Requesting a change (asking—optional) is different than telling (dictating—not-optional).
No not really. There are different aspects of monopolies. Just because they have one competitor doesn't mean they can't be a monopoly. It gets really complicated when it comes to the law and government regulations.
Maybe people who join an Apple forum to poke fun at Apple fans?
Apple smacked down Epic pretty damn hard in the courtroom on exactly this point. Apple doesn't have anything near a monopoly on phones, and therefore its App Store behavior isn't anything near monopolistic.
I agree that this is going to be the sticking point.
Because that's how it's always been?
I wouldn't call it a smack down and I wouldn't take one ruling by one judge in one country as meaning anything to the overall picture.
Yes, aspersers criticizing for no reason. However you have to admit it’s a bad look for Facebook, Spotify and Twitter. They don’t play well in the sandbox with apple.
Not any more cringe worthy, then people buying something, and then complaining about something it doesn’t do, and never promised to do.
Sell the app or the in app purchase? because you can sign up for Spotify through their website just like you can do all of your Facebook needs through safari. Using the app through the Appstore and having Apple be the middleman is basically the fee, because if something is wrong you dispute it with Apple and there you go. Want the convince of ending your Spotify subscription through the list of subscriptions in the App store that is the convince and charge. Me the consumer can choose how and where my money goes. If I want to pay a ever so slightly higher subscription fee to have my stuff through the Appstore/Apple to be able to cancel literally at any point I can, just as I can start my subscription via Spotify themselves although I don't know how easy it is to cancel through them, but I do know some companies make it the biggest hassle to cancel services.
Apples inconsistent TOS.
It’s not the same. Product sold at one store can be sold at any other store with zero changes done.
That’s a lie. Multiple stores have lower fees.
Your last question at the end of this post, I would ask why would Apple create new hardware products and a new OS, just to replicate the old hardware/software model. Why would they make something to just compete with the Mac? At the time, viruses and keystroke loggers were a persistent problem plaguing Windows more, but also Mac, in part because of the multiple routes to get software onto the computer. The iOS model was built as an alternative model, with sandboxing from the start. They create this app distribution model, via an App Store, a little bit later to further create a more secure platform, because people were tired of security concerns. And other companies still find a way around it by collecting and selling our data (looking at you, FB). And Apple does deserve a cut, the amount can be open for debate, for the hosting and distribution. The 30% drops after the first year, right? Apple will probably build up their services revenue and their ads, and then drop this percentage to a lower number. But they will fight against side loading, quite vigorously. Remember how they fought against jailbreaking the phone. What happened to that movement? That used to be seen as criminal and now people want it to be legit. Such are the times. That would be my guess as to what will happen.
I don't think Zuckerberg cares much for Musk. Zuckerberg just sees an opportunity and he's going to take it.
But that’s not the entire point. It’s about Apple having all control over every app that filters through the App Store. They can decide what content I can have in an app, decide if something is misinformation or not, and can destroy an App by making their own and offering it for free. Apple is the proverbial judge, jury, and executioner. Either play by Apple’s rules or try a web app. Good luck with Apple’s APIs! This stifles innovation, freedom of choice, and the free market.
