Pretty much, yes.
Of course, I also believe freedom (the freedom to install self-made apps) is very important for general-purpose computers. Everything else is Orwellian.
Freedom cuts both ways. You want the freedom to install anything; Apple wants the freedom to set terms for software using
its IP that is distributed inside
its OS. Preferring a curated platform isn’t “Orwellian” it’s a product choice. If you want alternate app stores and sideloading, Android exists; if you want curation, iOS exists. That’s freedom in a market. What’s Orwellian is taking that choice say and declaring “Consumers now have more choice” when they’ve in fact had choice removed from them.
Also, calling the iPhone a “general-purpose computer” is creating a distinction when none exists. For example, my PS5 runs Netflix and Spotify and still gates distribution. Why can Sony ban the Epic game store and Epic to pay 30%, but when Apple does that it’s an absurd fee that is anticompetitive and must be banned.
Where would you put smart TVs, set-top boxes, or even ChromeOS? They all run broad app categories and still gate distribution. If “general-purpose” forced open stores, you’d be arguing to crack open half the consumer electronics market.
The reverse is just as true:
Apple offering all those free-to-download apps below cost not only subsidises their hardware business.
It also cements their anticompetitive monopoly over iOS apps, and smartphone apps more generally.
Both are main contributors to why third-party alternative operating systems and platforms aren't emerging.
👉 Solution: make them compete on both markets.
Again, there is no "anticompetive monopoly" no matter how much you wish there was. Having 100% control inside your own platform != having monopoly power in the market. By your logic, every console maker is a monopolist. Antitrust looks at alternatives and those exist.
And as far as “why there’s no third competitor” goes, you’re mixing cause and effect. Third-party platforms haven’t failed because Apple lets free apps ride “below cost.” They’ve failed because consumers didn’t want them and developers didn’t follow (see: Windows Phone, BlackBerry 10, Firefox OS, Sailfish, etc.) not because “Apple didn’t charge free apps for bandwidth.”
For proof, look at the PC market. There is no significant third alternative to Mac and Windows (and I say this as someone who actually uses Linux). Can’t blame the App Store for that.
You conveniently forgot about the Epic games store. And Microsoft's store - arguably the (2nd?) most widely installed.
And for general purpose operating systems, neither Microsoft nor Apple on macOS force developer to monetise apps through their in-app purchasing system.
Epic famously is losing money on their store. 12% isn't profitable. Sure, Microsoft charges 15% on Windows where they are fighting almost 50 years of “open” precedent, but they charged 30% on Windows Mobile. I think both of these show that the 15%/30% Apple charges is a fair deal, particularly when you consider that if you were correct about Apple’s prices being too high due to lack of competition, prices on the Play Store would be lower. But they’re not, and it completely blows apart your argument.
And yes, as I pointed out, we learned lessons from the PC era, and tighter controls come with significant benefits to end users. Different platforms designed for different things, one of which was designed from the ground up to be more restrictive after seeing the issues regular users dealt with under the “open for all” system.
There are alternatives to the 30% commission Apple enforces.
I agree. Which is why we don’t need the government interfering in the free market. Those who don’t like Apple’s rules have other options.
We are here because a few large developers are upset that a profitable subset of consumers prefer the platform that has stricter rules and charges for use of their property, without realizing the rules and fees are a large part of WHY that profitable subset choose that platform. There are other options, the developers just don’t want to take them because they think they deserve access to Apple’s platform and the trust Apple built with users without paying for it.
Apple is free to market the heck out of their Store's benefits and advantages. In fact, I believe they should. In a competitive environment.
Again, it’s already a competitive environment. You’re just declaring it’s not because you don’t like your choices.
Regardless of how often people draw that particular comparison to landlords:
No two landlords have the market power and control 95% and more of their types of dwellings or business space.
Irrelevant. Market concentration doesn’t erase property rights. Even if there are only two major mobile platforms, each still should be allowed to set the rules for software distributed inside its own OS, just like PlayStation/Xbox on consoles or Visa/Mastercard on their networks, Just because there are two big players does not mean both platforms must be open and free to use like some sort of quasi public utility, particularly when one has spent 20 years using its closed nature as a selling point and the other is open.
...and because walking into McDonald's is free.
So is walking into Burger King or KFC tomorrow.
👉 Customer's ability and costs to switch are crucial for the competitive environment in fast food markets.
Again, if it cost, say, $500 to switch from eating McDonald's to any other brand of burger tomorrow (and hours to get accustomed to it), I'd certainly advocate for more government regulation in food markets.
By that logic PS5 is a monopoly because switching to Xbox costs $500. Competition does not mean zero switching cost; it means credible alternatives. Consoles are competitive, and so are phones. Yet you don’t advocate for the EU or DOJ to regulate video game consoles. It’s only a problem when Apple does it. Why?
Once a customer has bought an iPhone - or an Android phone - there is absolutely no platform competition for the apps they buy.
After you buy a phone, you still have channel competition (web vs in-app) and periodic platform competition at upgrade. Calling that “absolutely no competition” ignores how apps and users actually behave.
By that logic there’s ‘no competition’ in the console market. In reality: most games ship on PS5 and Xbox (multi-home), you can buy games/currency on the web or at retailers and redeem on console (channel competition), and you can pick a different platform at the next upgrade. Mobile is the same: iOS vs Android at purchase, web vs in-app for transactions, and switching at upgrade.
