dantheman827

glennh said:

As an Apple Shareholder, I say use this country as an example by charging every App that by passes the in app charge, a list fee that covers Store Cost, Tool Development Cost, IP & Licensing Cost and Legal Cost.

These free loaders should not be allowed to list their App in the App Store for Free. Their customers should be charged the full 30% or 15% fee before they can download or update the app from the App Store on a yearly basis to ensure Apple gets paid upfront! 

No such thing as a free lunch, especially on shareholders’ dimes! 

entropys said:

Walmart can't tell Target "You can't build your store here because we have one of ours in the city already.", but Apple is doing exactly that with the App Store.

You might be surprised at the myriad local laws that prevent exactly that. In my country thee are all sorts of regulations about how close newsagents and pharmacies can be etc. and the list is very long.

foregoneconclusion said:

mark fearing said: It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. 

IMO, the debate per anti-steering is based on a false pretense: that it's somehow difficult for an iPhone user to be aware that app developers could have an online presence outside the App Store. It just seems silly for the government to act like people in 2021 aren't aware the internet exists or that commerce takes place on the internet too. 

mark fearing said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Not sure why people have latched onto anti-steering as somehow harmful. It's a standard practice throughout the business world. Limiting how companies can provide preferential treatment for their own products makes sense in situations where either consumers would expect neutrality (like search) OR the company itself is claiming that everyone is treated the same (Apple makes this claim with the App Store). 

It's only weird when you look at the retail and sales environment as a whole. For instance, within Walmart, I'd not expect them to have posters for Target prices. Or at a restaurant they don't also show you the menu and prices from the restaurant across the street. But I get that this digital market is 'different'. But I think it's very much a debate about what is different with it. As mush as people have complained about Apple charing that 15 or 30% in the App Store, all grocery stores charge a shelving fee. And wholesale sellers have to pay money (or discount) for better sell space. That has been deemed legal. The contradictions are rife. 

genovelle said:

dantheman827 said:

I call BS, this think tank is probably funded by Google / Apple

Do I agree with forcing companies to allow other payment methods inside of their App Store? Absolutely not.

Do I think developers should be able to publish software outside of the App Store that Apple deems unsuitable for it? Absolutely, yes!

Customers having a side-channel will allow developers to publish software that Apple doesn't want on the App Store, it will allow apps like emulators, game streaming, Kodi, "adult" apps, and any software that Apple may decide they don't want available to iOS users in the future.

Them blocking game streaming is  anti-trust and I don't know how they haven't been sued for it.

Them blocking emulators serves no purpose for the consumer other than to encourage them to buy new games on the App Store, possibly ports of the old games they already own copies of.

They can publish them outside the AppStore using their own technology or webapp.