Right. I'm honestly having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week." I'd be tempted to call that anticompetitive in the opposite direction, of course a seller should be allowed to set their own prices and decide for themselves whether they want to participate in a promotion.
It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts.
But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee.
From the same section:
> Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic.
Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly.
It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.
> having a hard time thinking of situations where a seller like Cheerios would be able to say, "no, everyone is going to offer our products at $2.50 for the next week."
It's not like there aren't at least somewhat better analogies they could have used. Imagine if you bought an Apple Phone from Best Buy and then that compiled version of iOS wasn't allowed to mention anywhere that you could get support from Genius Bars instead of Best Buy. Or imagine if you bought a vacuum cleaner from Walmart, and the manufacturer wasn't allowed to include any inserts inside of the box that linked to their own store for replacement parts.
But even with a better analogy, why is this argument being brought up in this specific section? I expected their user freedom section to talk more about sideloading, or right to repair, or emulation, and they just can't stop fixating on the 30% fee.
From the same section:
> Here’s an example of how this problem manifests itself: Epic produces once of the most popular video games of all time, Fortnite. If a Fortnite player were to buy an upgrade in the App Store, that individual might be charged $9.99. However, that same upgrade costs only $7.99 when purchased directly through Epic.
Cool argument, but that has nothing to do with user freedom; users are still perfectly free to buy upgrades from Epic directly.
It feels like they came up with one objection and then poorly pasted it into 3 sections.