Where this headed is that more and more apps will be free to download with a subscription managed totally out-of-band by the app developer. This is exactly how Microsoft Office 365 (and other subscription based apps) works today and it’s really not a big deal.
From a consumer perspective it just means that you’re having to deal with a separate payment system for all of these out-of-band subscriptions and you’re handing out your personal and financial information to many more people. In other words, consumers are taking on more complexity, inconvenience, and privacy/security risk so that App developers can skim a little more profit from you. Yes, they can be nice and pass along some of their savings to you, but they don’t have to. They can charge whatever they want and with addictive games the sky is the limit.
In the end, these out-of-band app subscription payment services aren’t screwing Apple nearly as much as they are screwing their customers.
And all because Apple got far too greedy. A 30% cut is absolutely insane.
Not that this is how I think the situation should be resolved. Regulators need to end Apple's app store monopoly. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing. Apple's app store monopoly needs to end.
Are you completely lost, daftvader? You have had this option since day one. You just can’t do it inside Apple’s iOS …of course. Go jail break as much as you like on your iPhone.
Where this headed is that more and more apps will be free to download with a subscription managed totally out-of-band by the app developer. This is exactly how Microsoft Office 365 (and other subscription based apps) works today and it’s really not a big deal.
From a consumer perspective it just means that you’re having to deal with a separate payment system for all of these out-of-band subscriptions and you’re handing out your personal and financial information to many more people. In other words, consumers are taking on more complexity, inconvenience, and privacy/security risk so that App developers can skim a little more profit from you. Yes, they can be nice and pass along some of their savings to you, but they don’t have to. They can charge whatever they want and with addictive games the sky is the limit.
In the end, these out-of-band app subscription payment services aren’t screwing Apple nearly as much as they are screwing their customers.
And all because Apple got far too greedy. A 30% cut is absolutely insane.
Not that this is how I think the situation should be resolved. Regulators need to end Apple's app store monopoly. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing. Apple's app store monopoly needs to end.
Nonsense. It’s exactly how video game consoles have operated for decades. And it’s less than what you’d lose in markup when wholesaling to physical retail.
Should Nintendo and Sony now be required to let game devs implement their own payment systems that cut out Nintendo, etc?
Monopolies aren’t illegal in themselves. McDonald’s has a monopoly on its own menu, stores, vendors, and offerings.
Lastly, you are free to jailbreak and install whatever you want. That’s an entirely different matter than Apple letting their own store be used to distribute whatever vendors want. You don’t have a firm grasp on the topics being discussed.
Just want to take a quick moment to remind everyone, particularly the “30% is robbery” folks, that you pay far greater markups every single day. I’m sure many of you are paying far more than 30% in the aggregate just on markups of materials from your contractor, electrician, or some other service provider. Or a utility company. Or just going to your local stores — where the percentage on markups can run to the thousands of the manufacturing costs. Where are the protests from manufacturers when Walmart marks a product up by hundreds of a percent? That money could be going to the creators, but instead goes to the distributers. Overwhelmingly so. (Or did you think HBO was a charity? Or say, when was the last time you refused to buy an exorbitantly priced drink with your meal?)
Additionally, each layer is taking it’s supposed ‘value-added’ cut. Personally, I think this is what this is all about — Apple cuts out so many middle-actors that are used to getting their pound of flesh, that they’re now trying to do this end run in order to assert what they see as their rightful places in the food chain. Basically, a revolt of the usual parasites.
You’ll notice that the industries that know how to pay off these characters, by giving powerful interests a cut of the action, aren’t being scrutinized. Even though they are enormously more anti-competitive and anti-consumer. So it’s not ethics at stake here — but the hierarchy of who profits and how.
Just a thought.
ps - please excuse the writing quality. Had to tap this out quickly.
No surprise that Europe’s wants special treatment for its developers. European exceptionalism is on the rise
It's not just the EU involved. The investigations into Apple's (and Google's) mobile OS practices have being coming in from around the world. Japan just this week has announced the fourth antitrust investigation involving Apple, and this one could have the biggest repercussions of all. It's looking into possible monopoly positions held by the two big techs.
Before anyone jumps in with "Apple can't have a monopoly since Android has the majority share of the market" note that in the only relevant market, that of Japan, iOS holds a 70% controlling share with a 30% minority going to Android.
One doesn't need to have a majority of the market to be an alternative. No one has to buy an Apple device. Apple does not have a monopoly.
If only Apple fans could serve as Japan's legal office.
Sidenote; Had Apple controlled a 70% of the US market the Epic/Apple ruling would likely have fallen on the side of Epic and not Apple based on the judge's comments accompanying the decision. Yes Apple might have been found in violation of US antitrust laws after all the evidence was heard.
I fully expect Apple's AppStore will not go unscathed, and neither Apple nor Google's appstore will exist as is 24 months from now. Both have been on a roll banking $B's in profit over the past decade in app commissions, but things will be changing, and significantly so. The hayday is coming to an end.
They'll both remain highly profitable app stores, but not without serious competitors stealing away some statistically relevant percentage.
