So it's either a choice between "not running some specific game/app whose publisher made their own app store" and "not running any iOS app because my only option is to not have an iPhone"?
No, your freedom of choice is only one level deep. You can either choose iOS, which includes 'runs only apple-approved software', or choose any other OS which runs other software.
This is basically the right to repair / right to do whatever you want with your device debate. You can't force Apple to program the functionality for running other people's code into iOS, but it's legal if you figure out how. This is exactly what went down in 2010 with Cydia [0] - it's fair use to modify your own device, but that doesn't compel apple to make it easy to do so[1].
Nitpick: that exemption is from 2010. The DMCA mandates an exemption be granted every three years for something. Meaning: in 2013, that exemption was gone unless it was exempted again. And again in 2016. And again in 2019. And so on. The DMCA does not include an “exempt once, exempt forever” clause, sadly.
Thankfully, we’ve had the EFF to campaign for exemptions, but it’s frustrating having to go through the whole ordeal every three years because Congress can’t be arsed to fix it.
17 U.S. Code §1201(a)(1)(C)[0]:
> (C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(followed by a list of things the Librarian will consider)
We have more choice today, because currently Android and iOS have different models. Break up the App Store and your left with a single model.
What nobody is talking about is Epic could completely avoid the premium their complaining about by using a website for all transactions. Just like the Kindle App or Netflix etc. The only thing they get from this lawsuit is in app micro transactions. As such it’s really a question of business models not consumer choice.
Reading Apple's policy makes it seem not so simple. Netflix, for example, avoids the cost because it is a subscription service which is specifically excluded from having a cut taken out. I can't speak for Kindle, but when I very recently read over this it was clear that just routing to a site to handle the purchase would not be sufficient to bypass this
> which is specifically excluded from having a cut taken out.
Netflix is constantly at odds with Apple. You can't subscribe via the iOS app store and they don't even link to the Netflix website due to Apple's rules and how they want their 30% cut for app store-driven traffic.
There doesn't need to be constant news about Netflix changing stuff, they still don't like Apple's rules about it and there are still no links to netflix.com in the app.
> Trying to join Netflix?
>
> You can't sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it's a hassle.
And likely Netflix et al were grandfathered in because Apple _couldn't_ strongarm them. If Netflix was invented post AppStore, I'd wager that Apple would have them paying Apple taxes regardless.
> What nobody is talking about is Epic could completely avoid the premium their complaining about by using a website for all transactions.
Epic would also need all paid transactions to originate entirely from said website - i.e. there would be no ability for their own apps to even send users to that website. There have been multiple horror stories about app developers trying this exact approach and Apple turning around with "nope, pay up your 30% cut".
> We have more choice today, because currently Android and iOS have different models. Break up the App Store and your left with a single model
What a goofy point of view.
If there are two restaurants in town, and only one grocery store, would you conclude that eating out is better than cooking your own meals because you have two restaurant options instead of just the one grocery store?
Why is more choice necessarily good, besides simplified theory about capitalism? Brands have built their entire success off of providing less choice to consumers and they, in general seem to be successful. See Apple and Trader Joe's.
Choice is good when there's direct competition. Companies will compete to have better app stores if I can choose which app store I want to use. I as a consumer will get to choose what games I want to play. It's bad for me as a consumer that I also have to choose which app store I'm using to download that game.
Also both things can be bad, but I personally feel that the model where people like Apple due to the "ecosystem" seems to have worked pretty well for a lot of consumers. I don't think "more choice" is a good metric here at all because it's false. I don't care about having more choice in app stores(and I'm not getting to chose which app store I use under either model anyway), I care about my choice of apps. Which isn't really changing, companies will get their product to consumers.
I know which one gives me more choice.