I think its a bit more complex than pure competition.

Let's say we're living in a world where Apple's IAP framework has a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees, think Stripe or whatever, at 3-5%.

Many apps would still choose to not use Apple's system, because of exactly what Match says: Its not a matter of cost, its a matter of power. Service providers want to control the billing relationship with their users; they don't want Apple to have any control, because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer, and they will delegate much of that power to the Consumer. Service providers don't want their users to have any power in the billing relationship.

There are reasonable arguments why this is fine; say, for example, a service provider wants to offer some customer 20% off for the next three months, for whatever reason. This kind of setup is hard to model in the IAP framework; its very egalitarian.

But, overwhelmingly, the problem is more-so when it comes to canceling subscriptions, and whenever Match or Netflix or whoever says "we want to be able to directly deal with consumers" you should delete every word they say and replace it with the words "apple makes canceling free trials and subscriptions too easy, and we want to make it hard." There's actually nothing else to it; the magnitude of the fee Apple charges is high (30%), and needs to be reduced, but that tax is dimes compared to the profit companies make from users paying for subscriptions they don't want or need.

So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't give a shit about their users. They won't use it, even if its better for users, even if it were free, because the solution is definitely not better for them, because money is power, and Apple's IAP framework delegates too much power to Apple (a third party) and the users. The competition argument is actually irrelevant, because the two solutions we're comparing (self-managed sub management vs Apple-managed) are actually not fungible in the same way Stripe is fungible with Square (or whoever). They carry fundamentally different externalities for both users and service providers.

Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth. They are litigious, anti-competitive, and use unethical supply chains at great human cost, but their marketing/propaganda is superb.

Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example. That by itself is massively anti-consumer, but it's one among hundreds of inherently user hostile behaviors that Apple inflicts on the world.

Other players in the market are constrained by Apple's design choices, because those choices often single-handedly drive economies of scale for device components.

Apple is not pro consumer. Apple is ruthlessly oriented toward absolute control of perceptions and behaviors of customers within their walled garden so they can extract the maximum amount of money from their customers.

Apple hides the externalities within their own domain and imposes market expectations on the rest of the world. Their exploitation of software patent and ip laws stifle innovation and competition, and they set the standards of corporate behavior for all the major players.

Unless by "traditionally" you mean exactly the period of Apple's history when they were plucky underdogs... Apple hasn't been pro-consumer for a couple or three decades.

Do you honestly think that iPhone customers will be more satisfied with iPhones if iPhones are required to support third-party app stores and/or sideloading? I find it impossible to believe that this could make customers happier. It is almost certainly going to result in more malware and user tracking, more bugs, more fragmented processes for finding and paying for apps, more user-hostile in-app purchase and subscription behavior, etc.

Yes. For the simple reason that I own both a Mac and an iPhone. These devices are extremely similar in their capabilities, except I can download software directly on one, and the other is a captive market. There is a reason why the Mac App Store is a wasteland. Apple provides almost no value when it comes to distributing third party software. They only dominate on the iPhone because they are the only game in town.

The fact that you own both a Mac and an iPhone supports my claim, assuming that in both case you were relatively informed of all the alternatives and were free to choose.

I own about 4-5 computers and 3 phones. One of those computers is a Mac and one of the phones is an iPhone. The only claim I made was that I would be more satisfied if the iPhone could support third party stores or sideloading. I will continue to stand by that claim.

I don't dispute your prediction that you would be more satisfied if your iPhone could support third party stores or sideloading. My prediction is about customer satisfaction in aggregate.

I don't understand your logic here. Adding additional third party stores wouldn't affect the availability of Apps in the App Store if Apple is truly providing value to customers. If third party stores or sideloading is not valuable, most people would continue to use the App Store exclusively. Almost all developers would continue listing their App on the App Store as well. If third party app stores and sideloading do provide value, then consumers will use those methods to get their apps. I don't get why anyone would be less happy to get software directly from a vendor. If I am dissatisfied there is always an intermediary (bank / credit card company) to intervene on my behalf if an actor is behaving badly.

Can you elaborate on why you believe people would be unhappy if this were the case? I truly don't understand the position.