I totally disagree that there will be serious damage to the app store model. Apple will simply make using a third party system more trouble than it's worth.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They have a system in which you agree to participate when you buy your device. Don't like their walled garden approach? By a Samsung. Buy a Pixel. There are numerous viable alternatives to iOS. If you want to install apps from third parties, get one of those alternatives. Or create a movement to get Apple to change its mind. But no, you want government to force Apple to change its own product with no evidence it will help consumers or that it's violating any laws.
Now, the commission. Why is it "absolutely insane?" Obviously, the market disagrees. Apple is in business to make money. They charge what the market will bear and what will be good for their business. This is why the commission is 15% in some cases...because the good PR and goodwill with small developers will make Apple more money.
Opinions like the one you've stated are not based on reality or the law. It's just a tantrum.
Imagine, you own a house, the town you live in sells the street to your house to a private investor, because it needs money, and the new owner says to you, pay 30% of your income as rent for the street. You can't sell your home because the value decreased due to that and there is also not another street you can use to reach your house. And maybe because you are such a "free market" lover that you convinced the city council that property owner should be regulated by the state. So essentially you have exchanged regulation by a public body with the regulation of a private company which can do what ever it wants, because the company's only reason to exist is making money. And yes, the owner of your street has in this example an monopoly for accessing your house, even if there are houses on other streets which are not owned by the same person.
I hope your are rich enough to live in your dream world.
What an absolutely silly and inappropriate analogy.
1. It's doubtful a town could even sell a public street to an investor. I imagine there would be numerous legal obstacles. 2. For any such sale to be ultimately legal, the investor would have to allow access to private property. There are all sorts of property rights and due process issues here that make your scenario not just unlikely, but absurd. 3. Even putting #1-2 aside, consumers and developers alike know Apple's system and rules well in advance. It's not like Apple just sprung this anyone. 4. Putting all of the above aside, Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones and devices. If we follow your silly analogy, there are multiple alternate roads to access your fictional house. Some are more basic, some are almost as nice. But Apple has this really nice toll road. It's got a great surface, is 6 lanes, and has beautiful design features. It costs $5 to take the road. But that's not good enough for you...you want to drive on it for free.
repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.
It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.
You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law. You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly. Standard Oil was one. Bell Telephone was one. But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software. Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.
repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.
It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.
You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law. You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly. Standard Oil was one. Bell Telephone was one. But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software. Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.
And you don't know what a monopoly is, because you only work within the lmited definition of anti-trust law, which deals only with one type of monopoly. but they come in different shape and sizes, Apple's App Store is one of them. And it is also not that you can't sign up for Apple TV+ on Android or use Google Play Film on iOS, while you can use Apple Music on Android and YouTube Music on iOS. So the example buying a Big Max at Burger King just misses the point entirely. That is not the point. The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. And the point is that Apple treats its own services (which compete with other services on iOS) differently than those third party services. Apple shouldn't be allowed to run the iOS platform this way.
Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
Just want to take a quick moment to remind everyone, particularly the “30% is robbery” folks, that you pay far greater markups every single day. I’m sure many of you are paying far more than 30% in the aggregate just on markups of materials from your contractor, electrician, or some other service provider. Or a utility company. Or just going to your local stores — where the percentage on markups can run to the thousands of the manufacturing costs. Where are the protests from manufacturers when Walmart marks a product up by hundreds of a percent? That money could be going to the creators, but instead goes to the distributers. Overwhelmingly so. (Or did you think HBO was a charity? Or say, when was the last time you refused to buy an exorbitantly priced drink with your meal?)
Additionally, each layer is taking it’s supposed ‘value-added’ cut. Personally, I think this is what this is all about — Apple cuts out so many middle-actors that are used to getting their pound of flesh, that they’re now trying to do this end run in order to assert what they see as their rightful places in the food chain. Basically, a revolt of the usual parasites.
You’ll notice that the industries that know how to pay off these characters, by giving powerful interests a cut of the action, aren’t being scrutinized. Even though they are enormously more anti-competitive and anti-consumer. So it’s not ethics at stake here — but the hierarchy of who profits and how.
Just a thought.
ps - please excuse the writing quality. Had to tap this out quickly.
In certain markets like grocery, restaurants, food production, and even construction, the final product or service cost to consumers also reflects things like spoilage, waste, "shrinkage" (including employee theft), mandatory insurance costs that employers must pay, and other losses not associated with middlemen taking a cut. To the consumer these are invisible costs that don't show up on a bill of material or a service fee handed off to a service provider, but to employers and people making things they really add up and someone has to pay for them. There's a reason why the failure rate for new businesses within 5 years of their inception is close to 50%. When the invisible becomes visible and you're footing the bill for the invisible, your perception of who is on which side of the "robbery" equation can suddenly change.
Apple is trying to run a business as a business. A lot of these bureaucrats are trying to force Apple to run a business as a charity, because frankly, they don't know how to run a business and have an unlimited source of funds to keep their little adventures in wielding political power going on forever, or until enough of their constituents realize that they're also on the wrong end of the robbery equation too and kick 'em all to the curb.
