others. That's where the competition is for Apple and their App Store and where it should be.
People restricting "consumers" to just people that uses iOS and saying that it's anti-competitive that they have no choice of app stores, are wrong. That's like saying that it's anti-competitive that "consumers" that walks into a McDonald's have no choice but to order what's on McDonald's menu. The only way to be an iOS "consumer" is to buy or use an iDevice and they could choose to use other companies mobile devices, if they want another choice in app stores. Just like a McDonald's customers that walks into a McDonald's could choose to eat at other fast food diners, if they don't like what's on the menu. It doesn't matter that the next fast food diner is 50 miles down the road or over an hour away in city traffic or the next nearest diner charges twice as much for a burger. The choice is still there. Anti-Completive would be a concern if consumers have no other real choice but to use an iDevice or eat at a McDonald's. Like computer users with Microsoft Windows. Not when no one is forcing them to use an iDevice or walking into a McDonald's.
If developers wants to develop for iOS, Apple is not stopping them. Apple allows tens of thousands of them in the Apple App Store and many of them have apps that competes with Apple own apps. All developers just have to follow the rules that Apple set to be in their store. There is nothing anti-completive about that.
You see, Apple does have competition when it comes to their App Store and consumers (and developers) have many choices as to which app store they want to use. The fact that if consumers want to use the Galaxy App Store, they might have to buy a Samsung device is not a limit on their choices. There are more Samsung devices than there are iDevices. Or if they want to use the LG Smart World app store, they need to buy an LG device. This is no different than consumers having the choice to eat at McDonald's or BK. But if the consumer wants a Whopper, they need to eat at BK. If the consumer want to order without getting out of their car and nearby BK don't have a drive thru, no way should McDonald's be forced to allow BK to use the drive thru window in their store.
You are missing (or perhaps willfully ignoring) the point - again.
"Apple should not have to compromise iOS, if it might mean being less competitive when it comes to selling iDevices"
This has nothing to do with 'compromising'. It's about interpretation of the law and establishing the facts, not what you think is fair or unfair.
"You see, Apple does have competition when it comes to their App Store"
Well, no. It doesn't have competition, on iDevices, which gives it a de facto monopoly to potentially abuse. Where do you think most of the complaints have their origin?
Whether that de facto monopoly is legal or not is something that is to be decided.
"This is no different than consumers having the choice to eat at McDonald's or BK. But if the consumer wants a Whopper, they need to eat at BK"
This 'defence' comes up time and time again and is irrelevant in the case at hand. Like I said, if you can't see the difference, you are missing the point.
If what you suggest were even remotely applicable, most of the investigations would never have got off the ground and remember, investigations like the EU one were not started 'cold'. There was a preliminary phase to determine whether a formal investigation was necessary.
There's no such thing as "unfair terms" when it comes to the use of my property. Meet my terms, or GTFO. The same is true for Apple and their property, i.e. the App Store.
There's no such thing as "unfair terms" when it comes to the use of my property. Meet my terms, or GTFO. The same is true for Apple and their property, i.e. the App Store.
Nope. Private property used for private things is very different from commercial property used for commercial things. Commerce has rules.
There's no such thing as "unfair terms" when it comes to the use of my property. Meet my terms, or GTFO. The same is true for Apple and their property, i.e. the App Store.
Nope. Private property used for private things is very different from commercial property used for commercial things. Commerce has rules.
Nope. You are thinking about the wrong kind of "property". Try copyrights, patents and trademarks.
Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
What Epic wants to do is beyond "fair use" of Apple i.P.. That which is iOS. The government should not or can not force Apple to share their I.P. with others, without Apple being fairly compensated for their work. Even with the use of "eminent domain" of real property, the government compensate the property owner for its fair value. It is just not taken away.
Now, I would think the government can limit one from sharing their I.P. with foreign nationals, if they think it might pose a national security issue, but to step in and try to limit how one can use their I.P. for commercial purposes might end up being unconstitutional. Even if the I.P. is a monopoly. Microsoft was never in danger of having "Windows" taken away from them or being forced to provide "Windows" for free, to anyone that wants to profit from it.
With that being said, since were talking about the UK here, they might not value I.P. rights, as we do here in the US. They don't have to follow the US Constitution.
Comments
hard pass
If the Apple app store is unfair why have so many developers submitted, and continue to submit, apps to the Apple app store?
When you purchase a ticket to watch an IMAX film you are purchasing a short, time limited, one time, clearly defined experience. By definition it is a throwaway purchase with no further commitment from the tickholder. Also you are not purchasing the 'platform' to be able to access the film.
If you were in some way purchasing the platform and were then told you could not watch any other non-IMAX content without buying another platform to do so, you would run into the same investigations as Apple.
Developers submit apps because there is money to be made but that fact alone has zero relevance to competition.
"Would Epic even want Apple to sign certificates for their apps"
I don't know, I don't work for Epic, but they'd probably be ok with it, or at worst they wouldn't care. As mentioned many times, app notarization is code review for malicious code, which I can't imagine Epic would want on their store any more than Apple do. Why do you imagine Epic wouldn't want Apple to sign certificates on their apps?