For the most blatant example, if it was possible to sideload software, people would be convinced to install software that deliberately does back things or unintentionally causes system-wide problems. There would be crap all over the Internet about how to get free stuff in Fortnite, or read your spouse's messages, or record phone calls, or clean malware off your phone, etc. No matter how many warnings there are in the UI or how clear Apple is that it's your fault if you do this, people will do it. Some of the software might even work! But some of it will be blatant malware, or violate privacy even worse than current popular apps, or make the whole system unstable, or drain battery life. Even for relatively savvy people who are aware of the danger, suddenly you need to become an expert on how to protect yourself and spot malware or scams (this is already advisable to some extent with the App Store, but it would surely become much more crucial). It's worse for less savvy people who aren't aware of the danger, as I'm sure is the case with many current iPhone users.

Indeed, this even happens today with the current system, because Apple does allow alternative app stores. You just have to have the right type of corporate account with them, and a Mobile Device Manager profile that you distribute to all your devices that you want to have the alternate App Store.

Apple uses this internally for delivering apps to employees who work at the retail Apple stores. I helped support the Retail Software Engineering group at Apple that develops those applications.

One of the current common advanced methods is for attackers to get you to install their MDM profile on your device, and then they can do anything at all that they want with it, regardless. Fortunately, it’s only possible to have one MDM profile on a machine at a time, so if you install your own MDM profile (e.g. through JAMF or whatever), then you can prevent this type of attack from working. Yes, everyone in my family already has an MDM profile installed on their devices from a system I manage, so that we can prevent this type of attack.

So, Apple already supports alternative app stores. You just have pay for a license from Apple that lets you run it.

With more recent versions of iOS, they offer device profiles that can be installed, so that the owner doesn’t even have to run their own app store. They can just provide you links to apps to be installed, and the signed device profile to go along with them so that Apple will allow the app to be installed. And this will even work if there is already an MDM profile installed on the device.

I know this because I recently started work at a new employer, and they gave me device profiles to install on my personal iPhone, so that I could install some internal applications on it. And those device profiles were installed and activated, despite the fact that I already had my personal MDM profile installed on the device.

So, now the attack pattern is even easier. You no longer have to install a full MDM profile, you can just install a simple developer device profile and get the person at the other end to trust you. Okay, you won’t have full control over the device like you would with a full MDM profile, but at least you’ll be able to get your nefarious app onto their device.

So, this is a known, active vulnerability that is currently being exploited on regular basis by attackers. Apple knows exactly what this looks like in the small scale, and they know what will happen in the large scale.

I suspect that Apple will show the politicians what the risk is on their own personal devices, and then show them how many people around the world already get tricked on a daily basis.

Once the politicians see how that sausage is made, I think they’re going to want to roll back any requirements for mandatory alternative app stores.

If the iPhone is required to support apps outside of the App Store, that will probably result in a worse user experience for a lot of people. Despite that, I feel that it would be a net benefit to require non-App Store apps on the iPhone. The overall stifling of competition on a locked down ecosystem is worse then the inconvenience of installing a shady app.

And it probably wouldn't be that bad anyway. A vast majority of people will still use the official App Store, like they do on Android. But a more open ecosystem will keep Apple honest, and give more power to the end user.

That is still very likely to result in a worse experience for iPhone users for all the reasons I listed. I don’t think Apple’s concern is whether they can use their UI to shift blame to its customers when they sideload software that makes them unhappy—they just want their customers to be happy.

Why are you allowed to install things on your mac from non-apple sources if this is the case? I didn't have to go to an Apple Mac App store to download VSC from MS. I did have to click a prompt informing me that this program was downloaded from the internet and could potentially be harmful to your device type message, do you really want to install it, though. Has the mac landscape gone to hell with worse experiences, more malware or "software that makes them unhappy" because people can and do install software from non official Apple sources? It's literally the same company. Why does one being a "phone" or "mobile device" change things?

Social engineering will always be a concern. This was as much of a problem as it was 40 years ago, and Apple adding dialogues in the way of it doesn't stop anything, it just changes the path attackers take to reach ultimately the same goal.

If you don't want to understand security, fine: just don't be surprised when your personal information ends up in the hands of the wrong people. Everyone has a duty to understand their own threat model, and any reasonably comprehensive model would include Apple as an ultimately untrusted party. It's a zero-sum game, so they may as well just make it easier for me to use their devices when I'm forced to.

Mac certainly has more malware than iPhones, yes!

Does Mac OS customers experience worse than iPhone's customers?

Users will switch if they can get their apps somewhere cheaper. Most iPhone users are not Apple fan boys.