Just want to take a quick moment to remind everyone, particularly the “30% is robbery” folks, that you pay far greater markups every single day. I’m sure many of you are paying far more than 30% in the aggregate just on markups of materials from your contractor, electrician, or some other service provider. Or a utility company. Or just going to your local stores — where the percentage on markups can run to the thousands of the manufacturing costs. Where are the protests from manufacturers when Walmart marks a product up by hundreds of a percent? That money could be going to the creators, but instead goes to the distributers. Overwhelmingly so. (Or did you think HBO was a charity? Or say, when was the last time you refused to buy an exorbitantly priced drink with your meal?)
Additionally, each layer is taking it’s supposed ‘value-added’ cut. Personally, I think this is what this is all about — Apple cuts out so many middle-actors that are used to getting their pound of flesh, that they’re now trying to do this end run in order to assert what they see as their rightful places in the food chain. Basically, a revolt of the usual parasites.
You’ll notice that the industries that know how to pay off these characters, by giving powerful interests a cut of the action, aren’t being scrutinized. Even though they are enormously more anti-competitive and anti-consumer. So it’s not ethics at stake here — but the hierarchy of who profits and how.
Just a thought.
ps - please excuse the writing quality. Had to tap this out quickly.
In certain markets like grocery, restaurants, food production, and even construction, the final product or service cost to consumers also reflects things like spoilage, waste, "shrinkage" (including employee theft), mandatory insurance costs that employers must pay, and other losses not associated with middlemen taking a cut. To the consumer these are invisible costs that don't show up on a bill of material or a service fee handed off to a service provider, but to employers and people making things they really add up and someone has to pay for them. There's a reason why the failure rate for new businesses within 5 years of their inception is close to 50%. When the invisible becomes visible and you're footing the bill for the invisible, your perception of who is on which side of the "robbery" equation can suddenly change.
Apple is trying to run a business as a business. A lot of these bureaucrats are trying to force Apple to run a business as a charity, because frankly, they don't know how to run a business and have an unlimited source of funds to keep their little adventures in wielding political power going on forever, or until enough of their constituents realize that they're also on the wrong end of the robbery equation too and kick 'em all to the curb.
The most confusing argument here is, that Apple would lose money if it were regulated. To be honest, I don't care if Apple earns money or not. It is not my concern. When they liberated the phone market in Germany and forced the Telekom to rent out their lines to competitiors I didn't care much if the Telekom would make money with those rented line, I cared more about having a choice which phone company I can choose and it worked. There is competition. And if the Telekom wants to earn money, they have to work for it.
Where this headed is that more and more apps will be free to download with a subscription managed totally out-of-band by the app developer. This is exactly how Microsoft Office 365 (and other subscription based apps) works today and it’s really not a big deal.
From a consumer perspective it just means that you’re having to deal with a separate payment system for all of these out-of-band subscriptions and you’re handing out your personal and financial information to many more people. In other words, consumers are taking on more complexity, inconvenience, and privacy/security risk so that App developers can skim a little more profit from you. Yes, they can be nice and pass along some of their savings to you, but they don’t have to. They can charge whatever they want and with addictive games the sky is the limit.
In the end, these out-of-band app subscription payment services aren’t screwing Apple nearly as much as they are screwing their customers.
And all because Apple got far too greedy. A 30% cut is absolutely insane.
Not that this is how I think the situation should be resolved. Regulators need to end Apple's app store monopoly. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing. Apple's app store monopoly needs to end.
Right, some of these cultists will eat you alive for even THINKING like that. The same ones that riled up against Microsoft’s inclusion of IE. Same ones that stand up against Google’s tracking/privacy issues on Google’s device (apparently Apple can do whatever they want since it’s THEIR phone, but when it comes to Google consumers come first).
Wonder what they would think if auto manufacturers made it a requirement to buy parts for their vehicles only through them. What if businesses no longer wanted to give people breaks and/or vacation time? It’s their business, let them run it however they want.
The instantly in some of these thoughts is mind boggling.
The implication that those of us who don't believe Apple has an illegal monopoly are "cultists" is both insulting and inaccurate.
Secondly, no. Microsoft IE was a different animal. Microsoft had what was effectively a monopoly on PC operating systems. This in itself was not illegal nor improper, as many monopolies aren't. The issue was they used their dominant position in operating systems to harm their browser competition, namely Netscape They pressured hardware partners and did what they could do break Netscape, both in Windows and in the real world. That was the problem.
Third, we aren't talking about repair or parts. We're talking about a product you buy, one that has certain features and limitations. The app store system is both. It provides a seamless, secure experience, but is the only way to install software legitimately. If a developer doesn't want to pay, they don't have to develop for the platform. "But Apple has a monopoly on iPhones," you cry. Well, yes. But the market is not "iPhone." The market is smartphones. There are multiple alternatives to Apple's system for both developers and consumers.
