Apple Facing $1 Billion UK Antitrust Lawsuit Over App Store Fees

[Force11111]

What kind of idiot does it take to believe that Apple has a monopoly on app distribution on iPad and iPhone. Doesn't make any sense... Does google have a monopoly on searching with google search, or should google maybe add the duck duck go search bar underneath its own as well. Does xBox have a monopoly on games that work on xBox and that are sold on the xBox game store? Same for Playstation? I don't understand how one can force a company to not charge developers for access to the network of 1 BILLION active devices across the whole world. Literally shoot me in the head if a reasonable and logical argument can be made there. Also if you can, then what about the fact that due to convenience, Stores across the western world (US, Canada, EU) are pretty much forced to accept plastic which costs more for them due to paying the card company a charge on each transaction versus cash which doesn't come with that charge.

Who else distributes apps on iOS devices besides apple? While your noodle curls over that I’d like to point out that that their fees seem fair, but the lack of side loading will probably end up being their point of contention. All similar devices from other manufacturers have it.

 

[I7guy]

Who else distributes apps on iOS devices besides apple? While your noodle curls over that I’d like to point out that that their fees seem fair, but the lack of side loading will probably end up being their point of contention. All similar devices from other manufacturers have it.

Other legitimate 3rd party app stores that distribute iOS apps?

 

[webkit]

Ummm, they needed to do that because the law was changed in the EU and that has nothing to do with anything in the US involving any court case, which is what was being discussed. Unless something changes for the remainder of the world, only the EU iPhones will see those updates.

Antitrust laws and regulations pushed dominant Apple to do something "major" that they otherwise likely would not have done. That’s one of the key purposes of these types of regulations from 100 years ago and today i.e., keeping dominant companies in check.

 

[webkit]

Airbnb increases market share in latest read from M Science

Spending on the homeshare Industry was up by 57.1% for the week ending May 22, compared to the prepandemic level from three years ago. Read more.

seekingalpha.com

This is the best I've found; though, I also suspect these numbers are US Only, not worldwide. I run my business in a Latin American Country and VRBO is really non-existent here. But, here's what they say:

Airbnb: 74.6%
VRBO: 20.8%
Vacasa: 4.6%

Note: Booking.com doesn't even make that list.

Thanks for posting this. What they are calling "spending market share" can sometimes be misleading, though, especially if a company typically deals in a higher dollar value product/service. However, this further shows how "market share" and monopoly designation can be arrived multiple ways and potentially be wide ranging even beyond the locale factor.

 

[I7guy]

Antitrust laws and regulations pushed dominant Apple to do something "major" that they otherwise likely would not have done. That’s one of the key purposes of these types of regulations from 100 years ago and today i.e., keeping dominant companies in check.

I guess we’re going around in circles. In the US with respect to the App Store we all know the results to date of epic vs apple.

NEW laws in the EU forced change for the EU only. That’s not the conversation we were having. So for the EU only as if this post there will be some changes. For the US and other locales at the time of this post, there won’t be.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That’s the devs issue. They chose the wrong platform. Government interference is not required for free market mistakes.

It’s not required but government regulation may be desirable.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but when the stars align they align.

The don’t. Governments can and do seek access to people’s devices, data and communication streams.
The EU (as a quasi-government) is one of them - and I despise them for it.
There’s no need (and little point) to „backdoor“ that through competition law though.
They can - and they are trying - to pass bills that give them access irrespective of competition law or regulating sideloading of commissions.

You mean like those conspiracy theorists who claim Apple is an evil empire looking to squash innovation and squeeze people of every last dollar they have?

Let’s just say Apple is looking to make good money - and their marketing „privacy as a service“ is as much about honestly caring as it is a smokescreen.

The point I think you and others are missing is that there is a rationale for a closed system. It's not that we fear alternatives. It's that opening up the walled garden has a lot of potential of changing what it is that many of us like about the Apple Ecosystem. The idea that we fear Apple's ability to compete is a straw-man you are creating.