Yes, my prediction is that they will do this and that they will then be less satisfied with their iPhone.

> Apple is the primary reason we have unreplaceable batteries, for example.

This is a goofy fantasy. Apple, which is a minority player in this market, is forcing everyone else to make battery replacements difficult?

No it's not. That's false, and doesn't pass the laugh test. Can we engage with the truth, instead? Is that too difficult?

There are no "economies of scale" here. Phone batteries aren't a standardized part; every iPhone has a customized battery that fits into the odd-shaped space Apple is able to create in the design. Your economies of scale argument is therefore total nonsense.

Apple does not inflict unreplaceable batteries, or lack of headphone jack, or no power brick withe their phone, or no headphones with phones, or fragile glass backs. They made their choice and the other companies followed along.

I wish they hadn't done some of those choices myself, looking at you glass back.

But Apple did not coerce Samsung to follow along, and I doubt that they made economies of scale issues for the rest of the phone market given their <20% market share.

Samsung makes plenty of ads to take pot shots at Apple for these changes, and then a few months later they themselves follow suit.

I just don't think enough people care about those features to vote with their wallet.

Simple counter-example:

There are two ways to subscribe to the New York Times: through an IAP, or by visiting the NYT website.

If you then decide that you want to unsubscribe: Subscribed via the IAP? No problem, you click a button Subscribed via the website? You will need to call the NYT between business hours and have a chat with someone who will try their darnest to convince you to keep your subscription. This is the behaviour from a “reputable” company.

Apple could charge 0% and these companies won’t be happy - they want the direct connection so they can find as many ways as possible to take your money.

Things like IAP let people make purchases without having to make a trust evaluation of the developer. Frankly that is great for new, small or foreign developers, because consumers know that they can get their money back from Apple should things go poorly.

Sure there’s downsides to this approach - but choice also exists, so why should we be forcing this particular choice in individuals or in this circumstance (why not on Nintendo, Sony, Amazon, Microsoft and more?)

I dare say once this change is formalised worldwide and we have Premium-SMS style exploitation, there is going to be a lot more work needed to clean up the unintended consequences.

> Walled gardens are bad for consumers. Apple is the definitive walled garden on planet earth.

And yet many people on HN love their iPhones, Kindle Paperwhites, Xboxes, PlayStations, and Switch consoles...

(note: you can actually load PDFs onto your Paperwhite, or onto your iPhone/iPad for that matter)

> ... a 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees ...

Dutch consumers mostly pay using IDeal, a payment standard created by all Dutch banks, that costs < 0.5% in fees to merchants. It has fewer consumer protections than what credit cards offer, for that there are consumer protection laws.

These same consumer protection laws should make things like cancelling a subscription easy. Of course many companies fail to do so properly. One day I hope the government will enforce these like Apple protects their platform, and we'll end up having what we have now, just cheaper.

> 5% fee. This is roughly in-line with baseline credit card transaction processing fees

No it isn't, EU already went after credit card companies and forced them to lower their rates. I see no reason why EU wouldn't do the same for Apple and similar. Of course in USA you still pay those insane rates, but not everyone has to do it.

Super obvious solution, give the customer the choice. Example you can buy games for PC from the store you like, you want the game to be on your Steam library then you use Steam, you want DRM free you go to GOG , you want to support the indie dev you go to other site: Customer can chose in the majority of games with the exceptions of some big titles (but you can still find EA games on Steam for example).

The only objection to user choice is that the users are stupid and need someone else to chose for them, my answer is Apple has the money to educate the users , they can put a giant ad on TV to tell users about their "virtues"

Yeah but this isn't a choice unless the developer allows for it (and if they do, they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform -- which on each of the game stores, this price discrimination exists today). Lots of developers make their product EXCLUSIVE to a platform and then you don't have any choice but to abide by sometimes a scummier platform's rules.

Apple has undoubtedly made managing payments in their mobile ecosystem easier for the end user to understand. It definitely limits some of the choices for developers, but given what I have seen and experience in the massive failure that is Epic's game store, I think it is not something most consumers will benefit from.

An independent developer will put his games in all stores if he can. The only ones that will not do it are ones that might have their own store or have a deal, so I would expect a random dev to put is happ in the Apple store and in a Freedom store but for sure Apple will not put it's apps in the Freedom store and will make deals with others not to put their apps there. So the problem are giants like Apple,Epic,EA not the independent devs.

