Apple's Browser Rules Stifle Innovation on iOS, Says UK Regulator

[AppliedMicro]

Apple does not have monopoly power in the EU smartphone market.

Debatable - but they do have such power in the distribution of mobile applications and digital purchases on such devices.

Even using the “App sales” metric it’s barely at 50%

…and considering the similarity of terms, they have „monopoly power“ (or duopoly power if you will) together with Google.

Either way, the pricing in mobile application stores has hardly been under competitive pressure since… the very beginning in 2008.

Many of these companies WOULD NOT EXIST had Apple not done so

…and neither would Apple’s iPhone business without them.

You can’t make a commercially viable app targeting consumers without offering it on Google Play and/or the App Store (at suspiciously similar terms and conditions).

Apple also allow these companies to use Apple’s technology to build their apps and serve their customers for $99 a year. So saying Apple doesn’t contribute to these companies is laughable.

They do - but so do these third parties contribute to Apple‘s platform.

Apple is just in a market position to play these many third-party developers off against each other.
That’s why they’re able to double-dip from hardware sales and „services“ commissions.

Why that is controversial I will never understand.

Just as Apple is able to - but also forced to - charge competitive prices for their hardware products, third-party developers and services should be able to have their transactions processed and charged subject to competitive terms and conditions.

That includes being free to communicate and make transactions directly with customers within their own product/service (their app, that is!).

Something that Apple severely restricted (and arguably still do. Probably will do until they’re being fined).

 

[AppliedMicro]

that if those companies want to capture a sale in the app that the companies wrote to reach Apple’s customers USING APPLE’S TECHNOLOGIES, they need to pay Apple a commission.

Absolutely 👍🏻

The issue is that Apple basically force them to use their services (if they want to have a business at all).

But it’s not so much about „Apple‘s technologies“. Displaying things like ebook text, in-game images/tools/avatars, audio or video content is very basic computing functionality.

Apple are mainly charging - as you said - for access to consumers.

And the rate for mere „access“ to consumers shall not be left unregulated in a monopoly or duopoly (that has little to no competitive pressure on pricing).

Innovation and development of technology should be rewarded.
And it is, in the form of hardware sales.

Gatekeeping access to consumers should not.
Not for duopoly operators that have as similar prices and conditions as to suggest tacit collusion.

 

[surferfb]

Just as Apple is able to - but also forced to - charge competitive prices for their hardware products, third-party developers and services should be able to have their transactions processed and charged subject to competitive terms and conditions.

That includes being free to communicate and make transactions directly with customers within their own product/service (their app, that is!).

Something that Apple severely restricted (and arguably still do. Probably will do until they’re being fined).

They’re free to process transactions using any payment processor they want. Just not in the app. Now with anti-steering provisions removed (Yes, thanks to the DMA — a stopped clock is right is twice a day after all) they can communicate prices are cheaper elsewhere or give a link.

By making them link to the web it’s clear that customers are not getting Apple’s protections and benefits (keeping name/email private, family sharing, refunds, reviews, etc. - I.e. all the stuff Apple provides its customers that more than justifies the entirely reasonable fee they charge developers (most of whom don’t actually lower prices when selling outside the store - just pocket the difference).

Despite your protestations otherwise, the App Store is a better deal for consumers. I don’t trust developers - they’re bad actors until proven otherwise - and I want Apple as a middle man. As do HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of others. But you want to take that choice away from us - when there is a platform that offers developers the ability to do whatever they want to do - because you think you know better.

 

[I7guy]

They have way more than just a "minority" of the market for mobile applications.

They have a minority share of hardware. You’re redefining a market.

Windows Phone doesn't exist in the market anymore.

That’s the point. Popularity.

The DMA is about software and data.
Fair competition on the market for digital applications and services.

It’s about neutering apple revenue under the guise of consumerism.

You are still way too much fixated on hardware devices - which aren't regulated by the DMA.
It's all about allowing software.

You are way too fixated on redefining market share.

...just as Apple does not contribute to streaming services providing audio content to users on iOS.

Apple contributes by allowing apps to execute their api. Their intellectual property.

Or eBook stores delivering their books to users.

Apple provides the sale and distribution mechanism.

Listening to audio content and showing souped-up HTML content has been very basic functionality for any general-purpose computing platform for now decades.

Sure have at it with a web browser then.

 

[I7guy]

Absolutely 👍🏻

The issue is that Apple basically force them to use their services (if they want to have a business at all).

