The thing is that the iOS App Store is home to far less scams than the google play store at least, and even then, those apps tend to be relegated to attempting to get users to sign up for expensive subscriptions (which can be monitored and terminated via the app store's subscription tab), plus Apple has the ability to remove them at a moment's notice.
I don't believe anyone can argue that a centrally managed App Store is any less secure than simply allowing users to download any app they want from any source.
I do agree and it’s kind of irrefutable fact. But it seems to boil down to fundamental principles in the culture, in the same way how the response to free healthcare tends to be.
The U.S. antitrust law reflects the market-oriented and consumer-centric approach of the American culture, which tends to prioritize personal freedom and choice over collective welfare and equality.
The EU culture values freedom as a means to achieve collective welfare and equality, while the U.S. culture values freedom as an end in itself. The EU culture values freedom as a social and economic condition, while the U.S. culture values freedom as a political and legal status. The EU culture values freedom as a shared and balanced concept, while the U.S. culture values freedom as an individual and absolute concept.
I think what often goes unacknowledged in discussions like this are the merits of the iOS App Store. A lot of people like to complain about the 30% cut, but they don't recognise the role the app store plays in growing the overall pie for everybody. It's safe and secure for customers to purchase apps via iTunes (since developers never get our payment details), piracy is less rampant (because you can't sideload), which in turn translates to users buying more apps and more sales for the developer.
Whether Apple's approach is heavy-handed or not, one cannot deny that they have solved a lot of the issues with purchasing things online by greatly reducing the friction, and increasing the trust involved in such transactions from having Apple act as an intermediary. Things like this are rarely ever right or wrong in an absolute sense, but rather, a measure of tradeoffs. How does one decide whether the utility of being able to sideload apps for a small group of more tech-savvy users is worth more than say, the ability to prevent a larger populace of less tech-savvy users from being potentially scammed of their life savings?
Because every response I have seen so far in this (and other similar threads) basically boils down to - that is their problem, not mine. And maybe it's a fair thing to say, because that's the truth. It really isn't your problem, or mine, or anyone else but Apple's.
Now that I have been digging it shows that just the fundamental legal framework and principle produces completely different viewpoints and interpretations
I will put information in quotes that is summarising things I have learned
The EU perspective, on the other hand, is based on the ordoliberal school of thought, which emphasizes the protection of market structure and the preservation of economic freedom for all market participants.
The U.S. culture tends to view freedom as an individual and negative concept, meaning that freedom is the absence of interference or coercion from others, especially from the government.
The U.S. culture emphasizes the freedom of choice, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the market, as well as the rights and responsibilities of the individual. The U.S. culture values self-reliance, autonomy, and competition, and believes that the best way to achieve freedom is to limit the role of the state and to promote the free market.
The EU culture tends to view freedom as a collective and positive concept, meaning that freedom is the ability and opportunity to participate and contribute to the society, as well as to enjoy the benefits of the social and economic system. The EU culture emphasizes the freedom of association, the freedom of movement, and the freedom of the environment, as well as the rights and responsibilities of the community. The EU culture values cooperation, solidarity, and diversity, and believes that the best way to achieve freedom is to enhance the role of the state and to regulate the market.
“freedom is a collective positive concept” and “freedom is an individual negative concept” are:
- The former views freedom as a social and positive concept, while the latter views freedom as an individual and negative concept.
- The former views freedom as the abilityto participate in the social and political life of the community, while the latter views freedom as the absence of interference or coercion from others.
- The former views freedom as requiring the provision of opportunities and the promotion of equality, while the latter views freedom as requiring the limitation of the role of the state and the promotion of the free market.
- The former views freedom as a collective and relative concept, while the latter views freedom as an individual and absolute concept.
- The former views freedom as a dynamic and interdependent concept, while the latter views freedom as a static and isolated concept.
- The former views freedom as an active and participatory concept, while the latter views freedom as a passive and isolated concept.
- The former views freedom as a right and a duty, while the latter views freedom as a right and a privilege.
Summary of the main differences between them:
- The ordoliberal school of thought emerged in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s as a reaction to the failures of laissez-faire capitalism and the rise of totalitarianism. The ordoliberals advocated for a strong and independent state that would ensure a competitive market order based on the rule of law, social justice, and human dignity. The ordoliberals believed that competition was not a natural outcome of market forces, but a normative value that required constant protection and regulation by the state. The ordoliberals also emphasized the importance of preserving economic freedom and autonomy for all market participants, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, consumers, and workers. The ordoliberals influenced the development of German and European competition law, which aims to prevent market distortions, abuses of dominance, and unfair trade practices that may harm the market structure and the economic welfare of society¹².
- The economic theory of the Chicago School emerged in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s as a response to the interventionist and welfare-oriented policies of the New Deal and the Keynesian era. The Chicago School adopted a neoclassical and positivist approach to economics, which relied on mathematical models, empirical evidence, and rational choice theory to analyze market behavior and outcomes. The Chicago School assumed that markets were generally efficient and self-correcting, and that competition was a dynamic and evolutionary process that enhanced consumer welfare and social efficiency. The Chicago School argued that most forms of government regulation and intervention were unnecessary and harmful, as they created market distortions, rent-seeking, and deadweight losses. The Chicago School influenced the development of U.S. antitrust law, which focuses on the effects of market conduct on consumer welfare and efficiency, and adopts a rule of reason analysis that balances the pro- and anti-competitive effects of business practices³⁴.
(1) “Old Chicago” and Freiburg: Why Ordoliberalism Was No ... - ProMarket.
https://www.promarket.org/2021/07/25/chicago-freiburg-ordoliberalism-neoliberalism-germany/.
(2) Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School - Oxford Academic.
https://academic.oup.com/book/8471/chapter/154294254.
(3) The Harvard and Chicago Schools: Two Ways of Studying Barriers to Entry ....
https://www.cambridge.org/core/book...ers-to-entry/67CED770EACDEC3A6C7D680512E6A745.
(4) book: Ordoliberalism and the Freiburg School.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199782796.003.0008