As I mentioned most games are in more then one store , and if a game is missing from other store is not some bullshit contract or ToS, is because the developer did not had the time or motivation to do it.

P.S. and let's not forget Apple censorship, you will not get soon all games from Steam approved by Apple because Apple decides for you what you should consume, their Christian/conservastives values are forced on you.

>they can use price discrimination to force users to their preferred platform

And that's why stores get to compete to BE their preferred platform. Software stores are middleman. They've got to compete for both users and developers.

You can't say apps have to be on all stores at the same prices when stores charge different prices to be on them. Or have different requirements to be on the store. Or when stores straight up do not allow your app (Apple with Xbox Cloud Streaming)

Apple is only "pro-consumer" when the person paying for that stance isn't Apple. When Apple is footing the bill, they are quite happy to be as anti-consumer as they think they cam get away with.

If Apple's approach to billing is something consumers value and are willing to pay for, then consumers will choose to keep using Apple payment methods. Perhaps some consumers would like to pay 25% less and are fine with disputing charges when a company makes it too hard to cancel?

Also, Apple already enforces other rules when reviewing Apps, Apple could still force companies to allow easy cancelation without forcing them to use Apple for payments.

Apples' insistence of using their payments would also be less egregious if they allowed alternative app stores. As it is, Apple's stance is bad for consumer choice.

> So; competition states, if their solution is genuinely better, companies will use it. Actually, this is false; companies don't give a shit about their users.

The users are part of the market too.

A lot of people use direct withdrawal from a checking account to pay their mortgage. Because the mortgage lender doesn't have the same incentive as a subscription service to make it hard to cancel.

So you do that for your mortgage, but would you do it for a subscription service you might want to cancel? Heck no. People use credit cards for that. Then if the service won't cancel your subscription you have a last resort the ability to dispute the charge with the credit card company.

Apple makes it even easier but charges even more.

But the choice is really important. Imagine if Apple was taking 30% of your mortgage payment and the bank had to pass that cost on to you. Even the 3% charged by credit card companies would be tens of dollars a month, for an ability to cancel which in that case isn't worth its cost.

So people will choose based on what kind of business it is. If Netflix demands that you use ACH, people will balk. If Apple is providing enough value over the alternatives to justify their fees, people will demand it. And in some cases maybe they are -- customers might demand it for super scummy services they know they'd otherwise have trouble cancelling. So in open competition, the users demand it where it's needed. In the other cases it's not worth the cost.

Credit cards don't work like that in Europe. It's more like a debit card. You don't get the purchase warranty perks and chargebacks are highly restricted. They will sometimes charge back but you have to have real proof. It's not like the US.

This is why credit cards are really uncommon in Europe. Most people just use their debit cards that are free and can also use the regular credit card systems (with the exception of the Netherlands which has a different system). A credit card really only makes sense here if you want to use its credit. And if you do there's cheaper options.

So then there will be more demand on the part of users for Apple's "you can cancel easily" payment service in Europe, right? You still don't have to force people to use it.

Depends on the country, where I live there is no direct debit (Banks have just now begun to replace the old cards ) so most people use credit cards to buy stuff online.

> Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer

They are only pro consumer when it makes them more money.

Yeah, Apple only looks pro-Consumer because they're still in the business of selling software, hardware, and software services to consumers. Their competition is all funded by corporate advertising.

It's not a matter of Apple being a positive force for consumers or customers. They're simply the most magnanimous blackguard.

Apple's 30% cut is only from purchases and not from ads so it pushes all the apps you get on that platform towards ads. So even they themselves doesn't get a lot of money from ads, their policy greatly encourages ad based monetization.

By that logic literally everything is based on advertising. That makes the argument meaningless rather than convincing.

It’s a matter of the alignment of incentives.

Apple has built their business over the years to be generally aligned with the incentives of most of their customers. So, Apple profits at selling hardware and software and services that works the way the vast majority of their customers want.

The fact that there are a small percentage of malcontents who don’t like the way that Apple manages their business, that should not be grounds for Apple to be forced to change the way they run that business. If those malcontents don’t like it, then they can go somewhere else and build their own business and run it the way they want. They’re not forced to stay here.

The only time that Apple should be required to change the way they run their business is when the majority of their customers are being harmed by the way Apple works today, and the majority of their customers want Apple to make that change. And Apple is usually pretty good about making those kinds of changes in advance of being required to do so.