Perfectly legal.

But it’s not so much about „Apple‘s technologies“. Displaying things like ebook text, in-game images/tools/avatars, audio or video content is very basic computing functionality.

This is moving the goalposts.

Apple are mainly charging - as you said - for access to consumers.

As is their right.

And the rate for mere „access“ to consumers shall not be left unregulated in a monopoly or duopoly (that has little to no competitive pressure on pricing).

And illegal monopoly or duopoly. Those words have been rendered as much as a meme.

Innovation and development of technology should be rewarded.
And it is, in the form of hardware sales.

Yeah by taking core technologies and giving it away.

Gatekeeping access to consumers should not.

Then buy something that suits your requirements.

Not for duopoly operators that have as similar prices and conditions as to suggest tacit collusion.

There are hundreds of competitors in the cell phone space.

But I guess we’ll find out more when the zero days really start.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Perfectly legal.

Not anymore.

This is moving the goalposts.

It‘s a counterargument to the „but they‘re making use of Apple‘s technologies, which is why Apple deserve 30%“ argument.

As is their right.

…as is not limited by law in jurisdictions like the EU.

Yeah by taking core technologies and giving it away.

No - the „core“ of iOS isn’t given away.
Apple is free to charge for it or differentiate their hardware products from the competition.

What Apple has been gatekeeping access to is the ability to install and make transactions (in third-party developers‘ app) directly with consumers. That is clearly not „the core“ of iOS.

And illegal monopoly or duopoly

I never said it is or was „illegal“.
Just that certain anticompetitive conduct for firms with monopoly power is (and should be) illegal.

There are hundreds of competitors in the cell phone space.

„It’s the software, stupid!“

As I‘ve said to you numerous times: Cell phones aren‘t subject to the competition regulation we‘re talking about. Neither in the UK, the US (Washington) nor by the European Union.

There are no hundreds of operating systems or App Store of any relevance.

And that is precisely what’s becoming regulated around the world: operating systems, h
software functionality and store/transaction processing for third parties.

 

[AppliedMicro]

They’re free to process transactions using any payment processor they want. Just not in the app

…whereas the app is the primary point of interaction for consumers.

Also, they‘re not free. Developers are not free to sell „unlock codes“ on their web sitesor through physical retail, for example.

But you want to take that choice away from us

Not at all. You are (and should be) free to buy (or sell) only through your trusted middleman.
Just don‘t force everyone else to do it.

By making them link to the web it’s clear that customers are not getting Apple’s protections and benefits

…and yet, Apple has the audacity to charge developers basically the same for that privilege.

Despite your protestations otherwise, the App Store is a better deal for consumers

Great - no reason the prohibit any third party alternatives then.

If it’s so great a deal and popular with consumers, developers will surely want to sell through it on their own volition.

 

[I7guy]

Not anymore.

There was never a finding. Just a set of obtuse regulations.

It‘s a counterargument to the „but they‘re making use of Apple‘s technologies, which is why Apple deserve 30%“ argument.

It’s still apples ip. Can’t move the goalposts around it.

…as is not limited by law in jurisdictions like the EU.

No - the „core“ of iOS isn’t given away.
Apple is free to charge for it or differentiate their hardware products from the competition.

What Apple has been gatekeeping access to is the ability to install and make transactions (in third-party developers‘ app) directly with consumers. That is clearly not „the core“ of iOS.


I never said it is or was „illegal“.
Just that certain anticompetitive conduct for firms with monopoly power is (and should be) illegal.


„It’s the software, stupid!“

As I‘ve said to you numerous times: Cell phones aren‘t subject to the competition regulation we‘re talking about. Neither in the UK, the US (Washington) nor by the European Union.

There are no hundreds of operating systems or App Store of any relevance.

And that is precisely what’s becoming regulated around the world: operating systems, h
software functionality and store/transaction processing for third parties.

Basically, in summary as I’ve said numerous times:
1. The dma is an attack on apple, its profits. In the guise of consumerism. The word “important” is a mythical line in the sand.
2. There is no dupoly
3. The doj has to win and it’s unlikely there will be any further action on the US
4. There are enough forks of android to consider it different.
5. iOS and its components are legal monopolies of apple. Even if you feel differently.
6. The dma seeks to turn iOS into android.
7. For thus thread, this inevitably will be opening up a Pandora’s box of zero days to iOS,

 

[surferfb]

…whereas the app is the primary point of interaction for consumers.