There’s rationale for a closed system. And there’s some against it.

But your fear of potential change is derived from exactly that: that Apple may not have a competitive service to retain developers selling through their App Store.

If sideloading is allowed (as the European DMA does) but Apple‘s App Store is so great and competitively (or fairly) priced as people say, there’s very little „potential of changing“. Developers and consumers will continue to overwhelmingly use the App Store - and there will be little to no difference from the status quo.

That couldn’t be farther from the truth of the matter. It’s about not breaking something that isn’t broke - which now is a moot point. I’m all for those who want change go to android. It’s absurd that apple is forced to compete a market that they created. Personally I think the citizenry of the EU should all use android. You’d be begging for apple.

Apple wants to sell devices in the EU.
That’s why they are going to comply (and they‘ve signaled that).
Within 10 years, sideloading will be allowed in other jurisdictions, too. Among them the U.S. and the U.K.

 

[I7guy]

It’s not required but government regulation may be desirable.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In this instance it's not. Let 'em use android.

The don’t. Governments can and do seek access to people’s devices, data and communication streams.
The EU (as a quasi-government) is one of them - and I despise them for it.
There’s no need (and little point) to „backdoor“ that through competition law though.
They can - and they are trying - to pass bills that give them access irrespective of competition law or regulating sideloading of commissions.

We may agree on something here.

Let’s just say Apple is looking to make good money - and their marketing „privacy as a service“ is as much about honestly caring as it is a smokescreen.

There’s rationale for a closed system. And there’s some against it.

But your fear of potential change is derived from exactly that: that Apple may not have a competitive service to retain developers selling through their App Store.

The app store is a strictly optional opt-in service, which is why I am against certain legislation.

If sideloading is allowed (as the European DMA does) but Apple‘s App Store is so great and competitively (or fairly) priced as people say, there’s very little „potential of changing“. Developers and consumers will continue to overwhelmingly use the App Store - and there will be little to no difference from the status quo.

That's not the point. Once the door is open the door is open and anybody can set foot in it.

Apple wants to sell devices in the EU.
That’s why they are going to comply (and they‘ve signaled that).
Within 10 years, sideloading will be allowed in other jurisdictions, too. Among them the U.S. and the U.K.

They are going to sell devices as long as there is a net positive. Whether is happens in the US and UK, I don't have a crystal ball.

 

[kognos]

Everything sideloads on Android, essentially. But I didn't even say that.
Did I say that? No I didn't.

I know what you didn't say. You also didn't say that you knew what this lawsuit was about. It is about choice.

You have a negative view on Android if you claim incorrectly that "everything sideloads". By that definition, same with Apple, only it only "sideloads" from one store.

And what does multiple stores selling the exact same app from the exact same devs get you? Nothing except ...<snip>

It gets user and developer choice.

a million stores online isn't going to make it cost less

That's exactly what has the potential to make it cost less. This has been proven in economies since economics began. If there's only one store selling all the goods, there is no incentive to lower price; the reverse is absolutely true -- profits profits profits!

In the apple ecosystem there is only one store. That store has a 30% markup with moderate exceptions. Why? The markup can and should be the actual operational cost plus profit, where the profit is actually a variable. I guarantee you that Apple doesn't need a 30% cut on all sales, a 30% cut on all subscriptions, all with the customer and developer having zero choice in this matter when it comes to sales in the ecosystem. It's a limited monopoly and anticompetitive in its own right.

I keep pivoting quickly to say that this isn't about the entry to the market -- the hardware. In hardware, you do have a choice. That isn't the question here. No one can take a hardware choice and claim that this is the end of the debate. Software developers cannot compel buyers to Android for "choice"... they want to make money too, so they'll port apps to Apple. But many have raised prices on Apple because of that unnecessary cut.

