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.
Well, the thing is, with every version of macOS I find myself wondering how long will Apple allow me to use macOS without an iPhone. And switching to Windows or any other OS is as hard as switching to iOS from Android. Everything but easy decisions.
And no, the App Store has stopped being a mere feature a long time ago. It is a market place in which people depend on their livelyhood, and they have to obey Apple's rules or loose everything the build. Free market proponents always forget this. I wonder why. You can't simply change your business form one day to another. I mean if the automotive industry would take the danger of climate change seriously and the damage their products do to cities all around the world, they would stop making cars today but they don't, because it is impossible to do so.
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.
Grow up. That tired "It's my iPhone I should be able to do what I want with it *wahh*" is so ridiculously overused and tired. That horse has been beaten ages ago. You CAN do whatever you want with your phone. Why don't you jailbreak it and install whatever you want on it? Oh wait... you want to do that and expect Apple to clean up your mess if/when something happens? Right?
30% is the norm in every market if not more.
Perhaps you (conveniently forgot about a settlement Apple agreed to to create a $100m fund to assist developers, only to have 30% of that fund raided by the attorneys that filed that lawsuit?
And when you are going to provide proof from that B.S. post you made a while back about Intel CPU's being better/faster than M1? Or did you fabricate that nonsense as well?
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.
You are correct a phone is a phone. An iPhone is a phone without the App Store. In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store. So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.
The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.
Developers are not “taxed without representation”. They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service. Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s terms and to develop for the platform. I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app. That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them. In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.
Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief. In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.
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.
You are correct a phone is a phone. An iPhone is a phone without the App Store. In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store. So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.
The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.
Developers are not “taxed without representation”. They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service. Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s terms and to develop for the platform. I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app. That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them. In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.
Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief. In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.
This is the most liberal naive thing I've ever read in my life. Supply and demand regulate markets in models in some economist's head. But in reality, markets are regulated by either the state or by a corporation with a controlling stake in the market. And for the market of apps on iOS Apple has a controlling stake, it doesn't matter if you can buy an Android device, you would just switch to Google*. So my comments in this thread are equally true for Apple's App Store AND Google Play Store!
What I don't understand, why are you defending Apple so much in this debate? It's like your own livelyhood depends on it.
* you can install other stores on Android and Android 12 is supposed to improve the support for alternative stores but most people won't do that, they will use the preinstalled store. So this doesn't matter (yet). Google has a monopoly for app distribution on Android.
There will be no more FREE Apps. Someone is going to have to pay for the infrastructure that provides developers a storefront where their Apps can be discovered.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Doubtful. Free apps are a big part of what makes the AppStore appealing. If these will have to start paying many will just leave and users will have to use their website. Then even more developers will not think it worth the trouble, and money, to be on the AppStore. This downward spiral might force Apple's take to go below break-even. Then what?
Free apps exist because of how the App Store makes money. It’s a little bit Robin Hood style. The big developers do pay more and cover some of the costs, but that allows free app to exist. Without the current system (and maybe there is one that can replace it, we will see) this is a service that will no longer make economic sense and Apple will have to start charging developers more than the $100 yearly fee. Yes, part of what makes the App Store appealing is the free apps, and big developers also benefit from this. They are going to be killing the feature that made it so successful in the first place.
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.
By Apple's reckoning their cut 3%. 30% of 10%. Just 10% of the AppStore economy goes through Apple's payment system. The 90% is money made through free apps selling services or physical goods. Apple's business model works by subsidizing the free apps by taxing apps that sell digital goods that can be consumed on device.
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.
Just shows how uneducated you are. Apple's costs to furnish and support its App Store infrastructure ia not cheap. Let's look at another market, the three biggest food delivery services, https://www.bikky.com/blog/biggest-food-delivery-services. ;
That "uneducated' comment does you no favors.
Based on courtroom testimony in the Apple/Epic trial it IS relatively cheap to operate Apple's AppStore. As little as 22% of what Apple keeps as their cut from app sales is enough to pay for it. The other 78% may be pure profit for them.