So? Build a web container into the app and they don't even have to leave the app. But then customers wouldn't be tricked into thinking they were getting the benefits Apple offers by going through Apple, so we can't allow that now can we.

Not at all. You are (and should be) free to buy (or sell) only through your trusted middleman.

Except when apps I want or need leave the App Store, then I don't have a choice. If the regulation stated that Apple was allowed to require anyone offering their app off App Store also offer it on the App Store (even if it was at a higher price) then you'd have a point. But I'm sure you (and the EU) would strongly oppose such a provision.

Just don‘t force everyone else to do it.

Not forcing anyone - remember Android exists and everyone is free to choose Android. The EU (with your support) is taking away an integrated, walled-garden business model as an option altogether - even though it is the preference of tens of millions of EU citizens (and I'd argue objectively better for 95% of EU Citizens, but I know you'd disagree on that). Your preference to not use Google (or a de-googled version of Android) shouldn't outweigh my preference to have an integrated, walled garden. Particularly when your preferred model is already the leader in the market with over 70% marketshare.

…and yet, Apple has the audacity to charge developers basically the same for that privilege.

As Apple should. Developers are still using Apple's IP and Apple deserves to be compensated for that even if the developer is not using Apple as a payment processor. I don't get a free copy of Microsoft Office just because I need it for my job. Developers shouldn't get to use iOS for free just because they need to for their job.

If it’s so great a deal and popular with consumers, developers will surely want to sell through it on their own volition.

The issue is that it's a better deal for consumers but not for developers. So developers are disincentivized from using it, because they can pocket some extra money, while making the customer's experience worse. The EU is so focused on sticking it to Apple they're making the customer experience worse over and over.

That said, if you asked me to make a prediction, I'd assume given the tepid reaction to alternate app stores, both on Android and iOS, I suspect most developers who leave will come back on their own volition. However, the big names (Meta, Google, etc.) probably have enough clout to make an alternate App Store happen. So the same gatekeepers this law was designed to hinder will get bigger and more powerful, once again proving the EU has no earthly idea what it's doing as they once again make things worse for their citizens.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So? Build a web container into the app and they don't even have to leave the app.

Apple does not allow that.
Neither do they allow linking out.
That’s how anticompetitive they act.

Except when apps I want or need leave the App Store, then I don't have a choice

You have a choice to switch to using other apps.
Just as you’re telling others they have a sensible “choice” to switch Android.

You can still stay in your walled garden.

Would it “suck” when one of your favourite app leaves? Yes.
Well, so does (did) it for me when Apple doesn’t allow it in the first place.

Developers are still using Apple's IP and Apple deserves to be compensated for that even if the developer is not using Apple as a payment processor

Many developers are using nothing that’s in any way fair and appropriate compared to the “amount of IP”.

Developers shouldn't get to use iOS for free just because they need to for their job.

They do get it for free.
Lots of developers get it for free.

What do Uber, Expedia, Booking.com, the Amazon store app or DoorDash pay?
Nothing - except the developer yearly developer subscription fee.

And yet you can order rides, package holidays, delivered food and physical merchandise from Amazon through them.
Without Apple charging commission on sales and the “protection” of Apple Pay.

There’s a glaring discrepancy in what they’re intending to charge Uber vs. Epic/Spotify for in-app purchases.
And that’s the point of contention for me:

👉🏻 Apple have been giving away their „IP“ for free.

They’re still giving it away for free to many developers.
Admittedly to the benefit of many developers and consumers.

But that‘s also how they monopolised the market for mobile operating systems and applications (or rather: duopolised it, together with Google). And that’s monopoly power is what they’re using to charge disproportionately high commissions fromfor the developers that they’re able to take hostage and gouge: namely digital services and applications.

I could frankly do without many of the provisions of the DMA - if only it included a non-discrimination clause:
One that obliges Apple to apply the same terms and charge the same commissions for in-app purchases - regardless of the nature of the product or service (be it digital or physical).

 

[surferfb]

I'm going to stop engaging here because we're just having the same argument over and over again for months now and we're not going to change each other's minds. You know digital products are used on device and physical aren't, and that's a perfectly valid reason for not charging for physical in-app purchases. You know the DMA overruled anti-steering language (one of the few things in the law I agree with).