Imagine for the moment that you're a farmer. If your only place to sell your grain are two stores. You can ship your grain to one of those stores using many shippers, and they offer different prices. The other store has a single shipper that requires a very high price. But you need to sell your grain. Do you avoid the store with the very high price, cutting yourself out of that chunk of the market? Or do you take less money? Software devs will develop for Apple out of necessity, not choice or desire. And like stated above, if they want to make money they raise prices to compensate for the overhead.

And again, mom and pop don't get these warnings when they buy their phone. It's not in the fine print. It's a market that is introduced AFTER the purchase of a hardware product that extremely limits user and developer choice.

 

[OneBar]

I know what you didn't say. You also didn't say that you knew what this lawsuit was about. It is about choice.

You have a negative view on Android if you claim incorrectly that "everything sideloads". By that definition, same with Apple, only it only "sideloads" from one store.

Unless you are using vanilla Android, you are side loading from any store you visit because that store is tied to whoever's skin is on the phone you're using.

It gets user and developer choice.

That's exactly what has the potential to make it cost less. This has been proven in economies since economics began. If there's only one store selling all the goods, there is no incentive to lower price; the reverse is absolutely true -- profits profits profits!

In the apple ecosystem there is only one store. That store has a 30% markup with moderate exceptions. Why? The markup can and should be the actual operational cost plus profit, where the profit is actually a variable. I guarantee you that Apple doesn't need a 30% cut on all sales, a 30% cut on all subscriptions, all with the customer and developer having zero choice in this matter when it comes to sales in the ecosystem. It's a limited monopoly and anticompetitive in its own right.

I keep pivoting quickly to say that this isn't about the entry to the market -- the hardware. In hardware, you do have a choice. That isn't the question here. No one can take a hardware choice and claim that this is the end of the debate. Software developers cannot compel buyers to Android for "choice"... they want to make money too, so they'll port apps to Apple. But many have raised prices on Apple because of that unnecessary cut.

Imagine for the moment that you're a farmer. If your only place to sell your grain are two stores. You can ship your grain to one of those stores using many shippers, and they offer different prices. The other store has a single shipper that requires a very high price. But you need to sell your grain. Do you avoid the store with the very high price, cutting yourself out of that chunk of the market? Or do you take less money? Software devs will develop for Apple out of necessity, not choice or desire. And like stated above, if they want to make money they raise prices to compensate for the overhead.

And again, mom and pop don't get these warnings when they buy their phone. It's not in the fine print. It's a market that is introduced AFTER the purchase of a hardware product that extremely limits user and developer choice.

The only way you have any choice is if you have multiple different companies making the same product. That's not what we're talking about here. This isn't Ford vs Chevy vs Toyota vs Honda, this is me as a dev making an app and selling it. Me putting the same app on 5 different stores might get me a larger audience as 4 of those are going to be the Android stores but the price is going to be the same whether it's 4, 8, or 4000. Having more stores selling my product does not make the cost of the product drop. If it costs me $5 to develop an app and I sell it for 25% over cost to make a profit, that's always going to be true, no matter how many choices you as a consumer have to pick it up. Now if you and I are both making the same app, that's a different story, but it's already the case with the existing stores. If we both make a digital water color drawing app, we can both sell it on App Store or Google Play or where ever. If I sell it on 5 stores and you only sell it on 4, then I might be inclined to drop my price a percentage as I'm potentially reaching more consumers. That's not what we're dealing with, though. Selling your app on more stores doesn't lower the price. Ever.

 

[kognos]

Your lack of knowledge on the topic, clearly displayed here, should give you pause to be so confident in suggesting government oversight. You don't even know the most basic facts.

I know that point. I didn't display the costs over time, because they're irrelevant and not important. I could just as easily say that your failure to understand operational costs vs profits is clearly evident here by making a blatant statement about how costs go down after the first year, when this isn't a market norm. Ad hominem attacks do not prove an argument.

Unless you're a large ISV, those first-year costs can make-or-break you, which is in turn why the single-store model is so heavily scrutinized. Not only are all purchases and subscriptions forced through a vendor, the "featured apps" is a black box.

