Apple Says Spotify Wants 'Limitless Access' to App Store Tools Without Paying

[I7guy]

I don't think "happy" would be the word to use. Because iOS controls such a notable part of the mobile OS market, I'd say it's more like app developers “tolerate” the fee. They don't leave because it's too big of a market to just walk away from and, except maybe in the EU, there is no other way to access that major market segment other than the App Store.

Apple is a drop in the bucket compared to other smartphone manufacturers. App developers knew what they signed up for. There was absolutely no ambiguity. And yes, there are other ways to get into the market…it’s called the internet. If you’re speaking of gaming there are numerous consoles.

 

[I7guy]

apple is ********ing again as it does ever. Ofcourse apple can asks anything she wants for hosting any app on their applestore even a million for a free app, what is unethical and I believe illegal as it comes to monopoly is that apple doesn't allow any other stores on the platform.
Give the authority for anyone hosting its own store and you can charge whatever you want for yours. That's how competition will work, any other solutions are just ********ing.
Claims that other applestore will be security risks is for the client to judge, if client doesn't care about your "security strict" rules can choose whatever store he/she wants and taking the risk for himself.

The app store is a natural monopoly. As for the second paragraph, I have more faith in apples prognostications than MR hyperbolic opinions.

 

[WitchDrAsh2]

I’m

apple is ********ing again as it does ever. Ofcourse apple can asks anything she wants for hosting any app on their applestore even a million for a free app, what is unethical and I believe illegal as it comes to monopoly is that apple doesn't allow any other stores on the platform.
Give the authority for anyone hosting its own store and you can charge whatever you want for yours. That's how competition will work, any other solutions are just ********ing.
Claims that other applestore will be security risks is for the client to judge, if client doesn't care about your "security strict" rules can choose whatever store he/she wants and taking the risk for himself.

The thing that confuses me is other markets (eg video game consoles) don’t allow other stores, so the question is where is the line drawn.

If I can release hardware and tie it to a set of restrictions, then the iPhone is fine, if that isn’t the case I struggle to see a significant difference in model between say a Nintendo Switch and an iPhone, both are computer like devices running a closed eco system and high requires you to give a cut to the hardware manufacturer, in which case should we be calling on Nintendo/Sony etc to allow us to sideload other stores? Does this mean that all hardware is open to users doing whatever they want and that has to be at least supported in some way by the manufacturer.

As it stands I struggle to see the monopoly case for an iPhone because for me an iPhone is just like an Xbox or a Switch, it’s bought with a known set of restrictions, that’s the package, the choice is whether to buy an iPhone or go with another type of device (probably Android)

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I struggle to see a significant difference in model between say a Nintendo Switch and an iPhone

Not comparable in terms of market size, smartphones and the their operating systems are much more of a general purpose computing platform than game consoles.

Apple/Googles App Store policies have an effect on a myriad of industries that operate using mobile applications. Playstation/Switch is just gaming.

 

[wbeasley]

I’m

The thing that confuses me is other markets (eg video game consoles) don’t allow other stores, so the question is where is the line drawn.

If I can release hardware and tie it to a set of restrictions, then the iPhone is fine, if that isn’t the case I struggle to see a significant difference in model between say a Nintendo Switch and an iPhone, both are computer like devices running a closed eco system and high requires you to give a cut to the hardware manufacturer, in which case should we be calling on Nintendo/Sony etc to allow us to sideload other stores? Does this mean that all hardware is open to users doing whatever they want and that has to be at least supported in some way by the manufacturer.

As it stands I struggle to see the monopoly case for an iPhone because for me an iPhone is just like an Xbox or a Switch, it’s bought with a known set of restrictions, that’s the package, the choice is whether to buy an iPhone or go with another type of device (probably Android)

the whingers knowingly bought an iPhone knowing the iOS restrictions.
noone made them buy it.
if it is provided by their workplace, it's not their device to fiddle and install stuff.
if they bought it for work, then they rely on it to do work so anything that could cause issues and lose of work should be a worry.

if they bought it it is exactly as you stated, like a Nintendo or Playstation or other closed, locked down electrical device with computing powers.

They want the line drawn where they think they can win.
But once that line is drawn, console operators should worry as a precedent for closed systems has been given.
This is thin edge of the wedge and opens a huge can of future litigation issues.

They wont be happy when Apple comply to EU demands because they were vague and poorly specified.