I'll just say that you are the one coming in support of changing the deal that EVERYONE who bough iPhones knew and agreed to when there is a perfectly reasonable option that does what you want available to you. You are the one supporting taking away choice from consumers so that developers can try to freeload off of Apple's success because you think you know better and your preferences should outweigh the majority's.

And the resulting ecosystem is worse for it, and the vast, vast majority of customers are worse off for it.

 

[john123]

Yes, it’s not about the consumer, it’s about ensuring apple takes a hit in revenue and power in some fictitious wrapper called consumerism.

Basically, in summary as I’ve said numerous times:
1. The dma is an attack on apple, its profits. In the guise of consumerism.

I disagree with most (although not all) of what you've said in this thread, but since others have picked up the line-by-line debate, I won't rehash that just to get my 2 cents in.

However, I'd like to hear what makes you believe what I quoted from you above.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Of course. That is a side effect of having to compete.
Not a goal in itself.

The goal of the DMA is competition.
Not punish U.S. tech companies - but force them to compete.

Sure, if you don’t believe Vestager’s words, then that’s exactly what the goal was. Funny thing competition, Apple didn’t beg to compete on top of what Nokia or Blackberry or any of those other companies. And, by going their own way, they created something new, innovative and, it appears, worth customers buying. And, when Google came along, they went THEIR own way, which has provided us with innovative form factors and materials above and beyond Apple. And, even with the utter decimation of Nokia not even being that long ago, the EU and the UK believes innovation in the region will only happen on top of what Google and Apple has built. Then again, it’s not like the EU is capable of building things anymore anyway, so perhaps this is literally their only way to have any tech economy.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

We better don't develop anything so successful in the first place!"

Don’t develop anything successful IN THE EU (as if developing any successful tech in the EU was a thing that could happen anymore, but anyway…). It’s guaranteed that the next major mobile OS vendor will come from outside the EU. They will benefit from their success the same way mobile OS vendors before them have benefitted from their success (and the way the EU wants to disallow), by the same profit sharing processes used across many industries. That mobile OS vendor can simply make the choice to not deliver their products to the EU, avoiding the DMA while STILL having access to over 6 billion people.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

„A European Commission spokesperson has hit back at accusations by tech giant Microsoft claiming that the EU executive was to blame for a massive IT outage that caused commercial mayhem last week, telling Euronews that the US tech giant never raised any concerns about security with the Commission either before or after the incident.“

From the same page:
“According to a Microsoft spokesperson, the 2009 agreement "gives makers of security software the same level of access to Windows that Microsoft gets." This deal was intended to counteract Microsoft's monopolistic position, particularly in web browsers.”

There is not a single person even tangentially involved in tech that reads “gives makers of security software the same level of access to Windows that Microsoft gets” and doesn’t understand how truly and awfully bad of an idea that is. It’s not Microsoft’s job to tell regulators how to regulate, though. The EU rules said, “Do something stupid” and Microsoft complied, to the entire world’s detriment. The fact that THAT text likely got reviewed and vetted by multiple people and was STILL included, is 100% the doing of the EU and no one but the EU. My suggestion for them would be that they hire some people with technical knowledge before putting any other rules in place (are there any even any people left in the EU with tech knowledge?).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If the government was mandating a seatbelt design that was unsafe, even when the car manufacturer was telling the government the design was unsafe, and the government had already screwed up several previous car safety regulations, you’d absolutely and correctly blame the government.

Yeah, they were mandating seat belts with razors in the straps that would all pop out during any accident that happened on a day in June, 15 years later! And then say, “Well, the car maker didn’t tell us they had any concerns about the razor blades 15 years ago! There was no way for us to know that making them pop out during a crash might cause harm above and beyond the crash!”

 

[AppliedMicro]

Sure, if you don’t believe Vestager’s words, then that’s exactly what the goal was.

For clarity’s sake, please provide a quote and link to “Vestager’s words”.

You do know there’s a distinction between goals and side effects?

the EU and the UK believes innovation in the region will only happen on top of what Google and Apple has built.

Operating systems for personal computing are mature today.
And it’s an acknowledgement of reality.
Android and iOS are as likely to be replaced as base to build upon as Windows if for desktop PCs.
There’s no substitute for ecosystem of third-party apps that “competition” could substitute.

It’s guaranteed that the next major mobile OS vendor will come from outside the EU

There isn’t one and there (likely) won’t be one.
Except, maybe, HarmonyOS - and that’s monopoly power is purely a thing for political reasons.