I don't suggest government oversight, I just suggest fair market. And when there is only one market, like for example only Safeway in the US to get food from, it fundamentally denies "fair" no matter how one wants to describe it.

Right. This is the market at work. This is the mechanism that should drive change. If Apple's customers are choosing differently, then Apple would have to contend with this. But to be clear, Developers are making significantly more money in the Apple App store than anywhere else.

No, there are more payments to the Apple app store than googleplay. ISVs are struggling everywhere. People are spending more money in the Apple app store. That doesn't translate to an ISV making more money on Apple.

Revenue in the store does not linearly mean ISV revenue. It means Apple made money. And therein is the rub.

The remedy you're proposing has a case example. We know what a market with competing app stores provides relative to a market with a walled garden. The Google Play store still dominates the Android Market. 3rd Party stores are few and very few make any real money. Despite what you said above, most apps are priced identically in both eco-systems stores, with a few exceptions.

AND, the majority of developers in the Android system ONLY submit apps to Google Play.

That doesn't matter. It matters that there are choices. If Google Play ever did something bad, there are options.

But above you suggested the motivation would be LOWER prices for customers. But that's not proving true on the Android side of things. It just isn't. And besides, Google takes MORE of a cut from developers: 20% (and like Apple, 30% for a select few large companies).

The issue isn't so much the cut% as I said above, it's the lack of choice. The lack of choice will always drive up the price, never down. It's practically a cultural joke: "It's the only place in town where you can get that thing, you bet it'll cost an arm and a leg"

 

[kognos]

Selling your app on more stores doesn't lower the price. Ever.

I'll accept this point if you realize we're not really talking about the app cost, we're talking about competition between stores.

Apps cost what they need to cost to make up their development costs and make a profit. Highly subjective, but costs of anything are kind of relative.

But no one really wants to "win" the competition argument because it creates a defacto monopoly and requires scrutiny. There would be nothing stopping Apple from saying the sales costs are now %40 and 20% after the first year. Where are the ISVs going to run to? How much does this hurt their profits?

Again, if you could only shop at Safeway and the cost of a gallon of milk was $25, you'd have no other option. Safeway could say whatever they want. People in this forum would say "that's not a fair analogy, you always can shop at another store" but you chose to move to the Land of Safeway (aka bought apple device) and that's all you get. The farmer would say they want to sell the milk at $2.50 but Safeway could mark it up with whatever reason they wanted to.

 

[kognos]

You didn't misrepresent "costs over time." You misrepresented the most basic element of the cost. 98% of apps qualify for a 15% fee in the App store. Not over time...now.

You keep saying the issue is "choice." But, go back to what the person behind the lawsuit says:

The lawsuit is specifically about the fee. AND, again, his statement radically misrepresents basic facts. He implies that the 1500 U.K.-based developers are paying 30%. It's likely at most a few of the 1500 are paying that much, while the overwhelming majority of them pay 15%.

The lawsuit is about an "anticompetitive 30% fee."

You're very interested in picking a moment in time ... "now". Also not interested in looking at the trend "over time" but yet using "over time" to defend that "most" dont pay the 30%.

Ok then: I want to develop an app for the Apple app store. I'll do that. How much will I have to pay to apple, now.

So after I develop my shiny new app and it's a year old and it's no longer "trending", only then will the lesser fee apply to me... so yay, my legacy application which isn't selling as well has less fees! This isn't the core of the stance here is it? One cannot develop an app that is immediately a year old and "legacy" to qualify for those fees.

So either stick with the new app "now" or the over time answer of the lesser cost but don't play both sides.

The core of the argument is about choice. With only one avenue for getting sales on IOS, there is only one choice, and if I develop an app for IOS and hype it up and sell it, for that first year ios takes 30% and neither the ISV or the customer has any choice in this matter.

 

[I7guy]

[…].

