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.
And yet, the terms were reasonable enough over the years to attract an amazing amount of developers.
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.
Sure but some analogies are bad. Public spaces are not good analogies for private property.
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.
And yet it is a common business practice, loaded language aside.
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.
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?
And it is not just EU and India now. Japan also joint the game.
Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition
The regulations will oblige Apple and Google to allow users to download from app stores other than the ones on their proprietary platforms.www.japantimes.co.jp
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.
That’s the EU.
We’ll see.And it is not just EU and India now. Japan also joint the game.
Japan to open up Apple and Google app stores to competition
The regulations will oblige Apple and Google to allow users to download from app stores other than the ones on their proprietary platforms.
Disagree with this.
Again we disagree.
Web apps or web pages can provide a service that an iOS app can.
They aren’t. Tell me how they are? Be specific and fact based.
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
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.
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.
Again, I didn't say "mobile" platforms.
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.
A great example of winning the battle but losing the war. Especially in light of Apple losing on the anti-steering count.
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.
Nope. It was stayed pending parties' appeal to SCOTUS who ultimately declined to take up the case.
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.
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.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.
Epic Games v. Apple - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org