The Spotify case has been more and more limited.
It's now only about Apple stopping Spotify telling customers they can buy a sub cheaper elsewhere.
That too opens a can of worms.
Those complaining here claim the EU is proconsumer and competition.
Will the EU force all businesses to put signs up whenever a competitor has the same item cheaper?

Apple have deep pockets.
If they really wanted they could make Apple Music free or bundle it with something else effectively making it free.
Price wars rarely see winners. Even for customers in the long run as players go broke and fall out of the ring.

What Apple is proposing to release to meet EU requirements is nothing like the noisy ones on here want: Apple will still get a cut for linking to an alt app store as a "technology fee", they still get to sign apps as checked for bad agent behaviour. All they are doing is what the EU asked: allowing an outside store to install apps and take payments/refund their own way. It won't be profitable or easy. But the EU didnt write it that way

After years and years of talk, this poorly worded demand looks like it is being implemented with the next OS release. We will see exactly how much interest and profit it makes. I'm guessing little. The rest of the world will watch and learn and hopefully Apple can just move forward, perhaps deadending this EU version with no future feature upgrades. Let EU users set Country in Settings if they want new OS updates not locked to physical region.

 

[Abazigal]

Not comparable in terms of market size, smartphones and the their operating systems are much more of a general purpose computing platform than game consoles.

Apple/Googles App Store policies have an effect on a myriad of industries that operate using mobile applications. Playstation/Switch is just gaming.

This feels to me like an artificial distinction made specifically because people just want to hate on Apple and for them, the existence of similar models like Nintendo's represents an inconvenient truth about vertically integrated ecosystems, that they get to set the terms and are not obligated to their platform available and accessible to everyone.

Not to mention that Nintendo has been doing this way before the iPhone, and Apple actually got the idea of charging 30% from them. So it's not like Apple pioneered the concept of an App Store.

And since we are on this topic, is there even any rule or law which states that a general purpose computing platform has to be open? Windows started out that way because Microsoft didn't make their own hardware and it was the only way they could get OEMs to support it, and it seems like everyone has gone on to assume that computing "ought to work this way" because it "has always worked this way".

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

This feels to me like an artificial distinction made specifically because people just want to hate on Apple and for them, the existence of similar models like Nintendo's represents an inconvenient truth about vertically integrated ecosystems, that they get to set the terms and are not obligated to their platform available and accessible to everyone.

It's not. The difference is market size alone makes the conversation completely different.

How many people own a smartphone vs people who own a games console? What other businesses are operating on Sony/Nintendos platform? mostly just game developers. Apple and Google have every business under the sun operating on their platforms.

Console gaming is not a big enough industry for regulators to care.

 

[Abazigal]

It's not. The difference is market size alone makes the conversation completely different.

How many people own a smartphone vs people who own a games console? What other businesses are operating on Sony/Nintendos platform? mostly just game developers. Apple and Google have every business under the sun operating on their platforms.

Console gaming is not a big enough industry for regulators to care.

My question is - who decided on this? Outside of Macrumours, it is a fact that the judge overseeing the Apple / Epic trial actually sided with Apple in ruling that they did not constitute a legal monopoly.

Because I am only hearing this argument being parroted here. Are you telling me that Epic is unhappy only with having to pay Apple 30% of IAP revenue from Fortnite, but are evidently okay with handing over the same amount of money to Nintendo? Are you telling me that Epic wouldn't love to be able to get their own App Store on the Switch or PS5 or Xbox console, where they can not only keep 100% of app revenue, but also host other apps and charge developers a cut? Something Epic can afford to undercut console makers on precisely because they don't have to deal with hardware costs.

Would you support Epic bringing the fight to console makers in a hypothetical future? After all, more money for developers is always a good thing, right? I don't see anyone telling Bethesda - make your own console if you don't like it.

 

[GroovyCatticus]

It's not. The difference is market size alone makes the conversation completely different.

How many people own a smartphone vs people who own a games console? What other businesses are operating on Sony/Nintendos platform? mostly just game developers. Apple and Google have every business under the sun operating on their platforms.

Console gaming is not a big enough industry for regulators to care.

So for clarity and a record, what exactly would make you (assuming you’re from the EU) happy with regards to Apple and EU regulation?

If you could get all you ever wanted, what would it look like and why would it help consumers in the EU (vs Spotify, etc)?

Would there be any downsides/negative aspects to your dream regulations of Apple?

 

[wbeasley]

It's not. The difference is market size alone makes the conversation completely different.

How many people own a smartphone vs people who own a games console? What other businesses are operating on Sony/Nintendos platform? mostly just game developers. Apple and Google have every business under the sun operating on their platforms.