 

[AppliedMicro]

they were mandating seat belts with razors in the straps that would all pop out during any accident that happened on a day in June, 15 years later!

Utter nonsense - because the EU did not mandate the technical design of the API (as you’’re, wrongly, insinuating).

Microsoft had an unsafe design - and they were too lazy to fix it.
Bit quick to blame third parties when somebody’s use of that interface triggered an issue in their unsafe product.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm going to stop engaging here because we're just having the same argument over and over again

There’s one small thing I’d be interested to read your opinion on though…
I’ve touched upon the idea a couple of times, but don’t think I’ve read your stance on it?

Just that if those companies want to capture a sale in the app that the companies wrote to reach Apple’s customers USING APPLE’S TECHNOLOGIES, they need to pay Apple a commission.

👉🏻 So does Apple need to pay a commission to internet service providers (ISP)?

Do you believe that internet service providers should be in a position to charge a commission when Apple want to “capture a sale” using the operating system and App Store they wrote to reach an ISP’s customers?

Disregarding the practicalities for a moment (which are solvable through either legislation, such as the “fair share” proposal in the EU, or through ISPs’ collusion), would you support that if they wound a technical way to lock Apple out?

ISPs and mobile carriers are surely investing billions in maintaining their network - and that serves as a platform for others to conduct business, why should they get to do it for free?

You know digital products are used on device and physical aren't, and that's a perfectly valid reason for not charging for physical in-app purchases

…just like Apple’s digital sales and services are provided through ISPs’ networks - and physical products aren’t. Valid reason to charge Apple and not other stores.

 

[Abazigal]

👉🏻 So does Apple need to pay a commission to internet service providers (ISP)?

Do you believe that internet service providers should be in a position to charge a commission when Apple want to “capture a sale” using the operating system and App Store they wrote to reach an ISP’s customers?

Disregarding the practicalities for a moment (which are solvable through either legislation, such as the “fair share” proposal in the EU, or through ISPs’ collusion), would you support that if they wound a technical way to lock Apple out?

ISPs and mobile carriers are surely investing billions in maintaining their network - and that serves as a platform for others to conduct business, why should they get to do it for free?

I recall you asking me a similar question some time ago, and my answer would still be the same - the ISPs are welcome to try, and I am not convinced that things will ultimately play out the way you envision. What is it that you want at the end of the day? Do you want the customer to benefit, or you simply want to "punish" Apple, even if it comes at the expense of diminishing or destroying the value of everything they have built thus far?

First - would ISPs be billing every company for the "privilege" of their apps and services accessing their network (including Microsoft, Twitch, Spotify, Netflix, Nintendo, Facebook etc), or is it just Apple (and maybe Google)? If it's the latter, how would you go about justifying this? After all, iOS doesn't really use that much data on its own (barring cloud and iOS updates). The rest is really via app usage.

Second, what is stopping these companies from simply passing the cost on to the end user? For example, layering an additional 10% tax on top of app purchases and labelling it as a "carrier fee", the same way we have a 9% goods and services tax in my country. Or increasing the cost of the iPhone by say, $240, to cover the added costs over 2 years (while also making it painfully clear where is added tax is going). Is this really in the best interests of the end user?

Alternatively, Apple could acquire or start up a carrier business of their own (and exempt themselves from this tax), and maybe even go so far as to make iPhones accessible only if you subscribe to said carrier service? Remember when the iPhone was so new and so desirable that people in the US were willing to switch over to AT&T just to be able to own one? I suspect that Apple is huge enough that they could conceivably buy their way out of this problem (something not every company has the financial resources to do). Maybe it's too late for that, but part of me would like to see a scenario play out where Apple opts not to make the iPhone available to any carrier who tries to bill it, and the business flows to all the other competing carriers who decide that the extra business is worth more than whatever tax revenue they could potentially extract from Apple.

So to sum up - the ISPs are welcome to try and extract their pound of flesh from Apple, and Apple should be allowed to respond in kind.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I'm using the same or similar definition as competition regulators like the U.S. FTC.

From the FTC web page you linked to:

"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power."

And, even that definition is too liberal; the FTC would like to be able to bring actions against companies when they want. But in the US, the FTC is checked by the courts. And I think you'd struggle to find any FTC action on this question agreed upon by the courts unless the firm has 75% or more of the market share.

Let's remember, in the EU, the Apple iPhone has about 25% of the marketshare.

