Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I wouldn't, because Walmart does not have a monopoly on cookie distribution in my area. If they did, you best believe I would be very upset.

Let's continue your analogy. "Android Town" has Walmart, Target, Amazon Fresh, et al, where I can sell my cookies. "iOS Town" only has Walmart, and they're screwing me with unfair terms. I want to sell my cookies in "iOS Town," so unfortunately I have to agree to Walmart's terms. I cannot, as a humble cookie maker, expect my consumers to uproot their lives and move to a different town to consume my cookies.
Again, you're purposely limiting the market to make your argument easier. Android and iOS aren't towns. They're property, just like Walmart or Disney World. Developers are free to choose which properties they develop for. If I own a desirable property, I'm free to set the terms for its use.

Times were different and the situation changes. This outcome is obvious in retrospect, much less so back then.
And yet, the terms were reasonable enough over the years to attract an amazing amount of developers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The_Gream
There always is a business alternative. Your business “emergency” does not make apple responsible if you don’t want to contract with them.

And some of these other manufacturers have their distribution platforms as well. Again the lack of innovation in developing operating systems is not apples problem.

Apple is not taking advantage of them.

There is always the web.

Again this is not apples problem. Don’t make the lack of ingenuity on someone who doesn’t want to contract with apple, apple’s problem
I think people have forgotten, the reason Apple Google etc have gotten as big as they have is because these same governments that now are in enacting laws to regulate are the ones that okayed all this mergers and buy outs.

A lot of those companies that got bought out, IMO, were built with the plan to have a big company buy them. And thus, we have come to the current issues at hand.
 
Again, you're purposely limiting the market to make your argument easier. Android and iOS aren't towns.

Yes, that's how analogies work. I made them into hypothetical towns because you made the app store into a hypothetical walmart.

They're property, just like Walmart or Disney World.

The difference is that people are allowed to shop or vacation elsewhere. That is not the case for people that use (live in) iOS. iOS users cannot shop elsewhere for software.

If my customer uses iOS, I cannot sell them my software anywhere but the App Store. It is entirely unreasonable to expect them to switch platforms for my app.

If I own a desirable property, I'm free to set the terms for its use.

Yes. But are not entitled to set up a single marketplace, then require people that live on that property to only buy from your market, while militantly keeping out competitors. That would be insane.
 
I mean, it should be obvious that the alternative would be to develop for any other platform.

You just don’t get it. There is no ‘any other platform’ to develop for. If you’re on iOS and android and pull out of iOS then all you have left is Android. There aren’t any more platforms to develop for. It’s just iOS and Android and that’s it. Nothing else. Why is this so difficult to understand for Apple defenders? Besides, outside the EU devs can’t distribute apps for iOS anywhere other than Apple’s appstore, whereas android does allow alternative appstores (Samsung has its own besides the google play store, for example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
You just don’t get it. There is no ‘any other platform’ to develop for.

Their entire argument is predicated on Android existing. This is the same argument as "If you don't like it, you can leave" when people complain about a country.

This isn't a realistic option because people are not going to switch platforms for a single app.
 
Yes, that's how analogies work. I made them into hypothetical towns because you made the app store into a hypothetical walmart.
Sure but some analogies are bad. Public spaces are not good analogies for private property.

If my customer uses iOS, I cannot sell them my software anywhere but the App Store. It is entirely unreasonable to expect them to switch platforms for my app.
Yep. (With the obvious exception of the web.) But that's common and reasonable for a platform to control what software is available on their platform. Just because some popular platforms like Windows or Mac allow free access does not mean everyone else has to.

Yes. But are not entitled to set up a single marketplace, then require people that live on that property to only buy from your market, while militantly keeping out competitors. That would be insane.
And yet it is a common business practice, loaded language aside.
 
And yet it is a common business practice, loaded language aside.

Where? Disney World, where people visit and no one lives?

Yep. (With the obvious exception of the web.) But that's common and reasonable for a platform to control what software is available on their platform.

Which other mobile software platforms do this? The only other one that did died a horrible death years ago because Microsoft was Microsoft.

Because it's not true. There are certainly platforms other than iOS and Android.

Name them. What are the other mobile platforms?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
You don’t remember Apple won’t allow Spotify update? You don’t remember Apple being fined by EU for such behaviour?

And it is not just EU and India now. Japan also joint the game.




Legal monopoly still monopoly and it must be teared apart.

And in my opinion, Apple’s monopoly is worse than Microsoft and Google. Apple is such disgusting, and most monopolistic company ever existed.
We basically disagree about the “tearing apart” bit. So then carry on.
You don’t remember Apple won’t allow Spotify update? You don’t remember Apple being fined by EU for such behaviour?
That’s the EU.
And it is not just EU and India now. Japan also joint the game.

We’ll see.
Legal monopoly still monopoly and it must be teared apart.
Disagree with this.
And in my opinion, Apple’s monopoly is worse than Microsoft and Google. Apple is such disgusting, and most monopolistic company ever existed.
Again we disagree.
 