I'm not sure I see where you're going with notion that companies could eliminate breaks or vacation time. You act like that's illegal or should be illegal. In many cases, companies can absolutely do that if they choose. It sounds to me (though I'm only supposing) that you might looking at it from the perspective of hourly workers only. Those rules (particularly on breaks and hours) are different. I'm not saying companies eliminating "breaks" and vacation time for salaried workers would be good business, or even right. But on what grounds are you arguing it's illegal or should be illegal?
In any case, it's a weak comparison. Apple has rules for its app store. For the most part, they're going to get to keep them. The one area they'll have to adjust is the outright ban on third party payment systems. They'll make their money there, too, and it will be completely legal.
Where this headed is that more and more apps will be free to download with a subscription managed totally out-of-band by the app developer. This is exactly how Microsoft Office 365 (and other subscription based apps) works today and it’s really not a big deal.
From a consumer perspective it just means that you’re having to deal with a separate payment system for all of these out-of-band subscriptions and you’re handing out your personal and financial information to many more people. In other words, consumers are taking on more complexity, inconvenience, and privacy/security risk so that App developers can skim a little more profit from you. Yes, they can be nice and pass along some of their savings to you, but they don’t have to. They can charge whatever they want and with addictive games the sky is the limit.
In the end, these out-of-band app subscription payment services aren’t screwing Apple nearly as much as they are screwing their customers.
And all because Apple got far too greedy. A 30% cut is absolutely insane.
Not that this is how I think the situation should be resolved. Regulators need to end Apple's app store monopoly. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing. Apple's app store monopoly needs to end.
Right, some of these cultists will eat you alive for even THINKING like that. The same ones that riled up against Microsoft’s inclusion of IE. Same ones that stand up against Google’s tracking/privacy issues on Google’s device (apparently Apple can do whatever they want since it’s THEIR phone, but when it comes to Google consumers come first).
Wonder what they would think if auto manufacturers made it a requirement to buy parts for their vehicles only through them. What if businesses no longer wanted to give people breaks and/or vacation time? It’s their business, let them run it however they want.
The instantly in some of these thoughts is mind boggling.
The implication that those of us who don't believe Apple has an illegal monopoly are "cultists" is both insulting and inaccurate.
Secondly, no. Microsoft IE was a different animal. Microsoft had what was effectively a monopoly on PC operating systems. This in itself was not illegal nor improper, as many monopolies aren't. The issue was they used their dominant position in operating systems to harm their browser competition, namely Netscape They pressured hardware partners and did what they could do break Netscape, both in Windows and in the real world. That was the problem.
Third, we aren't talking about repair or parts. We're talking about a product you buy, one that has certain features and limitations. The app store system is both. It provides a seamless, secure experience, but is the only way to install software legitimately. If a developer doesn't want to pay, they don't have to develop for the platform. "But Apple has a monopoly on iPhones," you cry. Well, yes. But the market is not "iPhone." The market is smartphones. There are multiple alternatives to Apple's system for both developers and consumers.
I'm not sure I see where you're going with notion that companies could eliminate breaks or vacation time. You act like that's illegal or should be illegal. In many cases, companies can absolutely do that if they choose. It sounds to me (though I'm only supposing) that you might looking at it from the perspective of hourly workers only. Those rules (particularly on breaks and hours) are different. I'm not saying companies eliminating "breaks" and vacation time for salaried workers would be good business, or even right. But on what grounds are you arguing it's illegal or should be illegal?
In any case, it's a weak comparison. Apple has rules for its app store. For the most part, they're going to get to keep them. The one area they'll have to adjust is the outright ban on third party payment systems. They'll make their money there, too, and it will be completely legal.
Look at the last Japan vs. Apple antitrust settlement from a few weeks ago. It requires more than just allowing a third-party payment option from Apple. It permits developers of "reader apps" to directly steer customers to their own site to initiate a subscription and avoid Apple altogether. Minor I know, but it's another chink in the armor. The newest Japan case is considering steps that go beyond the AppStore. !'ll let you read for yourself though. Research is seldom bad.
repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.
It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.
You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law. You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly. Standard Oil was one. Bell Telephone was one. But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software. Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.
And you don't know what a monopoly is, because you only work within the lmited definition of anti-trust law, which deals only with one type of monopoly. but they come in different shape and sizes, Apple's App Store is one of them. And it is also not that you can't sign up for Apple TV+ on Android or use Google Play Film on iOS, while you can use Apple Music on Android and YouTube Music on iOS. So the example buying a Big Max at Burger King just misses the point entirely. That is not the point. The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. And the point is that Apple treats its own services (which compete with other services on iOS) differently than those third party services. Apple shouldn't be allowed to run the iOS platform this way.
Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
I happen to know exactly what a monopoly is. So did the judge in the Epic trial. You apparently disagree, which you are free to do. It just doesn't make you right.
The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android.
When the Epic ruling goes into effect, that won't be true. Apple must allow other payment systems to be advertised. I don't know about "mentioning" Android. That's pretty broad.
And companies won't behave without regulation.
