I've tried to explain to you the vast difference of this existing in one locale as opposed to this existing globally, but you seem to not understand that point. Again, if Apple were forced, in a large enough market (globally or close there to) there would be no reason for META, for example, to use the App store. META could then simply ignore Apple's requirements about data collection, etc. And as simply one example, because WhatsApp is required for my business, I would be forced to use WhatsApp on META's terms. I like that META is force into the App store with constraints.
At least acknowledge that what I'm describing is a real possiblity without saying "3.5 months and NO PROBLEMS!!!" implying that there are zero legitimate concerns with the EU's approach.
Take this as my FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT of such "what if" scenarios.
And I wrote a very tangible example of Adobe choosing to do an undesirable thing with an app "essential" to me (Photoshop) some years ago. Since I had CHOICES, I switched to Pixelmator and thus "punished" Adobe for doing something I didn't want them to do... and they haven't seen another cent from me in many years now. I like the
freedom to make such choices.
Since WhatsApp is essential for
your business, you very well
could have to go deal with it from a META-based store. However, if many were in the same boat and begrudgingly doing so, perhaps the Apple App Store would NOT desire the shift in demand (and thus commissions) for that (very popular) product and cut a
better deal with META to also sell it in the Apple App Store too. That's the kind of thing that happens with CHOICES and competition. That's one of the ways a few of the bigger boys first got a 15% commission instead of the original 30%.
Why would META be interested? Because even if they make the best alt App Store in the world, some percentage of people- apparently yourself included- do NOT want to take their business to them. So by selling in
BOTH places they sell
MORE and thus
make more money. All these big dogs revolve around maximizing revenue & profit. Pull your app from the established, thoroughly-dominant App Store and you can probably make more money for each subsequent app sale (by keeping Apple's 15%-30% cut for yourself) but now you've gone from Amazon/Walmart
reach to startup store reach.
Anyone selling anything wants broad distribution. As soon as someone pulls their app form the App Store, they'll see a drop in revenue. How long will they tolerate that lost revenue before they opt to get back in the App Store too? IMO: not long.
However, that guessed, I still offer my FORMAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT that select essential apps may go their own way anyway and then someone like you if they need to buy that app again may have to do business with a third party source like META... else innovate ways to make WhatsApp less essential and find a Pixelmator-type remedy if possible... as I did when I wanted to avoid a change in Adobe's business practices.
But do you not see how what you're saying here implies that your way is the only legitimate way, and that Apple should be aligned with the way you want things done.
Nope. I didn't say it is the only legitimate way. In fact,
MANY times I've acknowledged that these are ways being employed by only a few countries in the world... while the rest of us deals with "business as usual."
However, even if "my" way becomes "the" way, that still doesn't kill the Apple App Store and customers can readily vote with their wallets if they want to shop Apple and only Apple or shop around... exactly as we do with our Macs.
And if Apple doesn't do the "right" thing (meaning the thing you think is right) then you want Governments to step in and force Apple to do things the way you want them done.
Nope. As I clearly wrote, I do NOT want GOVs involved. GOVs tend to get involved in these things as "last resort."
Apple could have avoided GOV involvement by choosing to evolve business practices. It's not so much a "right" vs. "wrong" thing as it is a "smart" thing to evolve in ways most favorable to your business vs. letting GOVs "force" evolution that may not be as ideal. History showed the way and Apple, like pretty much every company before them dealing with this sort of thing, chose the same ways as all the other companies that eventually required GOVs to take action.
Why do they all repeat this same thing over and over? 💰💰💰
And the outcome is always the same too. Either respect history and use it to company advantage or deal with the same consequences over and over again. It's not right or wrong, just leveraging the certainty demonstrated by history help make strategic decisions.
Meanwhile suggesting that those of us who disagree with you are incapable of understanding your superior position?
Nope. There is no superior position. For a matter like this, each person contributing plays judge & jury. And it doesn't matter who thinks what. History shows how this plays out and it plays out that way EVERY time.
You and I can write a thousand more debating posts and we change nothing about how this goes. A few countries will show how terrible- or not- this will play out because they've opted to already go there. The rest of us can simply watch the devastation & destruction show itself there... or not. And if not, we'll learn something else very valuable: that sometimes what a rich company spins may not actually be true... but spun for self-interest. As we may come to learn that, it begs a whole new question.
Only one of us is trying to enlist the government to impose our preference on the other (I fully reject your "there will be no consequences to you" argument).
Nope. As I wrote, I wish GOV was
NOT involved.
But once again, you are blowing what I DO write out of proportion.
Feel free to reject whatever I have actually written. It should be obvious to anyone that if a consumer doesn't want to use alt stores, they won't "have" to and thus all of the security disaster risk is mitigated by continuing with a business as usual approach... even in the EU & Japan. If someone believes all this security risk stuff that's been slung for the last few years, they can opt to avoid shopping outside of the Apple App Store. If so, they take none of the security risks slung.
If I can go buy my next thing from Walmart, Target, Best Buy, etc but odds are high I might be killed if I buy anywhere other than Target, I'll probably just buy at Target. However, if after a while, my neighbors keep coming back from trips to them other stores unscathed with the
same products I've purchased purchased for
LESS, I eventually decide that maybe what I was led to believe is NOT true, try buying at an alt retailer and discover that I'm not devastated for doing so.
You are free to choose. All choices have tradeoffs.
Not when it comes to app variables trying to be addressed by these laws and I'm in the USA. If I want an app, I have one store from which to get it. If Apple decided to jack the price of that app to the moon before I get to that store, I have one store from which to get it. If Apple got into some personal squabble with the Developer of that app and booted it out of the store, I would have no choice in getting that app... short of moving to the EU or soon Japan... or going Android... which would then bring a mass pile of other issues since the rest of the mix is almost entirely Apple.
Again, I think trying to measure this argument 3.5 months into the DMA as opposed to taking a look at the larger picture is problematic. For reasons that I know are valid. If you can't at least acknowledge that, well...
OK, I'll acknowledge that there are apparently reasons you know that this is a disaster in the making. Being unable to see them myself, I'm writing from a perspective of what I can see, what I foresee and what history shows me.
3.5 months will soon be 6 and then 12 and then more. Will ONE security nightmare in the EU or Japan show itself in that much time as practically promised in a thousand threads that made it seem like the EU would be completely destroyed by now and apparently Japan is next? I suspect not... but time will ultimately tell this tale with great clarity.
This is dissmissive. My arguments have much more to do with a general philosophy of freedom than with Apple Inc.
My apologies if anything I wrote seems dismissive.
These laws, applied globally, will have effects. You're sidestepping this point over and over again.
They certainly will if they are applied globally: people who would have liked an app like Fortnite on their iDevices when that was hot will get to choose to have it vs. a corporation deciding they can't... not for security reasons but for legal posturing. People wanting other software on their iDevices would have a way to get such apps... just like Mac people can do for all these years.
An ability to "shop around" will almost certainly have that competition drive
lower app prices... even in Apple's store unless Apple wants to lose share to other stores. That how it always go when competition selling the very same products for less come to town.
As we Mac people have, a bundle of apps for a buck and similar promotions will be available... bringing great value for very little cost. I have a few apps on my Mac that got there by such promotions... never to be seen in the Mac App Store from Apple. I use some of them often and appreciate getting them for "bargain" prices.
Etc. And those happy with using only the Apple App Store will keep right on using the Apple App Store. Yes, a few apps may spin off (and likely shoot themselves in a revenue foot in a big way) but clones of those apps will likely step forward- like Pixelmator vs. Photoshop- and become the goto alternative for those only wanting Apps from the one store.