That 30% cut that Apple takes from the largest companies, that pays for a lot of benefits that you and I do not see, and cannot see. They’ve already reduced the price they charge for most developers, only the top 1% are affected by that 30% fee. And I, for one, am perfectly happy that the top 1% earners on the platform are paying a higher percentage of their earnings in order to support the platform.

On the payment side, the equation is largely the same. Yes, they might take a larger bite out of the transaction fees, but they provide significant benefits. I am totally happy to have that situation, as are the vast majority of other Apple customers. Again, the problem here is with a small number of malcontents that can easily go somewhere else.

Um, duh? Isn't that implied?

Would you describe any company's actions under the light of "yeah they only did that because it lost money". That's not just something companies don't do; its illegal (for public companies).

Nitpick: it’s not illegal to drive a company into the ground. It’s illegal to lie to your shareholders about doing so (it’s fraud). The “fiduciary duty” to shareholders is not a legal thing.

If I tell my shareholders that I’m gonna drive my company into the ground by laying off 90% of the staff, and they give me money, that’s not my problem.

>Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer

Yes, that's why "you're holding it wrong" happened. That's why they didn't replace the CPU in their laptops for half a decade. Because they care about you.

How long do you think it's still going to be convincing to anyone with an IQ over 50 to talk about what Steve Jobs said about antenna issues on the iPhone 4? He's been dead for over a decade now. Get over it. And come up with an argument that at least comes from the last 10 years. That argument is an embarrassment.

That's why they're scanning your pictures. Because they care about you. Happier?

Not really, given that they are, um, not scanning any pictures. And even once they start, they will be scanning exactly zero of my pictures.

Also, could we argue in good faith, and not tell lies, and not pretend that there's not a complex issue in play regarding the debate over scanning for child porn? That'd be a lot better. Thank you.

hahaha. I'm not arguing my friend, nor am I telling any lies.

A much simpler way to put this is: What if I explicitly want a smartphone with a platform where all third-party software has to follow the platform’s rules? iPhones will actively become worse for me if third party app stores are allowed.

Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice?

> What if I explicitly want a smartphone with a platform where all third-party software has to follow the platform’s rules?

It is pretty simple. A user could be given the option to "lock down" their phone.

That way, if you want your smartphone to only allow apps that follow the platform's rules, that would be your choice.

What you wouldn't be able to do, is force other users to do what you want.

That way, you get what you want for your phone, and others get what they want for their phone.

> It is pretty simple. A user could be given the option to "lock down" their phone.

And I would argue that they have already made this choice by buying an iPhone. At this point it’s one of the most obvious and significant differences between the two dominant smartphone platforms.

> And I would argue that they have already made this choice by buying an iPhone

Ok, and an alternative solution, which gives more people choice, is to allow people who buy an iPhone, and lock it down of their own free choice, and allow people who don't want their iPhone locked down to not lock it down.

That way both groups get what they want. You would lock down your phone if you want, and other people, who don't want it locked down would be able to do that, both on an iPhone.

> At this point it’s one of the most obvious and significant differences between the two dominant smartphone platforms.

Only to tech people, typical people see the messaging app, hardware and ecosystem integrations as the main features. Switching from apple to another phone isn't just buying new hardware but also giving up on the entire apple account and ecosystem.

So what you are afraid of is that people would prefer alternative app stores? If they don't then you have nothing to worry about, as long as the Apple app store has such a huge market share companies will continue to support it.

And if you are right and most Apple user really wants another app store and will flock to them causing companies to abandon the Apple app store then why should your opinion on this matter more than theirs?

> Or perhaps even more simply: How does making the iPhone platform more like the Android platform somehow give customers more choice?

You get just as much choice as before, you can choose Apple hardware and software just like then. Just that choosing Apple hardware and software no longer forces you to also choose their App store as your only way to access other software, so it also alters that choice a bit, but you still have as many choices as before. However just like android you will likely see that almost everyone chooses to use it anyway, so companies will still continue to support it. Your fears are totally unwarranted.

Not parent, but I'm not afraid that people would prefer alternative app stores, I'm afraid that developers will hang shady incentives and dark patterns into getting users to prefer them...

Look at the "choice" we got when Epic opened up their own game launcher/store. It created all these awful exclusives on those platforms and ultimately people still picked the terrible Epic experience (buggy launcher, crashes, etc.) just to get those games. That isn't consumer choice... that is developer choice by incentive/price discrimination/exclusivity.