That's debatable, though I wasn't arguing for zero regulation, so you may put that straw man away now. I will note that regulation has everything to do with price because price impacts the consumer. Clearly, consumers benefit from Apple's current system, especially compared to what buying software was like 15 years ago. Quality is way up, security is way up, price is way down.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
There you go again. Apple has to promote competitors? It has to treat rival software developers and even services equally to its own? Why? Putting aside the nonsense of Apple paying itself a commission from Apple Music (a store it runs and maintains), Apple must now treat, say, Netflix exactly the same as Apple TV+? Again, on what grounds? Because Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, it can absolutely promote its own products and services over others.
Do you have any understanding of how business works? Companies promoting their own wares over others is just the start of it. We haven't even gotten into affiliates and partnerships and what not.
"Your use of Apple software or hardware products is based on the software license and other terms and conditions in effect for the product at the time of purchase. Your agreement to these terms is required to install or use the product."
Apple and any other company can put anything they want in their boilerplate. It doesn’t mean anything.
Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists
Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate.
The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?
A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.
Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's?
How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?
How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)
Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them?
Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.
There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...
repeating this doesn't make it true, as long as there is no other way to install software on an Apple device, Apple has a monopoly over the software distribution on that device. It doesn't matter if you can buy another one or that only a few people are using it, it is a monopoly. The same is true for Google and the Play Store, Sony and the PlayStation store, Nintendo and their Switch store. It is not true for Apple on macOS or Microsoft on Windows.
It could even be argued that Apple requirement to have a developer license and that applications on macOS have to be signed and notarised that is creating a monopoly.
You clearly don't understand even the basics of anti-trust law. You might start by understanding what a monopoly is, and also what constitutes an illegal monopoly. Standard Oil was one. Bell Telephone was one. But what you're arguing is that Kia Motors can't require me to get a software update at the dealer because they have a monopoly on installing that software. Or that I should be able to buy a Big Mac at Burger King.
And you don't know what a monopoly is, because you only work within the lmited definition of anti-trust law, which deals only with one type of monopoly. but they come in different shape and sizes, Apple's App Store is one of them. And it is also not that you can't sign up for Apple TV+ on Android or use Google Play Film on iOS, while you can use Apple Music on Android and YouTube Music on iOS. So the example buying a Big Max at Burger King just misses the point entirely. That is not the point. The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android. And the point is that Apple treats its own services (which compete with other services on iOS) differently than those third party services. Apple shouldn't be allowed to run the iOS platform this way.
Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
I happen to know exactly what a monopoly is. So did the judge in the Epic trial. You apparently disagree, which you are free to do. It just doesn't make you right.
The point is, that Apple disallows you on their platfom any other marketing than through Apple, you can't mention sign up processes elsewhere you can't even mention Android.
When the Epic ruling goes into effect, that won't be true. Apple must allow other payment systems to be advertised. I don't know about "mentioning" Android. That's pretty broad.
And companies won't behave without regulation.
That's debatable, though I wasn't arguing for zero regulation, so you may put that straw man away now. I will note that regulation has everything to do with price because price impacts the consumer. Clearly, consumers benefit from Apple's current system, especially compared to what buying software was like 15 years ago. Quality is way up, security is way up, price is way down.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
There you go again. Apple has to promote competitors? It has to treat rival software developers and even services equally to its own? Why? Putting aside the nonsense of Apple paying itself a commission from Apple Music (a store it runs and maintains), Apple must now treat, say, Netflix exactly the same as Apple TV+? Again, on what grounds? Because Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, it can absolutely promote its own products and services over others.
Do you have any understanding of how business works? Companies promoting their own wares over others is just the start of it. We haven't even gotten into affiliates and partnerships and what not.
There are few things you don't understand, the first one is, that I don't care about the decision of some american judge on if Apple is a monopoly or not. I'm neither American nor a lawyer. Secondly, monopolies come and many shapes and sizes and since I'm an economist I'm not a big fan of any of those but in some cases they are unavoidable or even good. third point is, even when a monopoly is unavoidable or good it needs to be regulated.
Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists
Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate.
The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?
A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.
Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's?
How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?
How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)
Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them?
Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.
There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...
I guess you would happy if Apple would close down macOS as they close down iOS, no more installing third party applications from the web, no more direct access to the file system. Btw Apple actively ignored several security vulnerabilities reported to them this year w/o fixing them in time. Or how they denied the privacy for their employees by forcing them to use their personal Apple ID/devices for work. Apple doesn't care for its users or security, they only care for their profit and share prices.
The only reason why I'm currently considering an iPhone for my next smartphone is that Apple supports them for a longer period of time than other manufacturers with actual updates.
The App Store is not a feature it is a market place, and capitalists should be lobbying for free access to market places, right?
Where this headed is that more and more apps will be free to download with a subscription managed totally out-of-band by the app developer. This is exactly how Microsoft Office 365 (and other subscription based apps) works today and it’s really not a big deal.
From a consumer perspective it just means that you’re having to deal with a separate payment system for all of these out-of-band subscriptions and you’re handing out your personal and financial information to many more people. In other words, consumers are taking on more complexity, inconvenience, and privacy/security risk so that App developers can skim a little more profit from you. Yes, they can be nice and pass along some of their savings to you, but they don’t have to. They can charge whatever they want and with addictive games the sky is the limit.