Translation: For a $5 purchase on the AppStore the developer typically gets $3.50. That leaves $1.50 for Apple. From that Apple uses .33 cents to support the service, servers, and all other necessary infrastructure. That leaves Apple with $1.17 in pure profit from the $5 app sale for simply enabling the transaction. Every developer would love having that impressive a margin.
Those numbers were a guess from someone who has no detailed knowledge of how Apple runs the AppStore. Apple said at the trial that they were incorrect.
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.
You are free to define a monopoly however you like. As for "some American judge," well, I guess you're also free to disregard the opinion. That said, it is a valid legal opinion, and for many people it carries at least some weight in determining their position on the issue. May I ask, what legal opinions do you or would you be interested in? It seems to me that you have taken a position that Apple is monopoly and needs to be reigned in, legally speaking. You're hellbent on this position and are disregarding all other opinions or evidence to the contrary. How does one advocate for legal action and yet ignore legal opinions?
I appreciate your comments on monopolies in general, though you're still trying to knock down the strawman implication that someone is arguing for no regulation. Of course monopolies need to be regulated. They are regulated. What you're arguing for is Apple to be forced to do certain things that you want. If you're going to do that, you have a responsibility to provide evidence and qualified opinion that such action is reasonable, proper and beneficial to consumers (among other things). Otherwise, you're just shouting at the moon.
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?
All I can say is I disagree completely. It is a feature unique to iOS and iPad OS. It works only with Apple's products. What you're pushing is literally tantamount to Wal-Mart being forced to sell Target brands. After all, discount retail is a "marketplace" and everyone needs access. Right?
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.
People choose Apple over Android every day knowing full well they can't side load apps. They choose it every day knowing it doesn't work with the Play Store. And yes, if they want an app that doesn't exist on iOS, they can switch to Android. Of course that's not realistic behavior, because there are virtual no apps that most people care about that are platform-specific like that. There are also aren't enough people who want or need to run everything on one platform.
There you go again with the "the App Store is a marketplace" line. It's like watching someone try to make "fetch" happen.
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.
It "needs" regulation. Why? According to whom? Based on what? Here you go again, providing absolutely no legal or even logical justification for government acting.
But Apple has power over people, and it is power without democratic legitimation.
No it isn't. People vote with their wallets. The market decided they largely approve of Apple's approach.
You could also say: the App Store is for developers taxation without representation.
I'm trying to be nice here, but that is the most absurd thing I've read in a while. The developers can choose to work with Apple or not. They can lobby Apple to change its policies. Developers have to decide if Apple's store is worth the price they pay. It's clear that for thousands of them, it is. Again, go back 15 years and take a look at the software market. Shareware developers were practically using hotmail addresses. There were a million sites for downloads, many of questionable quality and security, none of which offered payment systems. People had to pay developers directly. And the cost? Boxed software was routinely $20, 50, $100 or even $300. Shareware was $5-30 for single license apps. After Apple created the app store? There is a huge selection of free and low cost apps and a secure, seamless experience. Seems to me the market likes it and its good for consumers. It's certainly been great for thousands of developers.
All I can say is I disagree completely. It is a feature unique to iOS and iPad OS. It works only with Apple's products. What you're pushing is literally tantamount to Wal-Mart being forced to sell Target brands. After all, discount retail is a "marketplace" and everyone needs access. Right?
The difference is the exclusivity and the interchangeability of goods and services. As an iPhone/iPad user there is nothing else but the App Store, if I want something else I have to switch to e.g. Android. You could say that is choice, I say, that isn't a choice because changing a platform is not free. Going to Walmart instead of Target is essentially free, it is non-exclusive, it doesn't force you to use different money and your bags work in both stores, even your car will fit in both store's parking lots. And because it is not free to change the platform both app stores are within itself are closed markets and therefore monopolies and should be regulated as such.