No, I’m afraid that iPhone owners would have a significantly worse experience if iPhones allowed alternative app stores, full stop. I’m not concerned with deciding who to blame when users install bad software (and I don’t think Apple is concerned with that either). I’m not arguing that my opinion matters more than anyone else’s. I am just making an argument for my prediction that customer satisfaction would go down if this change happened.

Also, IAP is separate from Apple Pay. This is a position from the Dutch government on whether Apple may compel app companies to support Apple Pay, and not whether Apple gets its cut. Paying through Stripe does not translate to an ability to dodge the IAP, unless we're talking about dodgy accounting.

Neither is this a position that app vendors must support multiple platforms such as Apple Pay. This is a win for app makers like PopEyes who really want your credit card.

This is not a win for consumers who want a choice as to whether Apple intermediates their payment relationship with app companies.

>its a matter of power.

Which is the argument I have been saying since the beginning. They are stepping over the line of those in power.

And it doesn't help when this does not belong to those currently in power or they have no leverage to use it. When this happens, the only way to solve it would be no one has that power, hence opening up.

Any other reasoning, monopoly or not are only there to sugar coat their argument.

As with anything about power, it belongs to politics, and things get ugly in a hurry.

> because Apple is traditionally very pro-Consumer

That highly depends on the lens you look through. To say Apple is pro Apple is more correct although they understand they must make some concessions here and there.

But if you look at repairability and generally lock-in, Apple is not pro-consumer. In the end the consumer also pays their store fees of course.

As a consumer, I want ease of use and safety.

I don’t want to be bothered with a menu in-app on if I want to pay through Apple Pay or through PayPal or some other proprietary custom service. I just want to pay using the cards I have already added onto my phone’s wallet. Who handles the transaction behinds the scene is of no importance to me. The important thing is that it is handled.

I don’t want the app to bounce me out into Safari where I login to another service just to pay. I don’t want the app to open an in-app browser for me to enter my credit card information to pay.

I want a standardized, system-level integrated payment screen like what iOS currently does. I want it to be standardized and system-level integrated because I don’t want to have to think if the website or app is launching me to a phishing or scam page. I want this screen to tell me clearly how much I owe, who I owe it to, and let me choose how to pay for it by selecting one of the cards I’ve added to my wallet or an option to pay one-time with a card (that doesn’t get saved to the wallet) ad hoc.

I don’t care if the payment goes through Apple Pay, or Stripe, or Walmart Pay, or whatever. If Walmart is insistent on processing payments through Walmart Pay, then I want to just simply scan my phone’s NFC wallet and have Walmart Pay take money from the default credit card I have attached to my wallet app.

Same as it ever was. I bought a (Mac-licensed) Power clone (for about a grand less) in early 1997. It worked for 7 years without failure.

"Power Computing released upgraded models until 1997 with revenues reaching $400 million a year.... In September [1997], Apple bought the core assets of Power Computing for $100 million in Apple stock and terminated the Mac cloning business." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing_Corporation]

Over 30 companies had invested in making licensed Mac clones. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone]

The iMac I got to replace it had an (intermittently) faulty HD and within a year the display started to fail (for hundreds of users).

So why does the US keep protecting these rent seekers? I have no idea why they do it. US courts literally said Apple is entitled to other people's money.

Does copyright benefit anyone other than US companies? I wonder if other nations would accept such a thing if the US didn't ram it down their throats via trade agreements.

Those rent seekers pay the politicians rent.

> If their product (the app store) is genuinely better for users....

Apple doesn’t make and sell App Store. It makes and sells iPhones. And it’s not “genuinely better” and they do not dominate the market however it’s good enough that a lot of people are willing to pay a premium for that product.

They sell AppStore licenses to developers and take a percentage of purchases within that store.

Users get a say in which apps they purchase. I've no idea what people are whining about saying cancelling app subscriptions is hard. Never ran into this, and if I ever do, worst case credit card chargeback would put the unscrupulous vendor in its place. It's not Apple's job to hold my hand.

Look at PC gaming for an example of how this choice is NOT in the hands of consumers. If a developer gets paid by Epic to have an Epic store exclusive, how does the consumer win here?

I have to decide between getting a game (that I want to get and want to give my money to the developer for) at the time I want at the cost of using Epic's buggy and shady launcher.

