I am not really clear on what this means. Let's create a fictitious App, Bob's Game, to explore the possibilities. A: Apple has to host Bob's Game but if Bob wants to run all charges through his own system, then Apple gets nothing. This hardly seems fair as Apple does have some expense in hosting and vetting the game. B: Apple can host Bob's Game and the purchase of the game goes through Apple's system and Apple gets their cut. But Bob's Game Expansion Packs could be bought directly from Bob, and Apple would get nothing. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I've always been uncomfortable with Apple getting a cut of sales outside of the AppStore. It does open up some risk, in that while the core App is vetted by Apple, the Expansion Packs would not be and could add malware or functions that Apple does not allow. C: Sales would continue as they do now with Apple hosting and vetting the software except companies could use their own payment systems instead of Apples'. Apple would still get their cut regardless of whether billing went through Apple's systems or not. This would be a logistical nightmare and I don't think would accomplish much D. Apple has to allow side-loading any app from any store from anywhere. I don't believe that is within the scope of this legislation.
This will undoubtedly get appealed. I haven’t seen any mention of forcing game console makers to allow outside payments. If they aren’t required to then the bill is discriminatory and will be challenged.
Apple can fight back with a two-ton hammer: drop App Store fees in South Korea so low (under 10%) that no developers will be bothered to try and use their own payment systems. Or so low that customers given a choice will always choose Apple.
or are they going to say Apple isn’t allowed to compete in the payments area?
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken.
Knee-jerk silliness. All business and governance is in a continuous state of flux. If you shut down and ran away every time someone said 'Boo!', you might as well give up. Countries have the right to determine business practices in the tetra own jurisdiction. Google and Apple will no doubt plead their case and if need be comply. If they have to comply the obvious answer from a capitalist open market pov is to make their deal the better and easier option if it is not already. Remember when iTunes opened its virtual doors? Doom and gloom! Who would actually be so dumb as to PAY when it was all free to download? It so turned out that to but from iTunes was so much easier most people chose that route. The bottom line is that nothing lasts forever.
I have mixed feelings on this. These companies created their respective platforms. If developers want access, they have to play by their rules. Take Apple. They take a commission in exchange for giving the developer access to billions of iOS devices/customers. Otherwise, they'd have to advertise both in other apps, and via other methods (web ads, email, etc.). Remember trying to find decent shareware and freeware? As a consumer it was maddening. As a developer, it couldn't have been fun or efficient. Clearly, the app stores have benefited consumers and developers enormously, from app selection, to pricing, to security.
On the other hand, these two companies do have essentially a duopoly on the entire mobile device market. As an iPhone owner, why can't I download from wherever I please? It's my device. Perhaps Apple should create a simple warning dialog when installing from other sources. "WARNING: Installing software outside of the Apple App Store may result in damage to your data/and or device and will expose you to numerous security risks beyond Apple's control. Do you wish to proceed?" The same message could be modified for other payment systems.
In the end, I agree that it's unlikely to have a major impact. If the policy goes global, Apple will find ways (like the above) to "encourage" users not to stray from the ranch.
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Maybe take the time to read the article, and learn the facts before posting absurd comments.
There is nothing in this law that requires "alternative stores." The law only requires that Apple allow third-party payment systems, such as those used by companies like Amazon in their own apps.
Allowing third-party payment systems does not mean Apple is prohibited from monetizing the App Store, it simply changes how and when it collects any fees. For example, some landlords charge businesses a percentage of the gross. Apple could do the same, or it could implement standalone fees or raise the commission for all developers. There is nothing in this law that bars Apple or Google from collecting fees from developers.
"Pull[ing] the stores" accomplishes nothing. As stated above, Apple and Google can simply monetize their app store in other ways, assuming they don't close them per your ridiculous suggestion.
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them. Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me). I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me. If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.
You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads). All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale. L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher. He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher. Apple says no. Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher. ↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation. In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using. Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.
It’s also possible that Bobby’s pitcher has knockoff apps of legitimate apps from Apple’s and more people flock to it because it’s free, (a real possibility). Those apps could have malicious code and now they get an easy entrance into the Apple cup. What now? Does Apple cover the cost if the malicious code damages the hardware?
Why would someone need to go to an alternative app store for knock off apps? The App Store is filled with them. Regarding malicious code, I covered that in an earlier comment. #8 I think.
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them. Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me). I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me. If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.
You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads). All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale. L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher. He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher. Apple says no. Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher. ↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation. In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using. Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.
As far as I can see this is about payment, not AppStores. It’s like devs can have their users pay in the same way users can now pay for physical goods, like Uber rides, pizza, groceries.
From the article: As expected, the South Korean plenary vote of the country's National Assembly has backed the Telecommunications Business Act. Apple and Google will no longer be able to require developers to sell apps via the App Store, and pay the companies' commission."
