Apple should close the store to 3rd parties and be done with it. Problem solved. When asked why the answer is. It’s too much trouble and if it doesn’t fit our profit model, it’s not worth doing.
Finally. Someone else saying what I've been saying for over 2 years. But Apple should start by voluntarily shutting it down only in a country that's hostile to the idea of an App Store with a profit. Here's what Apple should say for the UK, for example:
"Okay, UK, you win. We will remove the Apple third-party App Store from the UK. There will be no more apps available for purchase, or for free, in the UK on iOS or iPadOS. Once you pass a law making App Stores and acceptable profit levels legal again, we will consider re-entering your marketplace. I trust you won't be making smartphones illegal if they don't come with any app stores."
No need to go so far. Just permit only free apps. That way we still get most of the apps we already use; banking apps, Google maps, Facebook et al.
Am I the only one who thinks this sudden interest in Apple’s commission fees is being orchestrated? All of a sudden everybody is suing Apple over this. Is it coincidental or is there a behind the scenes push from someone or somebody?
Way back when, when I was selling musical instruments at retail, the markup was 40% or more.
It's not orchestrated but most of the underlying issues are common to multiple jurisdictions.
When a complaint is lodged, there is an initial process to determine if a full investigation is worth undertaking.
Then there is a kind of domino effect as complaints are lodged across the board.
And also the issue of large tech companies wielding too much power or abusing it to thwart competition.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
I’d say that anyone who has owned an iPhone knows the score quite well, and so anyone upgrading from an iPhone to a newer model is well aware of how the App Store works, and that’s a very large number if people, refuting your implication about the vast majority.
Let's not forget the App Store is responsible for *affordable* apps for the consumer. Also, perhaps even more important, is that given the App Store is the *only* way to get an app on an i-device, ALL the developers get paid for those apps. Build a store outside the App Store, and suddenly those apps appear in torrents and other websites and people are side-loading apps for which they didn't pay one cent, and the developers get nada, zilch. Sort of defeats the whole Epic claim that small developers suffer.
This is based on a smear campaign launched by HUGE corporations making loads of money so they can make even more money, claiming they're all for the little guy, when in fact they're neither little nor care one iota for the small development houses in the world. Totally fucking disingenuous, and claiming this is an investigation with "good reason" is utter tripe, spoken by the consummate corporate shills and resident trolls on this forum and elsewhere.
The fact you get media whores (i.e. politicians and other greedy societal bastards) agreeing and picking up this mantel should speak loudly enough how ridiculously biased and self-serving this whole campaign is.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
I’d say that anyone who has owned an iPhone knows the score quite well, and so anyone upgrading from an iPhone to a newer model is well aware of how the App Store works, and that’s a very large number if people, refuting your implication about the vast majority.
In that case, all Apple would have to do is require users to formerly acknowledge and accept the current setup prior to purchase and I'm pretty sure Apple's anti-trust problems would vanish overnight.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
This is such nonsense. It's a view that requires exceptional rules for Apple, but not the likes of Nintendo, Sony, et al. People who stand to gain from this are trying their best to make you not make those obvious comparisons, or indeed any comparisons to retail/consignment selling.
Additionally your logic infers that there is a problem in charging a margin on transactions conducted in the store, or that this is somehow irregular. It also ignores that transactions can occur in parallel outside of the store, or that harm is being done when a developer chooses this route* - Spotify is clear proof that a business can enact their own payments and advertising outside of Apple's store to grow their business while taking advantage of Apple's distribution without meaningfully contributing toward the store - that's actually a situation better than what retail allows, and massively generous from Apple.
The problem seems to lay in the idea that individuals take for granted what Apple provides here, because Apple could have structured billings based on downloads, number of users and other metrics which better reflect the cost of hosting popular apps. (The bandwidth alone in serving the spotify app and updates is larger than what Spotify contribute to the appstore.)