What business alternative is there? Please, I would love to know how else I can reasonably distribute software on iOS.
Web apps or web pages can provide a service that an iOS app can.
How are they not? You keep mentioning this. Please enlighten us as to how this arrangement, architected to benefit Apple above all else, is not taking advantage of their customers (the software developers)?
They aren’t. Tell me how they are? Be specific and fact based.
The one Apple goes out of their way to cripple, in order to push their business model? PWAs are terrible on iOS, and I say that as someone that uses the MR PWA.



Do you know the difference? Please explain it to us.
An illegal monopoly is against the law in the US. Here’s a good starting point. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
 
Part of me is wondering: instead of this gatekeeper crap, couldn’t they have issued something that would have had Apple spin off a version of iOS (core functions etc) for the use to sell to OEMs?

We would still have two core OSes for mobile, but it would have opened up an option for companies to legally license Apple’s OS and then build hardware and software to push innovation and competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maxoakland
Where? Disney World, where people visit and no one lives?
Yep. If you can't think of any other business that restricts who can do business on/with their property, then you're just being obtuse. Just for the irony, I'll throw out Spotify. :)

Which other mobile software platforms do this? The only other one that did died a horrible death years ago because Microsoft was Microsoft.
I didn't say "mobile" platforms. Shockingly, Android and iOS aren't the only platforms in the world. There are tons of smaller platforms from embedded systems to apps.

Name them. What are the other mobile platforms?
Again, I didn't say "mobile" platforms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
If only I had a nickel for every time something like this was said in the runup to the EU enacting the DMA. Actually, make it a quarter. Nickels don't go far these days.
If I had a penny every time it was said apple would lose the epic vs apple trial - I would be in the triple comma club.

You never know how things will turn out.
 
The fact that this is the only alternative in such cases is exactly why places like the EU and India are doing what they're doing.
One alternative? I don't know what you are referring to here. Obviously, there are many alternatives on android devices, as well as the web.
 
One alternative? I don't know what you are referring to here. Obviously, there are many alternatives on android devices, as well as the web.
That when it comes to iOS and reaching those users, you either obey Apple's every whim or take the alternative and simply forfeit access to those consumers.

Wasn’t the anti steering eventually thrown out on appeal?
Nope. It was stayed pending parties' appeal to SCOTUS who ultimately declined to take up the case.

"The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court. Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023. Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.

With the Supreme Court's refusal to hear either appeal, the case ended with all charges dismissed except for the anti-steering charge."

The case is still active with regard to Apple's chosen solution of "requiring that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites" in order to obey the ruling.

"Sweeney stated that these changes are in bad faith compliance with the court orders, maintaining a 27% anti-competitive tax and a 'scare screen' that are intended to dissuade developers from using third-party payment systems. Epic filed its request to Rogers in March 2024 to enforce the anti-steering provision that she had outlined for Apple."

At this point the only thing left to decide is whether Apple actually obeying the judge's anti-steering decision.

 
Last edited:
After some introspection, I'm not going to continue arguing with some of the Big Tech advocates in here. Hope India makes the right call.
That's pretty funny. Stereotypes are dumb. Just because I disagree with you about the whether the App Store should be illegal doesn't mean I support everything else Big Tech does. Google, Amazon, and Meta are far higher on my list of "drastic changes need to made through regulation" than Apple, but I even agree with many of the regulations that affect Apple.

The problem is that I find value in some of the things that people are trying to get governments to force Apple to change.
 
That when it comes to iOS and reaching those users, you either obey Apple's every whim or take the alternative and simply forfeit access to those consumers.


Nope. It was stayed pending parties' appeal to SCOTUS who ultimately declined to take up the case.

"The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion on April 24, 2023. The three judge panel all agreed that the lower court ruling should be upheld. However, the Ninth Circuit agreed to stay the injunction requiring Apple to offer third-party payment options in July 2023, allowing time for Apple to submit its appeal to the Supreme Court. Both Apple and Epic Games have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in July 2023. Justice Elena Kagan declined Epic's emergency request to lift the Ninth Circuit's stay in August 2023.

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeals from Apple and Epic in the case.

With the Supreme Court's refusal to hear either appeal, the case ended with all charges dismissed except for the anti-steering charge."

The case is still active with regard to Apple's chosen solution of "requiring that developers give Apple 27% of all sales made within seven days of being directed to these sites" in order to obey the ruling.

"Sweeney stated that these changes are in bad faith compliance with the court orders, maintaining a 27% anti-competitive tax and a 'scare screen' that are intended to dissuade developers from using third-party payment systems. Epic filed its request to Rogers in March 2024 to enforce the anti-steering provision that she had outlined for Apple."

At this point the only thing left to decide is whether Apple actually obeying the judge's anti-steering decision.

Okay so epic lost almost the entire case it brought against apple with the exception of one ruling. Still in all it’s a giant win for apple.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.