It isn't Apple's job to hold my hand, but I certainly appreciate them dealing with the hundreds of developers whose products I interact with, creating a "code of conduct" that I can trust and know developers will abide by (99.9% of the time)

> Look at PC gaming for an example of how this choice is NOT in the hands of consumers.

This doesn't make any sense. It is already the case that if someone only publishes the app on android, and don't publish it on the iPhone, then you as a consumer can't buy it on the apple app store.

Are you going to argue that your choice is being taken away, because a developer only put it on android? That is no different than if they put it on a different iPhone app store.

> Users get a say in which apps they purchase.

You expect users to not get an app they want to buy just because they prefer a different app store ?

Apple takes a cut since they give you visibility in their appstore. Are you saying that their argument is nonsense and that nobody finds apps they want to install in the appstore and instead people learn about apps in other ways? Then why should the app store take the huge 30% cut?

And difficulty to install matters a great deal. If it is a few more clicks you will lose a ton of users because of it.

That assumes that the companies running the alternative stores wouldn’t use dark patterns to encourage users to make decisions that are not in their best interests.

I think we can safely say that this will happen on the planet of Never, not in a trillion years.

Yes they do. If users like the app store more than competing stores companies will be faced with the choice of putting their app on the app store or losing customers to competitors that put their copycat app on the app store.

So we should encourage copycat apps? This line of thinking doesn't really lead to a place that is productive for developers OR consumers...

We don't need to. They already exist. Either way it won't matter because companies will see that putting their app on the app store for apples cut - 10% less while also telling users about the cheaper option is profit maximizing.

Apple will fight it as long as they can. Don't even blame them to be honest.

You may well be right that they are going to lose.

Everything else, you are wrong about to the point of absurdity.

Alternative app stores is means the Facebook App Store*. Nobody can seriously pretend that Facebook competes on its merits.

If you look at from Apple’s persepctive, why should it take competition on top of their platform to shake out what is best for the user if they believe they are doing right by the user themselves?

The fundamental issue here is that developers, at scale, cannot be trusted. You can trust specific ones to do the right thing but you can’t trust them all. Apple sees themselves as responsible for protecting all of their customers from this reality. Some call them “gatekeepers”. The example here is sharing an email address with developers. There are other examples like “no background processes”. Developers hate this becuase they see _themselves_ as trustworthy but the reality still stands: developers at scale cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

Now let me add my opinion on this: Should we have a platform that allows consumers to make a single choice ie) choose Apple, and by proxy never needs to trust developers at scale? Absolutely. Many people, especially developers, would rather trade some developer flexibility (multiple payment processors) and push some responsibility onto Apple’s users to continue making an opt-in choice for Apple. I choose them for my phone. I choose them again for in-app purchases. Continue making choices in support of Apple for each layer of the system. I am not really sure what this buys the consumer. What is Apple blocking from you by forcing you to make that choice once, and then being forced to “never trust developers at scale” for the remainder of being an iPhone customer? Is it blocking “innovation”? Some people think that. I don’t see it. I see a company that pushes the hardware envelope with sensors, battery, operating system, etc, and works hard to give developers access to THOSE things. Maybe not a users email address, but is that really innovation anyway? I looked at this Paddle payment processor and they have some things like “pause subscription”. Is pause really an innovation that is being blocked by only using Apple’s system? Google has supported pause for a long time. Users want it, but to developers really want users pausing their subs? probably not.

Look at it from the countries perspective, why should it let some foreign corporation dictate how transactions are performed on their platform (where their platform is all business in their national jurisdiction).

The country's users are it's citizens, and it may act to ensure what it deems best for them. If Apple doesn't like that ... it can find another 'store'.

Because a country has an interest in protecting the safety and security of its citizens, not choose winners and losers of a global market. And considering Apple’s valuable brand is essentially built on safety and security it would be a bit strange to kick them or build rules that only they seem to breaking.

If you want to look at “transaction” as the activity that a government should look closely at then I think there is a bigger thing to look at right now; people tossing their money into shitcoins. If governments aren’t spending cycles looking carefully into the blockchain transactions of their citizens they shouldnt be spending too much time worrying about whether an iPhone user can choose to use their credit card with a different processor inside of apps

If Europe forces Apple to lower its commission by say 25%, that goes directly into the pockets of European companies, individuals, and taxes. It's a huge economic benefit. Why should they care if it makes some American monopoly sad?