*The argument that an app in the store should be able to advertise a means to dodge such payments is meritless, especially as the majority of apps have price parity in and outside of the store.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
This is such nonsense. It's a view that requires exceptional rules for Apple, but not the likes of Nintendo, Sony, et al. People who stand to gain from this are trying their best to make you not make those obvious comparisons, or indeed any comparisons to retail/consignment selling.
Additionally your logic infers that there is a problem in charging a margin on transactions conducted in the store, or that this is somehow irregular. It also ignores that transactions can occur in parallel outside of the store, or that harm is being done when a developer chooses this route* - Spotify is clear proof that a business can enact their own payments and advertising outside of Apple's store to grow their business while taking advantage of Apple's distribution without meaningfully contributing toward the store - that's actually a situation better than what retail allows, and massively generous from Apple.
The problem seems to lay in the idea that individuals take for granted what Apple provides here, because Apple could have structured billings based on downloads, number of users and other metrics which better reflect the cost of hosting popular apps. (The bandwidth alone in serving the spotify app and updates is larger than what Spotify contribute to the appstore.)
*The argument that an app in the store should be able to advertise a means to dodge such payments is meritless, especially as the majority of apps have price parity in and outside of the store.
If it were nonsense, Apple wouldn't be in the situation it now finds itself in and you seem to be under the impression that Apple was singled out by the authorities.
It hasn't been singled out. Any ruling could be applied to any company in the same situation down the line.
It's also worth pointing out that the amount of the commission or fees is irrevelant, so my logic doesn't infer anything on that level.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Well that just makes it worse, as that implies that as Apple knows iOS users are "trapped" in the iOS ecosystem, they'll just have to suck up whatever rules they impose; and therein lies the issue. iOS users can't exit the ecosystem without financial penalty, mainly though re-buying all the apps again on Android, and re-buying USB-C versions of their accessories. IMO that is where the issue ultimately lies - rather than the 30% commission itself, because Apple can impose rules on developers that affect existing iOS users, and users they have little choice but to accept, if they don't want to spend hundreds replacing their phone, accessories etc.
The irony is they want Apple to profit less so that others can profit more
Essentially yes, making huge profits in a particular industry is investigated in case it's as a result of monopolistic business practises; i.e. there is no competition.
This is where Cook is very two-faced: surely if he truly believes in "equality", he should charge less for the products, such that people who are less privileged should have the same opportunity to own Apple hardware as those more fortunate. But no, it only applies in relation to race and gender, as that can be used as a PR exercise whilst keeping prices high.
Am I the only one who thinks this sudden interest in Apple’s commission fees is being orchestrated? All of a sudden everybody is suing Apple over this. Is it coincidental or is there a behind the scenes push from someone or somebody?
Way back when, when I was selling musical instruments at retail, the markup was 40% or more.
It's absolutely being orchestrated. A very loud, entitled, vocal MINORITY is doing it. Who cares that 99% of all over developers have no problems with it.
I think they're going to lose. If by chance they win - whatever it is - it will be a shot across the bow to ALL retail establishments whether online, or brick-and-motor that empty the exact same practices, and that includes companies like Hermes, to stores like Costco. I find it hard to believe they would win, but if so it will be forever challenged in appeals.
If you don't like how Apple's app-store model works, then don't develop for it! They're doing it knowing that Apple's customers will spend more money for apps than the other app stores combined. Apple worked hard to get to this point, and the freeloaders like Epic wants to ride on Apple's accomplishments. F**k them.
The irony is they want Apple to profit less so that others can profit more
Essentially yes, making huge profits in a particular industry is investigated in case it's as a result of monopolistic business practises; i.e. there is no competition.
This is where Cook is very two-faced: surely if he truly believes in "equality", he should charge less for the products, such that people who are less privileged should have the same opportunity to own Apple hardware as those more fortunate. But no, it only applies in relation to race and gender, as that can be used as a PR exercise whilst keeping prices high.
What nonsense are you saying? It’s all about Equal opportunity.
The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason.
Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny.
Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.
This is not really true.
I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.
That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.
I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.
My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.
Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions.
You would be wrong. Most iDevice purchases are by people buying an iDevice for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc., times. Most iPhone purchases are not new to iOS. The iOS Apple App Store has not change much, in over 12 years. If anything more developers are now paying a 15% commission. It's not even close to the majority, much less the vast majority, that don't know how the Apple App Store works. The vast majority buying a new iPhone every year knows exactly what they are buying into, having owned an iPhone and using iOS for a least a couple of years. And even if they were on Android, Google Play Store commission is almost exactly the same as iOS. And over 90% of the apps on Android devices were installed from the Google Play Store.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Well that just makes it worse, as that implies that as Apple knows iOS users are "trapped" in the iOS ecosystem, they'll just have to suck up whatever rules they impose; and therein lies the issue. iOS users can't exit the ecosystem without financial penalty, mainly though re-buying all the apps again on Android, and re-buying USB-C versions of their accessories. IMO that is where the issue ultimately lies - rather than the 30% commission itself, because Apple can impose rules on developers that affect existing iOS users, and users they have little choice but to accept, if they don't want to spend hundreds replacing their phone, accessories etc.
More drivel from you about how iOS users are trapped in the iOS ecosystem because of the cost to switch. What about game consoles? Can X-Box owners play the hundreds of dollars (or thousands of dollars) of X-Box 360 games that they purchased on a disc from Target, on a Sony PlayStation or Nintendo Wii? They can't even play them on a computer. Games downloaded from the Microsoft Store do not play on any other game consoles. (But they might on a PC with Microsoft Windows 10) You don't think game console players don't invest in hundreds of dollars in accessories, that only works on an X-Box? Are they trapped into using the ecosystem where they have invested thousands of dollars in games? If they are, why haven't there been any anti-trust issue with game consoles, which existed decades before the iPhone? Plus a game console is nearly useless without buying games for it. But an iPhone is perfectly functional, without ever paying for a single app.
Plus you ALWAYS make it seem as though the iOS devices and accessories that someone has after switching to Android are a total loss. These no longer needed devices and accessories can be sold or traded in to mitigate the cost of switching. And in case you haven't notice, even apps and accessories for an iPhone, might not work with the next iPhone, let alone when switching to an Android device.
If having to buy new software all over again is a cost issue when switching, then why haven't Microsoft been sued for "trapping" users into the Windows ecosystem? Windows software do not run on a Mac running MacOS, without having to buy more expensive software to run Windows on a Mac, plus a retail copy of Windows. Are PC and Mac owners just as "trapped" as iOS users, because of the cost to switch?
Millions (if not 10's of millions) of iOS users switch to Android every year and vice versa. And quite a few of them are switching back, after trying the other side. In the US, there are over 100M iPhones users (not including iPads). There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World. If just 1% of US iPhone users were to switch to Android in any given year, that's 1M iOS users switching to Android.
If iOS users are" trapped" in any way, it's from the peace of mind from knowing that iOS is the best ecosystem to be using when security and privacy matters. Even Sweeney admits to this. Surely, you don't think Sweeney is "trapped" in an ecosystem that he considers a "monopoly" being abused by Apple.
We’ll have to see how this turns out in the end but if I were the college she (the expert leading this who was quoted) was employed at I’d be embarrassed to have my name associated with her (the expert). Obviously no knowledge of how actual retail/sales works.
You don't know British universities very well... they are the most woke PC virtue signalling places you can imagine. A case like this is right up there alley. They are institutions that just embarrass me these days.
As for the case, not sure how effective it'll be, they will have to literally prove in court people and developers have no choice. I think it'll fall flat in its face, or would need to be a developer like Epic to bring the case I think. Hope it doesn't get to court.
Comments
When a complaint is lodged, there is an initial process to determine if a full investigation is worth undertaking.
Then there is a kind of domino effect as complaints are lodged across the board.