In the end, these out-of-band app subscription payment services aren’t screwing Apple nearly as much as they are screwing their customers.
And all because Apple got far too greedy. A 30% cut is absolutely insane.
Not that this is how I think the situation should be resolved. Regulators need to end Apple's app store monopoly. It's MY iPhone, not Apple's iPhone, and I should be able to install apps from any source of MY choosing. Apple's app store monopoly needs to end.
No, that's not how any of this works.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly. They have a system in which you agree to participate when you buy your device. Don't like their walled garden approach? By a Samsung. Buy a Pixel. There are numerous viable alternatives to iOS. If you want to install apps from third parties, get one of those alternatives. Or create a movement to get Apple to change its mind. But no, you want government to force Apple to change its own product with no evidence it will help consumers or that it's violating any laws.
Now, the commission. Why is it "absolutely insane?" Obviously, the market disagrees. Apple is in business to make money. They charge what the market will bear and what will be good for their business. This is why the commission is 15% in some cases...because the good PR and goodwill with small developers will make Apple more money.
Opinions like the one you've stated are not based on reality or the law. It's just a tantrum.
Either way, a company doesn’t have to be a monopoly to be found guilty or monopolistic practises.
Everyone overcomplicates, including government interventionists
Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate.
The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?
A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.
Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's?
How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?
How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)
Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them?
Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.
There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...
I guess you would happy if Apple would close down macOS as they close down iOS, no more installing third party applications from the web, no more direct access to the file system. Btw Apple actively ignored several security vulnerabilities reported to them this year w/o fixing them in time. Or how they denied the privacy for their employees by forcing them to use their personal Apple ID/devices for work. Apple doesn't care for its users or security, they only care for their profit and share prices.
The only reason why I'm currently considering an iPhone for my next smartphone is that Apple supports them for a longer period of time than other manufacturers with actual updates.
The App Store is not a feature it is a market place, and capitalists should be lobbying for free access to market places, right?
Of course its' a feature of iOS. Try to use the Apple App Store on a Playstation or Xbox.
If you think that poorly of Apple's overall efforts, a slightly longer OS support timeframe doesn't seem to warrant buying into them as a company for you.
No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies. Again - what you are saying is I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.
If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you. Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.
And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.
I think you need to do some more research into your arguments before you type them.
Apple offers two things here.
First it offers a device that you elected to buy knowing it was a walled garden. As part of that purchase you could use the device as Apple originally sold it to you with only Apples apps. In that scenario clearly not a monopoly because that arm of Apple sold you a product.
Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase. You are not required to use this service. They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.
For the general thought, I purchase a membership at Costco. Costco provides me a card, a tangible object with terms and conditions. That tangible object it mine to use and enjoy. I could just put it in my wallet to say I have one or I could take selfies with it at the beach. My $60 bought me a piece of plastic and the ability to access their walled garden. Within that walled garden I can only access the products and services that Costco feels are appropriate and receives some revenue from. My $60 plastic card does not allow we to ask them to carry anything, does not allow we to buy at Sam’s club, or allows me to take their product and pay for it on the manufacturer’s website. For my $60, I got the privilege of being able to walk into the walled garden.
While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly. They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.
By the way this is the current legislative benchmark in the US:
“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890
Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.
No, what you write is riddled with non-logic and inconsistencies. Again - what you are saying is I can't buy Target products at Trader Joes. And what about grocery stores charging SELF fees? Is THAT illegal? If so on what grounds? If a supplier doesn't pay shelf fees, guess what, they don't get into the store. None of what you say can be applied to any other situation in any way. It's really just anger that another company has had success and you want to make sure they don't.
If you don't know what the difference between the compitition between Trader Joe's and Target and the competition between Android and iOS is, that there is no way I can explain it to you. Why is this so hard to understand what the differences are? Why simple grocery store around the corner and the app store on your phone are not the same? I mean, I could buy an HP printer from store A and get the ink from store B but I can't buy an app for my iPhone from store A today and store B tomorrow. And I would have to switch the entire platform, with all the consequences it entails. How is that the same of getting bread from store A today and store B tomorrow? Sorry, but you really don't understand what a monopoly is and what it isn't.
And if Apple has only success because they use their market power on iOS, I mean they just advertised their services in the settings, than they can go bankrupt for all I care.
I think you need to do some more research into your arguments before you type them.
Apple offers two things here.
First it offers a device that you elected to buy knowing it was a walled garden. As part of that purchase you could use the device as Apple originally sold it to you with only Apples apps. In that scenario clearly not a monopoly because that arm of Apple sold you a product.
Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase. You are not required to use this service. They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.
For the general thought, I purchase a membership at Costco. Costco provides me a card, a tangible object with terms and conditions. That tangible object it mine to use and enjoy. I could just put it in my wallet to say I have one or I could take selfies with it at the beach. My $60 bought me a piece of plastic and the ability to access their walled garden. Within that walled garden I can only access the products and services that Costco feels are appropriate and receives some revenue from. My $60 plastic card does not allow we to ask them to carry anything, does not allow we to buy at Sam’s club, or allows me to take their product and pay for it on the manufacturer’s website. For my $60, I got the privilege of being able to walk into the walled garden.