One caveat, in areas in which Walmart essentially removed all competition and you can't really get to another supermarket, Walmart is also a monopoly, because the only way to go to another supermarket is to move to another town/city, which is also not free. In your eyes this might not be a monopoly but honestly I stopped caring about your limited way of defining a monopoly, legal definitions didn't know platforms like the App Store could exist, so they don't account for it.
Also my biggest issue with the App Store is not the monopoly, there might be reasons for it, my issues are that Apple is advancing its own services on its own platform to harm competitor with similar services and that the enforcement of their rules are arbitrary leave essentially no way of appealing those decisions. This is as bad as the story about the MPAA ratings when you appeal their decision you can't even cite older decisions.
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.
Adobe and 365 are like Flash not needed, Pages, Nisus Writer, Affiinity, programs by Omni Group, along with many others have been great over the years.
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.
In time there will be one set iPhone/iPads (does everything) for the US market and one set (that does less) for the rest of the world.
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.
You are correct a phone is a phone. An iPhone is a phone without the App Store. In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store. So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.
The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.
Developers are not “taxed without representation”. They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service. Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s terms and to develop for the platform. I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app. That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them. In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.
Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief. In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.
This is the most liberal naive thing I've ever read in my life. Supply and demand regulate markets in models in some economist's head. But in reality, markets are regulated by either the state or by a corporation with a controlling stake in the market. And for the market of apps on iOS Apple has a controlling stake, it doesn't matter if you can buy an Android device, you would just switch to Google*. So my comments in this thread are equally true for Apple's App Store AND Google Play Store!
What I don't understand, why are you defending Apple so much in this debate? It's like your own livelyhood depends on it.
* you can install other stores on Android and Android 12 is supposed to improve the support for alternative stores but most people won't do that, they will use the preinstalled store. So this doesn't matter (yet). Google has a monopoly for app distribution on Android.
Apple investor and prosperous because of it, if you want a dominate (marketshare) phone get a Android phone and be done with it.
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.
You are correct a phone is a phone. An iPhone is a phone without the App Store. In fact the first iPhone didn’t even have an App Store. So like that first iPhone your phone will work as a phone, as an internet device, as an iPod, as a navigation devices, as a measuring tape, as a camera, as a camcorder, as a voice recorder, as a note taker, as a document editor, and as an e-reader all without needing to ever use the App Store. You as the operator choose to use the App Store if you want to access the apps developers created.
The App Store is regulated by the laws of supply and demand, the laws of each and every jurisdiction it elects to sell its products, and the laws of customer’s preferences.
Developers are not “taxed without representation”. They provide a fee or service charge to Apple to use a service. Their representation was their agreement to Apple’s terms and to develop for the platform. I have several “apps” I use that are web apps that I access through a browser because the developers decided not to create a native app. That was their representation and I elect to still patronize them. In fact there are several business that have native apps that I like to utilize the website version over the app.
Because you feel they need more regulation or that they should be considered a monopoly is your personal belief. In a free market, the market decides if Apple will be successful, the customers device if they fail, and the faithful will decide if the next thing will be a hit.
This is the most liberal naive thing I've ever read in my life. Supply and demand regulate markets in models in some economist's head. But in reality, markets are regulated by either the state or by a corporation with a controlling stake in the market. And for the market of apps on iOS Apple has a controlling stake, it doesn't matter if you can buy an Android device, you would just switch to Google*. So my comments in this thread are equally true for Apple's App Store AND Google Play Store!
What I don't understand, why are you defending Apple so much in this debate? It's like your own livelyhood depends on it.
* you can install other stores on Android and Android 12 is supposed to improve the support for alternative stores but most people won't do that, they will use the preinstalled store. So this doesn't matter (yet). Google has a monopoly for app distribution on Android.
Apple investor and prosperous because of it, if you want a dominate (marketshare) phone get a Android phone and be done with it.