And also the issue of large tech companies wielding too much power or abusing it to thwart competition.
cars
electricity
food
haircuts
That’s all. That’s all I need to get by. Stop all profits on those and I’ll be satisfied.
This is based on a smear campaign launched by HUGE corporations making loads of money so they can make even more money, claiming they're all for the little guy, when in fact they're neither little nor care one iota for the small development houses in the world. Totally fucking disingenuous, and claiming this is an investigation with "good reason" is utter tripe, spoken by the consummate corporate shills and resident trolls on this forum and elsewhere.
The fact you get media whores (i.e. politicians and other greedy societal bastards) agreeing and picking up this mantel should speak loudly enough how ridiculously biased and self-serving this whole campaign is.
Remember this, Sweeney uses an iPhone. So are you going to claim that his purchase decision did not touch on the App Store issue and even more, literally have no idea about commission or fees? Or just maybe, he voluntarily bought into the restrictions because he values security and privacy, way more than any restrictions that Apple imposes on their users in regards to their App Store. Just like the vast majority of iPhone users.
Additionally your logic infers that there is a problem in charging a margin on transactions conducted in the store, or that this is somehow irregular. It also ignores that transactions can occur in parallel outside of the store, or that harm is being done when a developer chooses this route* - Spotify is clear proof that a business can enact their own payments and advertising outside of Apple's store to grow their business while taking advantage of Apple's distribution without meaningfully contributing toward the store - that's actually a situation better than what retail allows, and massively generous from Apple.
The problem seems to lay in the idea that individuals take for granted what Apple provides here, because Apple could have structured billings based on downloads, number of users and other metrics which better reflect the cost of hosting popular apps. (The bandwidth alone in serving the spotify app and updates is larger than what Spotify contribute to the appstore.)
*The argument that an app in the store should be able to advertise a means to dodge such payments is meritless, especially as the majority of apps have price parity in and outside of the store.
It hasn't been singled out. Any ruling could be applied to any company in the same situation down the line.
It's also worth pointing out that the amount of the commission or fees is irrevelant, so my logic doesn't infer anything on that level.
This is where Cook is very two-faced: surely if he truly believes in "equality", he should charge less for the products, such that people who are less privileged should have the same opportunity to own Apple hardware as those more fortunate. But no, it only applies in relation to race and gender, as that can be used as a PR exercise whilst keeping prices high.
Here's the dingbat's background....https://www.drdigitalhealth.co.uk/about
Dr Kent, do you work for free? What's your profit margin when you pontificate?
Plus you ALWAYS make it seem as though the iOS devices and accessories that someone has after switching to Android are a total loss. These no longer needed devices and accessories can be sold or traded in to mitigate the cost of switching. And in case you haven't notice, even apps and accessories for an iPhone, might not work with the next iPhone, let alone when switching to an Android device.
If having to buy new software all over again is a cost issue when switching, then why haven't Microsoft been sued for "trapping" users into the Windows ecosystem? Windows software do not run on a Mac running MacOS, without having to buy more expensive software to run Windows on a Mac, plus a retail copy of Windows. Are PC and Mac owners just as "trapped" as iOS users, because of the cost to switch?
Millions (if not 10's of millions) of iOS users switch to Android every year and vice versa. And quite a few of them are switching back, after trying the other side. In the US, there are over 100M iPhones users (not including iPads). There's close to 1B iPhone users in the World. If just 1% of US iPhone users were to switch to Android in any given year, that's 1M iOS users switching to Android.
If iOS users are" trapped" in any way, it's from the peace of mind from knowing that iOS is the best ecosystem to be using when security and privacy matters. Even Sweeney admits to this. Surely, you don't think Sweeney is "trapped" in an ecosystem that he considers a "monopoly" being abused by Apple.
As for the case, not sure how effective it'll be, they will have to literally prove in court people and developers have no choice. I think it'll fall flat in its face, or would need to be a developer like Epic to bring the case I think. Hope it doesn't get to court.