While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly. They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.
By the way this is the current legislative benchmark in the US:
“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890
Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.
Here is thing, a phone is not a membership card. It device you use daily and it is something you only have one of. Sometimes you also have a work phone. But that it. I have a card in front of me, that gives me 25% off tickets with the Deutsche Bahn, I can't use it with Flixtrain or Flixbus or any other rail transport, but it doesn't prevent me from using those. Unlike a phone, if I wanted to use an app from the Play Store i have to switch to an Android device, and back, when want to use an app from the App Store. To believe that is realistic behaviour you don't know anything.
Also you migth be right, Walmart is probably the only (grocery) store for a lot of people within reasonable travelling distance even with a car.
But with one thing you are wrong, the App Store has become so succesful that it became an important market place for people's livelyhood. That means that private company has control over the livelyhood of other private companies and people to tell what they can and cannot do, without the possibilty of checks and balances. That is different with the state, and a reason why I prefer regulation by the state instead of a private company. Rule of law means that rules are decided in a parliament with the public present, rules can be challenged and decisions made because of those rules can be challenged too.
Essentially, because Apple created an exclusive and succesful App Store it created a platform which needs regulation. If it were an unsuccessful platform nobody would care. But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation. You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.
Comments
Should Nintendo and Sony now be required to let game devs implement their own payment systems that cut out Nintendo, etc?
Monopolies aren’t illegal in themselves. McDonald’s has a monopoly on its own menu, stores, vendors, and offerings.
Lastly, you are free to jailbreak and install whatever you want. That’s an entirely different matter than Apple letting their own store be used to distribute whatever vendors want. You don’t have a firm grasp on the topics being discussed.
Additionally, each layer is taking it’s supposed ‘value-added’ cut. Personally, I think this is what this is all about — Apple cuts out so many middle-actors that are used to getting their pound of flesh, that they’re now trying to do this end run in order to assert what they see as their rightful places in the food chain. Basically, a revolt of the usual parasites.
You’ll notice that the industries that know how to pay off these characters, by giving powerful interests a cut of the action, aren’t being scrutinized. Even though they are enormously more anti-competitive and anti-consumer. So it’s not ethics at stake here — but the hierarchy of who profits and how.
Just a thought.
ps - please excuse the writing quality. Had to tap this out quickly.
I totally disagree that there will be serious damage to the app store model. Apple will simply make using a third party system more trouble than it's worth.
What an absolutely silly and inappropriate analogy.
1. It's doubtful a town could even sell a public street to an investor. I imagine there would be numerous legal obstacles.
2. For any such sale to be ultimately legal, the investor would have to allow access to private property. There are all sorts of property rights and due process issues here that make your scenario not just unlikely, but absurd.
3. Even putting #1-2 aside, consumers and developers alike know Apple's system and rules well in advance. It's not like Apple just sprung this anyone.
4. Putting all of the above aside, Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones and devices. If we follow your silly analogy, there are multiple alternate roads to access your fictional house. Some are more basic, some are almost as nice. But Apple has this really nice toll road. It's got a great surface, is 6 lanes, and has beautiful design features. It costs $5 to take the road. But that's not good enough for you...you want to drive on it for free.
Btw, where do you get the idea I want anything for free? Prices are currently not relevant, this is about access and conditions for access. And I want Apple to be regulated. And before you even ask, this is also true for Google. I'm not a apologetic fanboy who defend a commercial profit driven company. They are all awful in their own way. And companies won't behave without regulation.
Just like Apple demands from services that you can delete accounts within there apps by the end of January 2022 I want Apple to treat all services egually, this includes Apple's own ones. When Spotify must pay 30% of their in-app subscriptions, Apple Music must do that too. (Btw, who at Apple thought it was a good idea that the subscription mangement is part of the Music app?)
The implication that those of us who don't believe Apple has an illegal monopoly are "cultists" is both insulting and inaccurate.
Secondly, no. Microsoft IE was a different animal. Microsoft had what was effectively a monopoly on PC operating systems. This in itself was not illegal nor improper, as many monopolies aren't. The issue was they used their dominant position in operating systems to harm their browser competition, namely Netscape They pressured hardware partners and did what they could do break Netscape, both in Windows and in the real world. That was the problem.
Third, we aren't talking about repair or parts. We're talking about a product you buy, one that has certain features and limitations. The app store system is both. It provides a seamless, secure experience, but is the only way to install software legitimately. If a developer doesn't want to pay, they don't have to develop for the platform. "But Apple has a monopoly on iPhones," you cry. Well, yes. But the market is not "iPhone." The market is smartphones. There are multiple alternatives to Apple's system for both developers and consumers.
I'm not sure I see where you're going with notion that companies could eliminate breaks or vacation time. You act like that's illegal or should be illegal. In many cases, companies can absolutely do that if they choose. It sounds to me (though I'm only supposing) that you might looking at it from the perspective of hourly workers only. Those rules (particularly on breaks and hours) are different. I'm not saying companies eliminating "breaks" and vacation time for salaried workers would be good business, or even right. But on what grounds are you arguing it's illegal or should be illegal?