 

[nostradumbass]

The internet - People are murdering, shooting and scamming for magic coins on the internet and all the money is going to a tiny number of people. Why isn't this **** being banned?

Governments - bRowsoors! App stoors!!! Slide looding!!! iClood!!! USB pooort!!!

 

[AppliedMicro]

From the FTC web page you linked to:

"Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.

Apple is estimated to command about 50% of the market for spending on mobile app spending.
In addition to that, the cumulative market share of Apple and Google is close to a duopoly.

in the EU, the Apple iPhone has about 25% of the marketshare.

…in terms of unit sales?
Probably higher on revenue.

And yet again, the market share on mobile phone hardware isn’t very relevant.
The regulation is about software. Apps, digital purchases and subscriptions.

The markets for mobile phones are quite competitive and hence remain unregulated (from competition law).
In the UK, the EU, just as in the US.

 

[AppliedMicro]

would ISPs be billing every company for the "privilege" of their apps and services accessing their network (including Microsoft, Twitch, Spotify, Netflix, Nintendo, Facebook etc), or is it just Apple (and maybe Google

The biggest traffic generators - or generators of transactions for digital content.

If it's the latter, how would you go about justifying this?

Apple has no problem justifying a distinction between physical and digital products.
Or small and large developers.
Neither have I for this thought experiment.

Second, what is stopping these companies from simply passing the cost on to the end user? For example, layering an additional 10% tax on top of app purchases and labelling it as a "carrier fee", the same way we have a 9% goods and services tax in my country

Nothing is stopping them - except customers’ willingness to pay.

Is this really in the best interests of the end user?

Definitely not!

👉 That’s exactly the point: gatekeepers charging an additional 10% or 30% „tax“ is not in the interests of consumers.


I readily concede that the „walled garden“ and „one stop shop“ is beneficial to consumers and in the best interests of many of them: having all downloadable apps reviewed and buyable through a single, trusted market place.

But a unilaterally set 30% commission that’s under no competitive pressure and has remained unchanged (for large developers, which account by far for the greatest part of App Store revenue) for 16 years and going is not.

Neither is having layers upon layers of companies that charge each other a commission of revenue.

• Should telecommunications equipment manufacturers (among them Nokia and Ericsson) charge telcos a 30% commission on their subscription revenue?
• Should Telcos charge large traffic generators and/or providers of digital content and transactions charge a 30% commission on Apple’s and Google’s „services“ revenue?
• Should Apple and Google charge developers of third-party apps or streaming services a 30% commission on their revenue?

Neither makes for efficient markets or consumers best interests.

 

[surferfb]

To add to everything that @Abazigal said, I’ll note that, at least in the US, ISPs are often ACTUALLY monopolies and duopolies, unlike Apple. Roughly 25% of Americans literally only have one ISP who will service their home. Often those are in rural areas where they only have one choice of cell carrier as well. So those ACTUAL monopolies and duopolies should be under more regulation than the “I don’t want to pick Android because I prefer iOS so Apple has a monopoly” standard that is often repeated on MacRumors.

There’s also the point that there’s a big difference in using a network to function and using iOS to function. To use a metaphor, a network is a dumb pipe that, while requiring periodic maintenance, doesn’t ultimately care what device it connects to. iOS an actively developed operating system with APIs that are created and maintained for the express purpose of allowing the developers’ apps to function in the OS. Apple deserves compensation for that work and absent a compelling reason otherwise, should be able to charge as much and however they want. If developers don’t like the terms and conditions, they won’t build apps for iOS and the ecosystem will suffer, making Apple’s products less desirable until Apple changes them. For an example of this, see the Vision Pro.

The reason your argument will ALWAYS fail is that there is an alternative, and that alternative is the market leader by a wide, wide margin. If Apple had 75% market share something that looks like the DMA would be a reasonable regulation to ensure developers had access to users. But Apple doesn’t even have 30% in the EU. Even by your preferred percentage of app sales (which ignores the fact that the open nature of Android leads to piracy that reduces developers’ sales) it’s not even 50% in the EU. Not nearly enough to require these draconian regulations.

If developers don’t want to pay Apple, no one is forcing them to write apps for Apple’s customers. If consumers prefer Android’s approach they can (and do) pick Android. Just because you want to use Apple products AND want an open ecosystem doesn’t mean your preference should override the preference of the vast, vast majority of iOS users. You have choices for an open ecosystem. iOS user in the EU no longer have a choice for a closed one.