I honestly don't care for the stock price of Apple, I don't own any stocks (directly) and I don't plan buying any. And if Apple loses money by opening up the App Store and be more reliably and dependable when it comes to decisions in regarding the App Store it was just hype to beginn with. I'm actually not really against the App Store monopoly, I just think Apple should be regulated to treat all apps (including their own) the same. Just like AT&T can't prefer HBO Max over Disney+ or Netflix on its network. And the same for Google's Play Store or any other plattform store. Essentially I want platform neutrality as well as network neutrality. Because it will be better for the consumer. Therefore the payment for subscriptions is just one piece of the puzzle.
Comments
And no, the App Store has stopped being a mere feature a long time ago. It is a market place in which people depend on their livelyhood, and they have to obey Apple's rules or loose everything the build. Free market proponents always forget this. I wonder why. You can't simply change your business form one day to another. I mean if the automotive industry would take the danger of climate change seriously and the damage their products do to cities all around the world, they would stop making cars today but they don't, because it is impossible to do so.
What I don't understand, why are you defending Apple so much in this debate? It's like your own livelyhood depends on it.
* you can install other stores on Android and Android 12 is supposed to improve the support for alternative stores but most people won't do that, they will use the preinstalled store. So this doesn't matter (yet). Google has a monopoly for app distribution on Android.
30% of 10%.
Just 10% of the AppStore economy goes through Apple's payment system.
The 90% is money made through free apps selling services or physical goods.
Apple's business model works by subsidizing the free apps by taxing apps that sell digital goods that can be consumed on device.
I appreciate your comments on monopolies in general, though you're still trying to knock down the strawman implication that someone is arguing for no regulation. Of course monopolies need to be regulated. They are regulated. What you're arguing for is Apple to be forced to do certain things that you want. If you're going to do that, you have a responsibility to provide evidence and qualified opinion that such action is reasonable, proper and beneficial to consumers (among other things). Otherwise, you're just shouting at the moon.
All I can say is I disagree completely. It is a feature unique to iOS and iPad OS. It works only with Apple's products. What you're pushing is literally tantamount to Wal-Mart being forced to sell Target brands. After all, discount retail is a "marketplace" and everyone needs access. Right?
There you go again with the "the App Store is a marketplace" line. It's like watching someone try to make "fetch" happen.
It "needs" regulation. Why? According to whom? Based on what? Here you go again, providing absolutely no legal or even logical justification for government acting.
No it isn't. People vote with their wallets. The market decided they largely approve of Apple's approach.
I'm trying to be nice here, but that is the most absurd thing I've read in a while. The developers can choose to work with Apple or not. They can lobby Apple to change its policies. Developers have to decide if Apple's store is worth the price they pay. It's clear that for thousands of them, it is. Again, go back 15 years and take a look at the software market. Shareware developers were practically using hotmail addresses. There were a million sites for downloads, many of questionable quality and security, none of which offered payment systems. People had to pay developers directly. And the cost? Boxed software was routinely $20, 50, $100 or even $300. Shareware was $5-30 for single license apps. After Apple created the app store? There is a huge selection of free and low cost apps and a secure, seamless experience. Seems to me the market likes it and its good for consumers. It's certainly been great for thousands of developers.
One caveat, in areas in which Walmart essentially removed all competition and you can't really get to another supermarket, Walmart is also a monopoly, because the only way to go to another supermarket is to move to another town/city, which is also not free. In your eyes this might not be a monopoly but honestly I stopped caring about your limited way of defining a monopoly, legal definitions didn't know platforms like the App Store could exist, so they don't account for it.
Also my biggest issue with the App Store is not the monopoly, there might be reasons for it, my issues are that Apple is advancing its own services on its own platform to harm competitor with similar services and that the enforcement of their rules are arbitrary leave essentially no way of appealing those decisions. This is as bad as the story about the MPAA ratings when you appeal their decision you can't even cite older decisions.
In time there will be one set iPhone/iPads (does everything) for the US market and one set (that does less) for the rest of the world.