What you quoted is AppleInsider citing its own earlier article, rather than a third-party factual source. It is in fact, incorrect.
Alternative idea. We're only talking about the iOS App Store, correct? Developers are using Apple's property to program their apps, correct? Is there any other way to write apps, other than stupid webapps, for iOS devices? Apple's been nice to not charge developers anything other than an annual fee for all Apple's programming software. If developers don't want to pay for everything Apple is giving them, Apple can simply give them a choice; 1) continue only paying the Apple developer's license and get full access to all programming software in exchange for using Apple's payment system, or 2) charge developers for every piece of Apple programming software they use while allowing them to charge for the software on their own payment system.
Do any of these stupid court cases force Apple to provide the capability to actually side-load apps or force Apple to provide a separate (in-secure), non-charging iOS App Store? I doubt courts could force Apple to actually create an app store front that others could use for free. If they do, I'd like to see Apple go after each government and force them to provide free services for everything they offer without charging any taxes to anyone.
I’m not so sure I agree with the idea of barring them from their in app purchases, but the 30% commission has been unrealistic for a long time. When you think about companies like Spotify, Facebook Marketplace, and Netflix having to pay those, it’s understandable why there is consumer backlash.
They have negotiated lower rates with certain companies such as Amazon, but even this practice opens the door to unfair practices that might benefit some companies over others. There is probably a solution that benefits all parties involved, and that probably involves opening the door for much lower commissions for those kinds of recurring subscriptions, which would reduce the demand for more sweeping legislation (as SK has done) to begin with. But regardless of what they do in response to this, I do think that deeper changes to the App Stores are coming. It’s pretty much inevitable at this point.
If alternative app stores do become a reality, there is potentially another problem for Apple to deal with. Developers who feel they have been stuck with their heads under Apple's boot for too long and resent the way the strings got pulled.
They might opt to pull out of the App Store completely to send a message back upstream.
This could even be tricky for Apple in the case of 'free' apps. Would Facebook pull WhatsApp and move it elsewhere, exposing millions of users to a new source for apps?
The most important thing though, is competition and freedom. Users get choice and that is necessary. Apple shouldn't be playing gatekeeper to what kind on apps are available or restricting competition on payments.
We'll have to wait and see how the law is finally implemented but I'm sure many in Cupertino see this as the first domino to fall.
I'd love to see them stop selling hardware and apps in SK until it settles and see how the SK citizens react to going back to Motoral Razrs or bar phones.
The most important thing though, is competition and freedom. Users get choice and that is necessary. Apple shouldn't be playing gatekeeper to what kind on apps are available or restricting competition on payments.
...
Users get choice... Since when do users of just about any product really get a choice? Yes, you can choose to purchase or not purchase a product. When I go into a store, I can only purchase what they have in the form they have it in. My "choice" is what's offered, which isn't necessarily what I really want. Yes, I can try and find a similar object somewhere else but I want everything I want to buy be in the same store, I don't want to have to look around for things. This is what Apple provides. You might not like everything Apple does but they aren't any different that any other retailer in the world. This is why all these lawsuits are garbage. We all know every store we go into has its own set of rules. You don't like them, shop somewhere else. If you want to buy an Apple product, there are places you can buy them and places you can't. Don't say this is only a payment system because I've already addressed that with companies like Costco only accepting certain credit cards. Should Costco be forced to allow payments outside these credit cards? Should they be forced to allow someone to pay Sam's Club then pick up the product at Costco without paying Costco? Try it and see what happens. The people pushing these lawsuits are simply out to destroy Apple and countries are helping them.
It’s not really a debate, South Korea just forced Apple to rip its products out of their country. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . I find it very interesting how far a government will over extend influence. The China 1 hour gaming limit, and this.
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them. Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me). I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me. If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.
You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads). All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale. L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher. He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher. Apple says no. Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher. ↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation. In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using. Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.
You do realise that the purpose of an analogy is supposed to be to make an idea easier to understand by relating it to something simple in the everyday world? No one sells lemonade like that.
The most important thing though, is competition and freedom. Users get choice and that is necessary. Apple shouldn't be playing gatekeeper to what kind on apps are available or restricting competition on payments.
...
Users get choice... Since when do users of just about any product really get a choice? Yes, you can choose to purchase or not purchase a product. When I go into a store, I can only purchase what they have in the form they have it in. My "choice" is what's offered, which isn't necessarily what I really want. Yes, I can try and find a similar object somewhere else but I want everything I want to buy be in the same store, I don't want to have to look around for things. This is what Apple provides. You might not like everything Apple does but they aren't any different that any other retailer in the world. This is why all these lawsuits are garbage. We all know every store we go into has its own set of rules. You don't like them, shop somewhere else. If you want to buy an Apple product, there are places you can buy them and places you can't. Don't say this is only a payment system because I've already addressed that with companies like Costco only accepting certain credit cards. Should Costco be forced to allow payments outside these credit cards? Should they be forced to allow someone to pay Sam's Club then pick up the product at Costco without paying Costco? Try it and see what happens. The people pushing these lawsuits are simply out to destroy Apple and countries are helping them.
