EsquireCats

Said of the company that launched this legal endeavour with a PR and marketing blitz. 

avon b7 said:

EsquireCats said:

The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s  customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason. 

Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny. 

Additionally the rates charged by Apple aren’t in any way out of step with similar online stores (nor retail software sales in general) and are in no way unjustified, to each of these points Apple is either the best or near-best option in the market.

This is not really true.

I'd go as far as to say that the vast majority of iPhone purchase decisions do not even touch on the App Store issue and even more literally no idea about commission, fees or whatever you wish to call them.

That is from a purely consumer perspective. From a developer, business, competition and consumer protection perspective however, things change radically and those monopolies do exist.

I can't know which was things will swing but they are being investigated with good reason.

My personal view is that Apple might be able to continue unchallenged if it lays out, in black and white, and clear language, all the restrictions that their current policies impose on users.

Only then would people be able to claim that people voluntarily buy into the restrictions. 

This is such nonsense. It's a view that requires exceptional rules for Apple, but not the likes of Nintendo, Sony, et al. People who stand to gain from this are trying their best to make you not make those obvious comparisons, or indeed any comparisons to retail/consignment selling.

Additionally your logic infers that there is a problem in charging a margin on transactions conducted in the store, or that this is somehow irregular. It also ignores that transactions can occur in parallel outside of the store, or that harm is being done when a developer chooses this route* - Spotify is clear proof that a business can enact their own payments and advertising outside of Apple's store to grow their business while taking advantage of Apple's distribution without meaningfully contributing toward the store - that's actually a situation better than what retail allows, and massively generous from Apple. 

The problem seems to lay in the idea that individuals take for granted what Apple provides here, because Apple could have structured billings based on downloads, number of users and other metrics which better reflect the cost of hosting popular apps. (The bandwidth alone in serving the spotify app and updates is larger than what Spotify contribute to the appstore.)

*The argument that an app in the store should be able to advertise a means to dodge such payments is meritless, especially as the majority of apps have price parity in and outside of the store.

Even if Facebook did everything right, wouldn't the platform be highly attractive to child groomers?

The problem is this idea of a monopoly - Apple’s  customers choose the app store over other app distribution models when they purchase the device and Apple is far from satisfying the requirements for a monopoly in smartphones in that regard. The appstore and inseparable security model is one of the many reasons why people choose Apple’s platform over competitors. Meaning that users have a choice and were never forced into the system, rather users may have deliberately chosen the device for this reason. 

Having a “monopoly” on apps differs from having a monopoly over a specific add-on service. Similar to the EU’s recent findings: where the monopoly is far more narrowly defined to a specific service sub-type. Even still that finding of a “monopoly” raises questions and may not stand to juridical scrutiny. 

There's so many curiosities in those repairer's quotes, and they don't do themselves any favours.

For example: 
"Apple is acting like they haven't been using the same circuits for years" -  so the repairer states that the circuit diagrams haven't meaningfully changed (meaning they're familiar with the layouts), so why are the diagrams helpful if they already know them? It can't be for small incremental changes because those changes don't apply to an available product.

"I'm going to use it and I'm going to help people with it." - If a repairer knows so little about the device that a schematic for a device that isn't even available is going to make a meaningful change in their product knowledge... Then probably go somewhere else for the repair.

"This whole thing about arguing about trade secrets is horse shit." Which is equivalent to saying, "If I can't do anything with it, then no one else in the world could possibly learn from having the schematics." There is quite a bit that can be gleaned from a schematic and the reality of course is that Apple's designs are copied inside and out. Handing out detailed schematics makes duplicating a product significantly easier, especially with tightly packed devices like phones and laptops. Apple is known for design, these are the designs, this shouldn't be a difficult point to understand by anyone.

"I'm still waiting for someone to tell me legitimately what having a wiring diagram ahead of time does to hurt them." - This comment is especially curious, prior to launch the repairer can do little with such a schematic and revealing Apple's product before launch, is this person naive? Perhaps a better question is asking "for someone to tell me legitimately what having a wiring diagram for an unavailable product is needed for"