The core of the argument is about choice. With only one avenue for getting sales on IOS, there is only one choice, and if I develop an app for IOS and hype it up and sell it, for that first year ios takes 30% and neither the ISV or the customer has any choice in this matter.

And in the US (and most of the world) that’s perfectly acceptable. You want multiple avenues, go to android. The App Store is not a public utility, it’s an apple opt in innovation launched in 2008.

 

[BaldiMac]

It gets user and developer choice.

Sure, but it also removes a choice. The one that I prefer. 70% of the market gets the choices that you want. Why force the remaining 30% to be the same?

Revenue in the store does not linearly mean ISV revenue. It means Apple made money. And therein is the rub.

App Store revenue quite literally means developer revenue. I don't know what you're getting at here.

I'll accept this point if you realize we're not really talking about the app cost, we're talking about competition between stores.

Apps cost what they need to cost to make up their development costs and make a profit. Highly subjective, but costs of anything are kind of relative.

But no one really wants to "win" the competition argument because it creates a defacto monopoly and requires scrutiny. There would be nothing stopping Apple from saying the sales costs are now %40 and 20% after the first year. Where are the ISVs going to run to? How much does this hurt their profits?

Again, if you could only shop at Safeway and the cost of a gallon of milk was $25, you'd have no other option. Safeway could say whatever they want. People in this forum would say "that's not a fair analogy, you always can shop at another store" but you chose to move to the Land of Safeway (aka bought apple device) and that's all you get. The farmer would say they want to sell the milk at $2.50 but Safeway could mark it up with whatever reason they wanted to.

This is silly. If Apple increases prices, developers can simply develop for another platform if they don't want to pay the new prices. It's not a monopoly.

In contrast to your threat of rising prices, Apple's pricing has actually decreased over time. Not increased.

 

[VulchR]

All the fees can be passed on to customers by raising the app price. Some developers are choosing not to do this, but they do have a choice, as do consumers. There is nothing anti-competitive about the fees. Don't like them? Develope your app for another platform.

 

[OneBar]

I'll accept this point if you realize we're not really talking about the app cost, we're talking about competition between stores.

Apps cost what they need to cost to make up their development costs and make a profit. Highly subjective, but costs of anything are kind of relative.

But no one really wants to "win" the competition argument because it creates a defacto monopoly and requires scrutiny. There would be nothing stopping Apple from saying the sales costs are now %40 and 20% after the first year. Where are the ISVs going to run to? How much does this hurt their profits?

Again, if you could only shop at Safeway and the cost of a gallon of milk was $25, you'd have no other option. Safeway could say whatever they want. People in this forum would say "that's not a fair analogy, you always can shop at another store" but you chose to move to the Land of Safeway (aka bought apple device) and that's all you get. The farmer would say they want to sell the milk at $2.50 but Safeway could mark it up with whatever reason they wanted to.

Apple doesn't set the sales price of the app, though. They only set how much percentage of the sale they take as "rent". Which every store is going to do. You can, right now, build the same app for iOS and Android, and sell it on App Store and Google Play. They're going to take the same cut, more or less. Having another store just means another place that's going to take the same cut. Servers cost what servers cost, bandwidth costs what bandwidth costs, personnel to maintain the servers and customer support etc. costs what it costs. Literally the only way you drop the cost of a product is if you have a competing product. Stores are not competing products. Having 5 apps that track your fuel usage in a store is competing products. *That* drives cost down, not more stores. Sara Lee doesn't drop the cost of a loaf of bread because they can sell it at Walmart, Kmart, Sam's, and Costco. They drop it because Wonder Bread competes with them at those same stores. Wouldn't matter if Walmart was the only store.

 

[Dremmel]

Just a reminder that apps are benchmarked by Apple based upon how much $$$ they make per user This affects ranking etc.

 

[ackmondual]

There are a ton of phone makers out there ready to serve you.

Try telling that the the Apple users here. They won't have that.