Even if this cause/effective were to be true, are we really going to reduce the job of Europe and other nations to ignore reason/philosophy/etc and set rules just to put more money into the pockets of local companies/people? I mean in that case, there are LOTS of things a government could arbitrarily do with their power to bring more money home. But they don’t. Because they have principles

Let's look at games consoles. The way the console manufacturer makes money is by operating a store and providing access to the platform to games publishers, they generally make a loss on the device. It would break the industry to demand that they must allow alternative app stores on their consoles, as those third party app stores would be parasitizing the work the console developer did designing, manufacturing, developing the OS and services, etc and subsidising the devices.

Nintendo is unique in that they actually make some small amount of money on their devices. Does that mean they should be required to allow alternative stores on the Switch?

Apple make a lot of money on their devices, but they still did all the work developing the product, maintaining the OS, supporting the ongoing costs of device services like iMessage and location services that they don't charge for. The App Store arguably provides recurring revenue to offset those costs, which alternate stores would not help support.

Is it really fair to require manufacturers to allow third party app stores to free ride on all the work they've done?Maybe there is an argument that if a manufacturer makes enough money on the device they should allow third party app stores, but how much is it? At what point does it become ok to bar the device manufacturer from maintaining an exclusive app store?

The problem is that you are comparing a device sold to play games to a general purpose device (music, videos, games, banking, productivity, healthcare, phone, modem...).

While consumers generally don't have too many expectations from being able to do much more on a game console (though that is changing on the XBox), people expect a LOT more from their minicomputer in a phone shape. Hampering control on that device is detrimental to the consumer who paid already a LOT for that device.

What, you don’t watch movies on your game device? You don’t surf the web? You don’t connect to social media?

Because all the game devices I’ve seen lately have been much more capable as universal devices than most desktop computers from previous decades.

I don’t see why being able to run different types of software should change the legal situation.

> It would break the industry to demand that they must allow alternative app stores on their consoles, as those third party app stores would be parasitizing the work the console developer did designing, manufacturing, developing the OS and services, etc and subsidising the devices.

This is a weird objection. It's like saying that if you ban robocalls, it will break the robocalling industry. Well, yeah, that's the point. That business model is abusive.

It doesn't cause game consoles to not exist, they would just work differently. You would pay the actual cost for the hardware and less for games.

The overall cost would plausibly be less because there is no need for any of this lock-in business anymore. Instead of buying a "PlayStation" for $300 you buy a copy of PlayStationOS for $50 and install it as a secondary OS on your Xbox or PC. Then a console costs more but you need a third as many of them, meanwhile all the games are cheaper because they're not paying a huge cut to a gatekeeper.

> It doesn't cause game consoles to not exist, they would just work differently. You would pay the actual cost for the hardware and less for games.

That’s simply not an option for a lot of people. $800 for a console is just beyond many people’s reach. The economics of consoles work for several reasons. One is the person buying the console often isn’t the person buying the games. An uncle might get the console for a kid and a parent might mainly buy the games, or several adults might buy games for them. This efficiently distributes the cost over people and over time.

Yours is typical wealthy person thinking, but people on more modest incomes find it hard to make up front capital purchases. They may not be able to plan their finances long term if they have highly variable income. Pushing more of the cost into the games means they can easily scale their spending to match their current circumstances. Up front costs or even regular monthly payments on a financed purchase don’t let them do that. The net result would be a crash in console sales that benefits nobody.

> Yours is typical wealthy person thinking, but people on more modest incomes find it hard to make up front capital purchases.

Making the overall cost lower causes things to be more affordable. Up front cost is solved by installment plans.

> The economics of consoles work for several reasons. One is the person buying the console often isn’t the person buying the games.

All of these people are generally on good terms with each other. So now the parents and the uncle go in together on the console with the parents using some of the money they're saving because the games now cost less. Or the uncle buys the generation N console on an installment plan and the parents, having saved money on games all through generation N, use it to buy the generation N+1 console instead of the uncle.

> Pushing more of the cost into the games means they can easily scale their spending to match their current circumstances.

This is possible regardless. If you have less money, you have either a PlayStation or an Xbox instead of both. If you have less money than that, you have the previous generation for longer. And then the games cost less so you get more of them.

Having half as many consoles with twice as many games is a good deal.

> The net result would be a crash in console sales that benefits nobody.

When the total cost goes down, people generally buy more of a thing.