Console gaming is not a big enough industry for regulators to care.

Console gaming is a large market. Worth billions. And growing.

The phone market and app stores may host a huge variety of apps and most compete for your money without complaints. Does any Calculator app cry over the commissions paid to Apple?

The only areas, as shown by EU rulings, are big games and streaming.
That narrows the comparison to consoles largely.
And even the EU narrowed the claims Spotify was making to just antisteering.

 

[Abazigal]

So for clarity and a record, what exactly would make you (assuming you’re from the EU) happy with regards to Apple and EU regulation?

If you could get all you ever wanted, what would it look like and why would it help consumers in the EU (vs Spotify, etc)?

Would there be any downsides/negative aspects to your dream regulations of Apple?

My guess is, based on the complaints here, that Apple does away with their 30% cut, and allows sideloading. In other words, make iOS exactly like android. And we have all seen how well that has worked for Google.

The downside is basically the saying - you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force them to drink. The crux to understanding the DMA is realising that it has never been about the users. It's just about the competition. In theory, more competition means better things, because it keeps companies from getting complacent. In reality however, I feel this will just stir up the crap that already exists, for the simple reason that the monopoly of yesteryear has long given way to the aggregator of today.

An aggregator works not by controlling supply (ie: you can only get your medication from one company, hence you have to pay whatever price they charge), but by controlling demand. They provide a great experience to users, which in turn draws them to the platform. This in turn attracts suppliers, because that's where the customers are, and this in turn makes them beholden to the rules governing said platform. In short, aggregators work because they do provide a legitimately better user experience over the competition, and there is no way you can effectively regulate them without also making the user experience worse, because of how closely tied together these two factors are.

Using Spotify as an example, Spotify likes to complain that Apple Music is taking away its business. Some people here have also opined that Apple has no business running both an App Store and a service which competes with an existing business model. Maybe this is true. But it doesn't help that Spotify has driven users away over questionable business decisions. They could pay the artistes more on average (and before anyone points out the 30% cut, they stopped paying that to Apple a long time ago). They still refuse to support airplay to this day. They were slow to support the Apple Watch and Apple TV and there still isn't a native app for the Vision Pro. They are still going to keep platforming Joe Rogan (while paying him hundreds of millions of your subscriber money), and there continues to be no sign of the lossless audio feature that was promised years ago.

Are you going to blame Apple for all that? Apple Music works not because of the 30% cut that Apple gets to keep for themselves, but because Apple really does go the mile to prioritise the development of said app for their own platform (even as it languishes on other platforms). Right on day 1, the app is available on all Apple devices, even the Vision Pro and supports all native software features (except maybe continuity), and works particularly well with my AirPods. I don't have Apple trying to push podcasts into my music feed in a bid to get out of paying royalties, and it's part of a fairly competitive services bundle (Apple One).

The DMA might help by making Apple show Spotify more fairly, but if Spotify isn't satisfying their customers in the way that Apple Music is, then what just ends up happening is that the DMA is being exploited by a company who simply refuses to compete. And that's the real problem - enforcing competition is hard. You cannot force a customer to use Spotify if Spotify isn't meeting their needs, and the reality is that Spotify is doing a lot of questionable things that will not be addressed by the DMA.

Plus, if you insist that everything gets the same treatment in the name of "equality", then you end up with scenarios like Apple stripping PWA support for Safari in the EU, because other browser engines don't have it, and it would be "unfair" only for them to utilise it. Sometimes, being equal means everything being equally bad.

So the downside is basically that even if Spotify does get their way, things may not necessarily end up being any different or any better for customers, because that's not what the DMA was designed for or intended to accomplish.

 

[tobybrut]

Huh, I just read that Spotify not only is the #1 music streamer in the EU, but it has more market share than all the streamers combined with a 56% share while Apple Music is fourth at 11% behind Amazon Music and YouTube Music. Why is the EU going after Apple again? This seems to be a habit of the EU, going after the little guy in favor of the dominant player. People here had been talking of Spotify having a 2:1 market share advantage over Apple, but it turns out it’s > 5:1. Apple should be suing Spotify for being a monopoly, yet the EU is intent on boosting Spotify even further. Exactly where is the harm to Spotify here? This is as absurd as if Microsoft went after macOS for unfair competition by not allowing Microsoft to advertise Windows in the Mac App Store.

 

[wbeasley]

My guess is, based on the complaints here, that Apple does away with their 30% cut, and allows sideloading. In other words, make iOS exactly like android. And we have all seen how well that has worked for Google.