 

[kognos]

And in the US (and most of the world) that’s perfectly acceptable. You want multiple avenues, go to android. The App Store is not a public utility, it’s an apple opt in innovation launched in 2008.

I feel like I need to say this in every single post because if you read back through my replies I totally understand there is freedom of choice at the hardware level, but no freedom of choice within the market once you have the device.

From one of my examples it's like moving to the Land of Safeway where you can only get food from Safeway and then claiming it's so easy and you had a choice, but it's not easy nor is it great for developers or consumers if you only can get all your food from one spot. There's no easy egress either. It's not like one packs up and moves on a dime, nor does one buy new hardware just "because".

Nothing needs to be a public utility to need this level of scrutiny, it just needs to engage in monopolistic and anticompetitive practices. Android can do the exact same things as Apple, charge the same prices, but they sideload and offer alternative stores. It's as simple as that.

 

[kognos]

Apple doesn't set the sales price of the app, though. They only set how much percentage of the sale they take as "rent". Which every store is going to do. You can, right now, build the same app for iOS and Android, and sell it on App Store and Google Play. They're going to take the same cut, more or less. Having another store just means another place that's going to take the same cut. Servers cost what servers cost, bandwidth costs what bandwidth costs, personnel to maintain the servers and customer support etc. costs what it costs. Literally the only way you drop the cost of a product is if you have a competing product. Stores are not competing products. Having 5 apps that track your fuel usage in a store is competing products. *That* drives cost down, not more stores. Sara Lee doesn't drop the cost of a loaf of bread because they can sell it at Walmart, Kmart, Sam's, and Costco. They drop it because Wonder Bread competes with them at those same stores. Wouldn't matter if Walmart was the only store.

In a way, you're substantiating my argument.

Those 5 stores that compete on that markup is what drives the cost down. I do agree that the cost of the app can be fairly immutable. But 30% and even 15% is way way above the actual operational support cost of infrastructure and delivery that Apple purports... competing stores can offer same product "for cheaper" because they don't have a higher cut. But without competition, there's no incentive. Monopolistic practices cause this, and it's anticompetitive because Apple outright forbids any other stores, payment methods, or processing ... even advertising for such .. on their platform.

It's like buying petrol at the Exxon over here because it's cheaper than the Exxon over there.

Alternate app stores often do not charge less though (google play, apple, amazon, galaxy, etc), because there's no incentive to. They're "in on it". It's market cost and no one is going to cut costs just for that reason alone, because it's what the market can bear with limited competition even in the hardware space, they can afford to squeeze it. But I guarantee you the billions of overhead that Apple gets for simply hosting data on sites does not require that level. And their lack of disparate choice is perceived as anti-competitive which is dangerous for everyone.

This goes to my base statement that a lack of competition with the context of the market does nothing to drive the cost down, and quite often does the reverse.

If you lived in the Land of Safeways and you could only get food from Safeway, they could markup the delivery, support, maintenance, care, feeding, nurturing, lights, air, and mental-health therapy of their milk and charge $25 for it, even though the farmer only charges $2.50. All in the name of security (apple line). And we paid SO MUCH to that farmer, says Safeway. Aren't we great, says Safeway. You had a choice through right? You moved to the land of Safeway... so really, you didn't. You'd have to move. Everyone uses that as a line, but the ISV can't compel you to buy a phone. You don't see Spotify saying "we don't support Apple because they're price gougers" but you for sure don't see them taking payments on Apple, and the lawsuits show it. You see ISVs supporting where the users go, but they have no choice in this matter.

*** and to the point of my last post here the market is the Apple App store, which is not the same as the market for hardware: phones have competition. The apple app store does not -- no sideloading, no alternate store, nothing. You're no sooner going to chuck your iphone and buy android as an app developer is going to cut off an arm to deny themselves that market.

 

[BaldiMac]

I feel like I need to say this in every single post because if you read back through my replies I totally understand there is freedom of choice at the hardware level, but no freedom of choice within the market once you have the device.