If Apple attached a 15% commission (in advance?!?) to app notarisation then obviously that completely changes the game and any regulator with half a brain will see that as a massively disingenuous solution, and if it's Apple's argument that they aren't anti-competitive then it's laughable. I can't imagine any world in which that happens.
Apple make the vast majority of their revenue from selling iDevices. iPhones accounts for 45% of Apple revenue. Apple is competing with the likes of Samsung, LG, Motorola, Huawei, Sony, Amazon, etc., in order to sell iPhones and iPads. The competition that the Apple App Store have are with the app stores in these other mobile devices. Like you say, Android is irrelevant here. Apple is not using iOS to compete with Android. Apple is using iOS to make their iDevices more attractive to consumers, so they rather choose to buy an iDevice over the devices sold by their competition ........ Samsung, LG, Motorola, Sony, Amazon, etc.. Apple should not have to compromise iOS, if it might mean being less competitive when it comes to selling iDevices.
Consumers can choose from over a dozen app stores, if that what matters the most to them. And developers can choose to develop for over a dozen app stores. Apple should not be forced, so that their iDevice users can choose from a dozen app stores using iOS. For the vast majority of iDevice users, all they need is the Apple App Store. iDevice users that need or want to use other app stores could had bought a mobile device from Samsung, LG, Huawei and others. That's where the competition is for Apple and their App Store and where it should be.
People restricting "consumers" to just people that uses iOS and saying that it's anti-competitive that they have no choice of app stores, are wrong. That's like saying that it's anti-competitive that "consumers" that walks into a McDonald's have no choice but to order what's on McDonald's menu. The only way to be an iOS "consumer" is to buy or use an iDevice and they could choose to use other companies mobile devices, if they want another choice in app stores. Just like a McDonald's customers that walks into a McDonald's could choose to eat at other fast food diners, if they don't like what's on the menu. It doesn't matter that the next fast food diner is 50 miles down the road or over an hour away in city traffic or the next nearest diner charges twice as much for a burger. The choice is still there. Anti-Completive would be a concern if consumers have no other real choice but to use an iDevice or eat at a McDonald's. Like computer users with Microsoft Windows. Not when no one is forcing them to use an iDevice or walking into a McDonald's.
If developers wants to develop for iOS, Apple is not stopping them. Apple allows tens of thousands of them in the Apple App Store and many of them have apps that competes with Apple own apps. All developers just have to follow the rules that Apple set to be in their store. There is nothing anti-completive about that.
here's a list
https://buildfire.com/mobile-app-stores-list/
You see, Apple does have competition when it comes to their App Store and consumers (and developers) have many choices as to which app store they want to use. The fact that if consumers want to use the Galaxy App Store, they might have to buy a Samsung device is not a limit on their choices. There are more Samsung devices than there are iDevices. Or if they want to use the LG Smart World app store, they need to buy an LG device. This is no different than consumers having the choice to eat at McDonald's or BK. But if the consumer wants a Whopper, they need to eat at BK. If the consumer want to order without getting out of their car and nearby BK don't have a drive thru, no way should McDonald's be forced to allow BK to use the drive thru window in their store.
"Apple should not have to compromise iOS, if it might mean being less competitive when it comes to selling iDevices"
This has nothing to do with 'compromising'. It's about interpretation of the law and establishing the facts, not what you think is fair or unfair.
"You see, Apple does have competition when it comes to their App Store"
Well, no. It doesn't have competition, on iDevices, which gives it a de facto monopoly to potentially abuse. Where do you think most of the complaints have their origin?
Whether that de facto monopoly is legal or not is something that is to be decided.
"This is no different than consumers having the choice to eat at McDonald's or BK. But if the consumer wants a Whopper, they need to eat at BK"
This 'defence' comes up time and time again and is irrelevant in the case at hand. Like I said, if you can't see the difference, you are missing the point.
If what you suggest were even remotely applicable, most of the investigations would never have got off the ground and remember, investigations like the EU one were not started 'cold'. There was a preliminary phase to determine whether a formal investigation was necessary.
Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
What Epic wants to do is beyond "fair use" of Apple i.P.. That which is iOS. The government should not or can not force Apple to share their I.P. with others, without Apple being fairly compensated for their work. Even with the use of "eminent domain" of real property, the government compensate the property owner for its fair value. It is just not taken away.
Now, I would think the government can limit one from sharing their I.P. with foreign nationals, if they think it might pose a national security issue, but to step in and try to limit how one can use their I.P. for commercial purposes might end up being unconstitutional. Even if the I.P. is a monopoly. Microsoft was never in danger of having "Windows" taken away from them or being forced to provide "Windows" for free, to anyone that wants to profit from it.
With that being said, since were talking about the UK here, they might not value I.P. rights, as we do here in the US. They don't have to follow the US Constitution.