The downside is basically the saying - you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot force them to drink. The crux to understanding the DMA is realising that it has never been about the users. It's just about the competition. In theory, more competition means better things, because it keeps companies from getting complacent. In reality however, I feel this will just stir up the crap that already exists, for the simple reason that the monopoly of yesteryear has long given way to the aggregator of today.

An aggregator works not by controlling supply (ie: you can only get your medication from one company, hence you have to pay whatever price they charge), but by controlling demand. They provide a great experience to users, which in turn draws them to the platform. This in turn attracts suppliers, because that's where the customers are, and this in turn makes them beholden to the rules governing said platform. In short, aggregators work because they do provide a legitimately better user experience over the competition, and there is no way you can effectively regulate them without also making the user experience worse, because of how closely tied together these two factors are.

Using Spotify as an example, Spotify likes to complain that Apple Music is taking away its business. Some people here have also opined that Apple has no business running both an App Store and a service which competes with an existing business model. Maybe this is true. But it doesn't help that Spotify has driven users away over questionable business decisions. They could pay the artistes more on average (and before anyone points out the 30% cut, they stopped paying that to Apple a long time ago). They still refuse to support airplay to this day. They were slow to support the Apple Watch and Apple TV and there still isn't a native app for the Vision Pro. They are still going to keep platforming Joe Rogan (while paying him hundreds of millions of your subscriber money), and there continues to be no sign of the lossless audio feature that was promised years ago.

Are you going to blame Apple for all that? Apple Music works not because of the 30% cut that Apple gets to keep for themselves, but because Apple really does go the mile to prioritise the development of said app for their own platform (even as it languishes on other platforms). Right on day 1, the app is available on all Apple devices, even the Vision Pro and supports all native software features (except maybe continuity), and works particularly well with my AirPods. I don't have Apple trying to push podcasts into my music feed in a bid to get out of paying royalties, and it's part of a fairly competitive services bundle (Apple One).

The DMA might help by making Apple show Spotify more fairly, but if Spotify isn't satisfying their customers in the way that Apple Music is, then what just ends up happening is that the DMA is being exploited by a company who simply refuses to compete. And that's the real problem - enforcing competition is hard. You cannot force a customer to use Spotify if Spotify isn't meeting their needs, and the reality is that Spotify is doing a lot of questionable things that will not be addressed by the DMA.

Plus, if you insist that everything gets the same treatment in the name of "equality", then you end up with scenarios like Apple stripping PWA support for Safari in the EU, because other browser engines don't have it, and it would be "unfair" only for them to utilise it. Sometimes, being equal means everything being equally bad.

So the downside is basically that even if Spotify does get their way, things may not necessarily end up being any different or any better for customers, because that's not what the DMA was designed for or intended to accomplish.

Well said and argued.

Spotify are certainly doing themselves no favours with their behaviour.
I will certainly be looking at options to move my playlists to Apple Music and trun my Premium account back into a free one.

Perhaps others might look at options as well now they understand what the EU are being pushed to do and why.

 

[truthsteve]

& how is that Spotify’s fault when

who said it's Spotify's fault?

that’s Apple’s decision to charge that much

exactly. Apple decides how the business works, not Spotify. if Spotify doesn't like Apple's decision, they can decide to not participate on the App Store just like what they're doing with Vision Pro. not difficult.

 

[wbeasley]

It doesn’t matter to me that Apple charges to be on their platform. It’s their platform, it’s up to them. It’s not a bad deal for devs. What matters to me is that it’s the only way to get things on to your phone. They take arbitrary moral high grounds, they cut access to apps on whims or commands, they fully control what I do with my phone. Sure, I can use the web, but guess what - they control access to that too. They bully and they take, but they give very very little. And when finally commanded to give due to government intervention, they do so with frankly embarrassing malicious compliance.

How do Apple control your phone web access? Sure all browsers currently use WebKit but they don’t block sites? Surely you can see what you need to…

 

[tehabe]

My guess is, based on the complaints here, that Apple does away with their 30% cut, and allows sideloading. In other words, make iOS exactly like android. And we have all seen how well that has worked for Google.

No.

The crux to understanding the DMA is realising that it has never been about the users. It's just about the competition. In theory, more competition means better things, because it keeps companies from getting complacent.

Because that is the part a law can regulate. The law is called Digital Market Act, it creates open digital markets where there were none.

In reality however, I feel this will just stir up the crap that already exists, for the simple reason that the monopoly of yesteryear has long given way to the aggregator of today.