This isn’t quite the same thing as Costco accepting credit cards though. This is pushback against 30% commission rates, which is significantly higher than any credit/debit card service will ever charge the a vendor. To be fair, I’m not exactly in support of the idea of having alternative app stores popping up all over either (opens the door to bad actors in an ecosystem filled with them), but the pushback against those commission rates is definitely not unreasonable. It’s, at the very minimum, understandable. On Android, people can just sideload if they want to (and know the risks, which are real concerns). Apple doesn’t give that option at all. If there is a dispute, there is no recourse.
I’m a big fan of Apple products and use both their computers and their phones daily. I’m also a shareholder and I have a lot of faith in the company’s future. But I also recognize where the industry is going and I think that some degree of change is inevitable. We’ve already seen a lot of it in the past year, and I think we will see more of it in the coming years just by virtue of the way the wind is blowing.
remember the days when Tim got standing ovations at the developer’s conference when he announced how many iPhone customers with registered credit cards were available to the developers and their apps?
Apple created the concept and market.
Smh. Someone name me a developer who was actually worth a crap that went out of business solely because of the App Store overhead charge or because they had to sell only in the App Store.
Go ahead shoot yourselves in the foot. I would gladly pay an Apple Prime subscription amount to buy solely via an Apple curated store and it’s benefits.
And once you curry favor of governments to do your bidding and let politics determine what competition success and failure is, let’s let Apple put a couple dozen of its $B in cash into strategic app development efforts and let’s see what the market looks like. Anyone other than MS, Google and Apple doing the big three “Office type apps” these days?
remember the days when Tim got standing ovations at the developer’s conference when he announced how many iPhone customers with registered credit cards were available to the developers and their apps?
Apple created the concept and market.
Smh. Someone name me a developer who was actually worth a crap that went out of business solely because of the App Store overhead charge or because they had to sell only in the App Store.
Go ahead shoot yourselves in the foot. I would gladly pay an Apple Prime subscription amount to buy solely via an Apple curated store and it’s benefits.
And once you curry favor of governments to do your bidding and let politics determine what competition success and failure is, let’s let Apple put a couple dozen of its $B in cash into strategic app development efforts and let’s see what the market looks like. Anyone other than MS, Google and Apple doing the big three “Office type apps” these days?
Nobody is saying that Apple should get rid of commissions or that they don’t deserve to get paid though. People are concerned that companies like Spotify and Netflix are forced to give away 30% when Amazon negotiates lower rates behind closed doors. When the App Store first came out, it was new and novel. Today it’s matured, and it’s no longer just being used for mobile games, Angry Birds, or simple apps. It’s replacing people’s computers and it has changed the paradigm of how the entire market works.
Some of those concerns aren’t unreasonable. Particularly for subscription based services like Spotify and Netflix (or the email app “hey”) where this has become a big problem. People are arguing for reasonable commissions for those use cases that resolves a big discrepancy in pricing that we are seeing today. Nobody is arguing that Apple should simply get rid of commissions or that they don’t deserve to get paid (or that developers should try to circumvent the rules).
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them. Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me). I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me. If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.
You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads). All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale. L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher. He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher. Apple says no. Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher. ↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation. In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using. Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.
So Apple must allow L’ll Booby to pour his lemonade from his own pitcher and Apple gets nothing in return for operating the App Store? Does not L’ll Bobby get anything of value by being in the app store? Why can’t Apple tell L’ll Bobby if he wants to use his own pitcher then go set up shop in another app store? If I manufacture donuts and want them on the shelves of the largest grocery stores to increase sales, should I also be able to have a point of sale terminal right next to the shelf where my donuts are so people who buy my donuts can pay me directly and bypass the grocery store? Why would a grocery store agree to something like that? Instead of a commission can Apple charge a monthly fee for a developer to have floor space on the App Store?
This will have far reaching effects, so really hope Apple & Google simply pull the app-store from South Korea. I
100% agree. Pull the stores and leave South Korea scrambling until consumers rip the government a new one for trying to fix something that wasn’t broken. People retaliating against this legislation will prevent other countries from attempting to do the same. Allowing alternative stores opens up the platform to a world of hurt. There’s a reason I don’t use Android. I don’t want my experience as a consumer to be ruined or compromised because some clueless government bureaucrats half way around the world went on some bullshit self righteous crusade in seek of good press.