Of course there is. Consumers can choose from millions of apps and accessories.

From one of my examples it's like moving to the Land of Safeway where you can only get food from Safeway and then claiming it's so easy and you had a choice, but it's not easy nor is it great for developers or consumers if you only can get all your food from one spot.

But it can be easy and great for consumers if they can get their software from one spot!

The biggest advantages of competition are variety and lower pricing. But we already have massive variety and extremely low pricing on the App Store.

There's no easy egress either. It's not like one packs up and moves on a dime, nor does one buy new hardware just "because".

I disagree. It would be cheaper for me to move to Android than to stay on Apple devices. A few hours of inconvenience.

 

[kognos]

Again, simply not true. You can apply directly for the App Store Small Business Program, right out of the gate. You will only increase to 30% IF your app sells more than $1,000,000. Up to $1,000,000, you'll only pay 15%.

App Store Small Business Program - Apple Developer

Propel your small business forward with the next generation of groundbreaking apps on the App Store and invest more resources into your business.

developer.apple.com

The basics​

• Existing developers who made up to 1 million USD in proceeds in the prior calendar year for all their apps, as well as developers new to the App Store, can qualify for the program and the reduced commission.
• If a participating developer surpasses the 1 million USD threshold in the current calendar year, the standard commission rate will apply to future sales.
• If a developer’s proceeds fall below the 1 million USD threshold in a future calendar year, they can re-qualify for the 15% commission the year after.

Excellent data. Looks like Google play followed suit on that, which since you seem to be educated on this, let me ask this gem of a question to my last post -- why exactly could they do this now instead of before / why are they all lowering in the same way at the same time / where is the actual operational costs?

Lets not bask in the knowledge they decided not to squeeze a few less coppers from the developers and aren't they nice -- they still have a black box of profitability and still engage in a lack of competition. Google does the exact same pricing in the exact same way it appears, so the market can clearly bear less.

I like extreme examples so let me bear this out: If Apple only charged a penny for all sales of apps, in what way does their model prove to be any less monopolistic and anticompetitive? There is only one choice of one store within that market. (the market being the app store, not the hardware)

 

[I7guy]

I feel like I need to say this in every single post because if you read back through my replies I totally understand there is freedom of choice at the hardware level, but no freedom of choice within the market once you have the device.

There is no right to have that “freedom” within the market. You choose ios or not and you take the good with the bad.

From one of my examples it's like moving to the Land of Safeway where you can only get food from Safeway and then claiming it's so easy and you had a choice, but it's not easy nor is it great for developers or consumers if you only can get all your food from one spot. There's no easy egress either. It's not like one packs up and moves on a dime, nor does one buy new hardware just "because".

Nothing needs to be a public utility to need this level of scrutiny, it just needs to engage in monopolistic and anticompetitive practices. Android can do the exact same things as Apple, charge the same prices, but they sideload and offer alternative stores. It's as simple as that.

No monopolistic practices here in the US for apple.

 

[BaldiMac]

Excellent data. Looks like Google play followed suit on that, which since you seem to be educated on this, let me ask this gem of a question to my last post -- why exactly could they do this now instead of before / why are they all lowering in the same way at the same time / where is the actual operational costs?

What do operational costs have to do with how much they charge? Retail stores have received a cut of sales for a long, long time. And Apple's cut is relatively low. Especially for small developers.

It's strange how people have no sense of perspective on this issue. The push to open the App Store isn't about small developers. They're just the tools to provoke sympathy. This issue is about billion dollar corporations trying to take a bite out of trillion dollar corporations

 

[I7guy]

[…]: If Apple only charged a penny for all sales of apps, in what way does their model prove to be any less monopolistic and anticompetitive? There is only one choice of one store within that market. (the market being the app store, not the hardware)

In the US (and most of the world) apples App Store model is neither monopolistic or anticompetitive.