Apple is not an aggregator.

An aggregator works not by controlling supply (ie: you can only get your medication from one company, hence you have to pay whatever price they charge), but by controlling demand.

Apple controls the supply. It decides what is allowed in apps on the App Store and what isn't. They reject apps for weird reasons and sometimes don't even tell the reason to the developer. Apple makes moral decision about the supply of apps on iOS.

They provide a great experience to users, which in turn draws them to the platform. This in turn attracts suppliers, because that's where the customers are, and this in turn makes them beholden to the rules governing said platform. In short, aggregators work because they do provide a legitimately better user experience over the competition, and there is no way you can effectively regulate them without also making the user experience worse, because of how closely tied together these two factors are.

That makes no sense at all. Yes, a good supply of apps for a platform is a reason why people use that platform. But that is completely independent from an App Store. MacOS was and is attractive even though Apple never controlled the supply of apps on it, but the quality and availability made macOS a good platform to use.

Using Spotify as an example, Spotify likes to complain that Apple Music is taking away its business. Some people here have also opined that Apple has no business running both an App Store and a service which competes with an existing business model. Maybe this is true. But it doesn't help that Spotify has driven users away over questionable business decisions.

The only issue Spotify raised is, that Apple is preferring its own streaming service over third party ones. This includes, that Spotify had to provide its service in the iOS app for a higher price than Apple Music has.

They could pay the artistes more on average (and before anyone points out the 30% cut, they stopped paying that to Apple a long time ago).

How is it relevant how much Spotify pays to artists? Spotify doesn't pay to artists at all, it pays to rightsholders. And it doesn't pay per stream, it pays from an aggregated pool of subscriber funds rightsholder how many times their music is being played compared to other rightsholder's titles. It is an awful system but a system which is very nice for big rightholders like Sony, Warner, and Universal. But it has nothing to do with the competition between Spotiy and Apple Music.

They still refuse to support airplay to this day. They were slow to support the Apple Watch and Apple TV and there still isn't a native app for the Vision Pro. They are still going to keep platforming Joe Rogan (while paying him hundreds of millions of your subscriber money), and there continues to be no sign of the lossless audio feature that was promised years ago.

So, if you don't like Spotify don't use Spotify. The issue is, when you install Spotify on iOS and want to subscribe to their service and Spotify has to show a higher price on iOS than on their web site while Apple Music doesn't have to do that.

The DMA might help by making Apple show Spotify more fairly,

That is the only thing the DMA demands. The rest is up to Spotify.

Plus, if you insist that everything gets the same treatment in the name of "equality", then you end up with scenarios like Apple stripping PWA support for Safari in the EU, because other browser engines don't have it, and it would be "unfair" only for them to utilise it. Sometimes, being equal means everything being equally bad.

Well, Apple admitted that they are too broke to implement this correctly. This is completely Apple's fault. But Apple still struggles with CardDAV and PDF, so maybe not really surprising.

So the downside is basically that even if Spotify does get their way, things may not necessarily end up being any different or any better for customers, because that's not what the DMA was designed for or intended to accomplish.

I disagree because maybe Spotify doesn't matter at all, and some other company uses the new freedoms on iOS for making a great app, paying artists fairly, and all because they can do things on iOS which were not possible before. Thatt is the thing, we don't know what will happening.

P.S. And that some companies don't jump on Vision Pro wagon yet is understandable, it is a version 0.0 of a new device category for Apple, currently it could become the next iPhone, or the new Newton, or something in the middle. In my life I have seen so many times that those things have been pushed into the market and all failed. And now I don't even care anymore.

 

[tehabe]

Apple decides how the business works, not Spotify. if Spotify doesn't like Apple's decision, they can decide to not participate on the App Store just like what they're doing with Vision Pro. not difficult.

Yes, and that is the problem. Apple has too much control of what iOS users can and can't do. And one part is by controlling who can participate on the market and who can't. That is why there is the DMA.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple is not an aggregator.

I am of the opinion that Apple has, through the iPhone, aggregated the best customers in the world (as defined by their disposable income and propensity to spend). The attractiveness of the iOS platform is that developers need only to optimise their apps for a small number of devices (as compared to the vast array of android handsets in the market), while also earning more money in the process, because there's presumably more people willing to pay more money for their apps.