Just because other app stores are allowed, doesn't mean that you have to download apps from them. Stick with the Apple app store, and there is no change for you (or me). I would never go to another app store other than Apple's, so not a big deal to me. If people want to be stupid and download unknown apps from another site, that is on them, and one thing I really hope Apple does is have some sort of disclaimer that if you do, you may void your warranty.
You make a fair case for consumer freedom. But you don't realize that corporations also have freedom to not be required to provide the software and services to allow for third party app stores. How would you like it if you sold lemonade on your street and were told by the government that you had to sell your neighbor's lemonade and give the profits of that lemonade to your neighbor? Apple works very hard and deserves the right to not have to share its app store profit with its competitors.
Apple sells lemonade cups (iPhones and iPads). All the kids (devs) in the neighborhood can sell flavors of lemonade(apps) but they have to pour it from the Apple pitcher (App Store) and Apple gets a cut of their sale. L'il Bobby has his own pitcher and doesn't think he needs to use the Apple pitcher. He can just pour his lemonade into the customers cup from his pitcher. Apple says no. Use my cup, you gotta use my pitcher. ↑↑↑ That's a more apt description of the situation. In this little story, most are still going to use the Apple pitcher because it's what they're used to using. Bobby eventually brings his flavor of lemonade back to the Apple pitcher because not enough people stopped using the Apple pitcher for it to be profitable.
You do realise that the purpose of an analogy is supposed to be to make an idea easier to understand by relating it to something simple in the everyday world? No one sells lemonade like that.
Comments
A: Apple has to host Bob's Game but if Bob wants to run all charges through his own system, then Apple gets nothing. This hardly seems fair as Apple does have some expense in hosting and vetting the game.
B: Apple can host Bob's Game and the purchase of the game goes through Apple's system and Apple gets their cut. But Bob's Game Expansion Packs could be bought directly from Bob, and Apple would get nothing. This doesn't seem unreasonable. I've always been uncomfortable with Apple getting a cut of sales outside of the AppStore. It does open up some risk, in that while the core App is vetted by Apple, the Expansion Packs would not be and could add malware or functions that Apple does not allow.
C: Sales would continue as they do now with Apple hosting and vetting the software except companies could use their own payment systems instead of Apples'. Apple would still get their cut regardless of whether billing went through Apple's systems or not. This would be a logistical nightmare and I don't think would accomplish much
D. Apple has to allow side-loading any app from any store from anywhere. I don't believe that is within the scope of this legislation.
So what does this actually mean?
Apple can fight back with a two-ton hammer: drop App Store fees in South Korea so low (under 10%) that no developers will be bothered to try and use their own payment systems. Or so low that customers given a choice will always choose Apple.
or are they going to say Apple isn’t allowed to compete in the payments area?
On the other hand, these two companies do have essentially a duopoly on the entire mobile device market. As an iPhone owner, why can't I download from wherever I please? It's my device. Perhaps Apple should create a simple warning dialog when installing from other sources. "WARNING: Installing software outside of the Apple App Store may result in damage to your data/and or device and will expose you to numerous security risks beyond Apple's control. Do you wish to proceed?" The same message could be modified for other payment systems.
In the end, I agree that it's unlikely to have a major impact. If the policy goes global, Apple will find ways (like the above) to "encourage" users not to stray from the ranch.
There is nothing in this law that requires "alternative stores." The law only requires that Apple allow third-party payment systems, such as those used by companies like Amazon in their own apps.
Allowing third-party payment systems does not mean Apple is prohibited from monetizing the App Store, it simply changes how and when it collects any fees. For example, some landlords charge businesses a percentage of the gross. Apple could do the same, or it could implement standalone fees or raise the commission for all developers. There is nothing in this law that bars Apple or Google from collecting fees from developers.
"Pull[ing] the stores" accomplishes nothing. As stated above, Apple and Google can simply monetize their app store in other ways, assuming they don't close them per your ridiculous suggestion.
What you quoted is AppleInsider citing its own earlier article, rather than a third-party factual source. It is in fact, incorrect.
Do any of these stupid court cases force Apple to provide the capability to actually side-load apps or force Apple to provide a separate (in-secure), non-charging iOS App Store? I doubt courts could force Apple to actually create an app store front that others could use for free. If they do, I'd like to see Apple go after each government and force them to provide free services for everything they offer without charging any taxes to anyone.
They might opt to pull out of the App Store completely to send a message back upstream.
This could even be tricky for Apple in the case of 'free' apps. Would Facebook pull WhatsApp and move it elsewhere, exposing millions of users to a new source for apps?
The most important thing though, is competition and freedom. Users get choice and that is necessary. Apple shouldn't be playing gatekeeper to what kind on apps are available or restricting competition on payments.
We'll have to wait and see how the law is finally implemented but I'm sure many in Cupertino see this as the first domino to fall.
remember the days when Tim got standing ovations at the developer’s conference when he announced how many iPhone customers with registered credit cards were available to the developers and their apps?