In any case, it's a weak comparison. Apple has rules for its app store. For the most part, they're going to get to keep them. The one area they'll have to adjust is the outright ban on third party payment systems. They'll make their money there, too, and it will be completely legal.
I happen to know exactly what a monopoly is. So did the judge in the Epic trial. You apparently disagree, which you are free to do. It just doesn't make you right.
When the Epic ruling goes into effect, that won't be true. Apple must allow other payment systems to be advertised. I don't know about "mentioning" Android. That's pretty broad.
That's debatable, though I wasn't arguing for zero regulation, so you may put that straw man away now. I will note that regulation has everything to do with price because price impacts the consumer. Clearly, consumers benefit from Apple's current system, especially compared to what buying software was like 15 years ago. Quality is way up, security is way up, price is way down.
There you go again. Apple has to promote competitors? It has to treat rival software developers and even services equally to its own? Why? Putting aside the nonsense of Apple paying itself a commission from Apple Music (a store it runs and maintains), Apple must now treat, say, Netflix exactly the same as Apple TV+? Again, on what grounds? Because Apple does not have a monopoly on smartphones, it can absolutely promote its own products and services over others.
Do you have any understanding of how business works? Companies promoting their own wares over others is just the start of it. We haven't even gotten into affiliates and partnerships and what not.
Who cares what Apple charges? If they charge too much, developers should stop supporting them and users should not buy an iPhone (or buy apps). The market strongly indicates pricing is not an issue. Apple is a premium price company across the board, and they deliver an experience that many desire and appreciate.
The app store is a feature of the iPhone, like BMW's Connected Drive is a feature of their cars. Should you be able to demand a Mercedes Command system be made available to your BMW?
A company can seek and must seek to maximize its profits. The markets will decide if they have pushed too far. There are cheap Android phones anyone can buy around the world. Go at it.
Should Apple be forced to provide free services to third parties? Why? Should Peloton be allowed to set up a kiosk in Dick's Sporting Goods to sell its bikes and treadmills direct to customers who walk into Dick's, with no compensation to Dick's?
How would security be managed with sideloaded apps if it were to come to that dopey idea? Access to and transmission of private data? Does Apple have to give Cockamamie Email Plus access to your Contacts? Photos? Calendar? What about access to the larger ecosystem of devices and data? Permitted? Not permitted? What about unvetted poor coding (leading to perhaps overheating, battery drain, lock ups, ie a poor user experience). Who is responsible for supporting the grey area of shitty sideloaded apps making your iPhone unstable or slow? Who pays for the extra work in iOS coding, testing, support, investigations if it were even remotely possible to manage such a thoughtless concept of sideloading into an otherwise secure environment?
How can Apple maintain responsibility for its reputation in such a paradigm (and that is among the many critical considerations that governments and yahoos don't give a hoot about)
Does a company have a right to manage and protect against such dangers to its profit, reputation, brand, and, most importantly, protect a users trust in them?
Who is forced to support Apple? No one. But it is readily apparent that customers and developers find it far more worth it than not to join and stay part of the Apple ecosystem. People love the product as it is. If Apple is missing the boat by not offering something different, that's there choice, and maybe their mistake.
There is a desire to hate on the successful in the world, at business and personal levels. It's a sad state of affairs really. No one will build a better mousetrap with that type of thinkin; they just want to steal the cheese off of someone else's...
The only reason why I'm currently considering an iPhone for my next smartphone is that Apple supports them for a longer period of time than other manufacturers with actual updates.
The App Store is not a feature it is a market place, and capitalists should be lobbying for free access to market places, right?
If you think that poorly of Apple's overall efforts, a slightly longer OS support timeframe doesn't seem to warrant buying into them as a company for you.
Second part of Apple’s offerings is a market place of goods (software), for the product you bought as an bonus added service to the previous purchase. You are not required to use this service. They marketed this service at the purchase as what it is.
While Apple is guilty of being a control freak, they are not a monopoly. They are nothing more then a device seller and a service provider of a market place.
“…to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty…” Sherman Act 1890
Thankfully case law has adjusted the scope to align with modern commerce or every grocery store chain, fast food chain, or market that spans multiple state could be considered a monopoly.
Also you migth be right, Walmart is probably the only (grocery) store for a lot of people within reasonable travelling distance even with a car.
But with one thing you are wrong, the App Store has become so succesful that it became an important market place for people's livelyhood. That means that private company has control over the livelyhood of other private companies and people to tell what they can and cannot do, without the possibilty of checks and balances. That is different with the state, and a reason why I prefer regulation by the state instead of a private company. Rule of law means that rules are decided in a parliament with the public present, rules can be challenged and decisions made because of those rules can be challenged too.
Essentially, because Apple created an exclusive and succesful App Store it created a platform which needs regulation. If it were an unsuccessful platform nobody would care. But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation. You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.