All Apple asks is that they also get a cut of this earnings, because the implication is that developers can earn more through the App Store (even after giving Apple 15% or 30%), compared to if they were to try and steer users outside of it. I personally do not feel it is an unreasonable ask, especially when the companies that are taxed in such a fashion tend to have either zero or very low marginal costs (eg: Netflix and freemium games) compared to those which aren't taxed (Uber, Amazon).

This money, in addition to the $99 each developer pays, goes into the upkeep of the App Store. It's quite similar to how a government collects taxes to upkeep infrastructure. Yet, companies like Epic and Spotify feel like they should get to access Apple's user base for free, and keep 100% of app revenue, and it's not entirely clear what difference the consumer will see on their end.

I do agree with you - we really don't know what will happen or how the DMA will ultimately pan out. It could very well just be a lot of spilt ink for very little change, because of the manner in which Apple chooses to interpret and implement it. I am just pointing out that the DMA may not necessarily result in a net benefit for end users, because everyone here seems to assume that just because something is bad for Apple means it must be good for them (a lot of early speculation about how Apple would implement the DMA ended up being flat out wrong).

All I want to say to the people currently residing in the EU is - we will know in time whether Apple's proposal gets cleared by the EU or not, and I hope you all don't complain if there are unintended consequences as a result of the DMA which ends up making the user experience worse.

Sometimes, Apple's loss really is the consumer's loss as well.

 

[tehabe]

Yet, companies like Epic and Spotify feel like they should get to access Apple's user base for free, and keep 100% of app revenue, and it's not entirely clear what difference the consumer will see on their end.

That is the weird part. I think it is unjust and unreasonable for Spotify, Epic, or any company in world to pay another company to have access to me on devices I paid for. I use an iPhone because it works well with my Mac. But even that is spoiled by a lot of basic features which don't really work well and haven't improved at all. Since sending Apple feedback is rather pointless. It is either left unread or marked as duplicate. I really wish I could switch to another system.

Just today I noticed that iOS stores new contacts in the wrong list but you can't control this. Normally I would write a feedback but why? Apple doesn't care. Apple knows I won't switch. So Apple can leave the feature as is and I have to live with this buggy stuff. I can't even switch to a third party contacts app.

The user experience is already awful. Sadly, it is just not less awful on other operating systems.

 

[WitchDrAsh2]

Not comparable in terms of market size, smartphones and the their operating systems are much more of a general purpose computing platform than game consoles.

Apple/Googles App Store policies have an effect on a myriad of industries that operate using mobile applications. Playstation/Switch is just gaming.

I don’t really agree with that, the gaming slant is entirely artificial, it’s more than possible to produce productivity tools on consoles if the manufacturer enabled or it, or a store with different rules was allowed. (Linux on PS3 for example and the PS3’s architecture was a complete nightmare compared to the much friendlier x64/arm style of more modern consoles)

Both the iPhone and the Xbox are general purpose devices, arguably an Xbox is more general purpose as it’s far less bespoke than Apple’s SoC. The Nintendo Switch runs in nVidias Tegra, which is absolutely general purpose.

So the store front and licensing model for consoles is the only thing that stops those become much more general purpose.

As I said the thing I struggle with here is the difference, since I don’t see the difference in model, other than scale, if you ban it for one, surely the other falls too.

 

[pastrychef]

The EU is reducing choice. EU customers will no longer have the option of a walled garden for those who want it.

 

[tehabe]

The EU is reducing choice. EU customers will no longer have the option of a walled garden for those who want it.

Is the choice having no choice really a choice? Now we are getting really philosophical.

 

[Samplasion]

If I can release hardware and tie it to a set of restrictions, then the iPhone is fine, if that isn’t the case I struggle to see a significant difference in model between say a Nintendo Switch and an iPhone, both are computer like devices running a closed eco system and high requires you to give a cut to the hardware manufacturer, in which case should we be calling on Nintendo/Sony etc to allow us to sideload other stores?

The difference is that the iPhone is a general-purpose computing device, while the Nintendo Switch, Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 are gaming devices built and advertised for the sole purpose of playing games. Furthermore, the monopoly argument doesn't apply (yet) to consoles because there are many storefronts where you can purchase your games: the console's online store, GameStop, etc. while iPhones, on the other hand, are limited to Apple's App Store only.

 

[Samplasion]

This seems to be a habit of the EU, going after the little guy in favor of the dominant player.

Friendly reminder that Apple is the biggest phone vendor in the EU. Not the "little guy" by any meaningful margin.

 

[pastrychef]

Is the choice having no choice really a choice? Now we are getting really philosophical.

What choice remains for those who want a walled garden after the EU changes?