What a lousy biased judge. Apple provides a lot for it’s developers. Sometimes I think they fall short but they’ve corrected themselves (see Apple silicon DTK return credit) Apple holds WWDC, has plenty of resources, introduces new and useful APIs every year for developers to build new functionality into their apps, etc.
I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regulate apple to their advantage. I thought the idea behind a free market is to let Apple do what Apple feels is best. If customers don’t like it, go to Android or build your own.
I’m not defending Apple here, there was a lot of damning information against them. It’s clear that they do not treat all developers equally, but I disagree with what Epic is trying to accomplish. Whether apple should allow side loading of apps is another story, but in the current situation of how things were/are being handled, I do not like Epic’s goals or values.
Couldn't disagree more.
1. "Apple provides a lot for its developers." -
So what. This doesn't excuse anticompetitive practices! What
is an example of a monopoly in your mind if this isn't one? Apple stifles the entire in-app purchase market in a "virtual embargo" capacity.
2. "I love how people want a free and open market, and then want to regular Apple to their advantage." - Um, this
isn't a free an open market; that's the whole point of this. When you argue this, you argue that the free market applies to hardware selection but then just stops applying to virtual markets. It makes no sense! Does Apple's income and profit stop at the moment you select your phone? No. So why should antitrust law?
3. "I’m not defending Apple here." - Yes you are. This isn't about "side loading". I hate the term. This is about simply
loading. They created the monstrosity of proprietary installation to begin with, doubled down on it time and time again when it proved to be profitable, and then deemed installation by another means as some fringe installation outside of their parameters. That's garbage; they created iOS to be that way for specific purposes—one of which was
profit. If I intentionally create a slave market, are you
skirting slavery to not participate in it, or are you simply participating in freedom, your default state?
Point blank — Apple
is wrong here in its anticompetitive nature, but the effects of Apple's anticompetitiveness have not necessarily all been bad. Most of the time it has been great for users in terms of phone security, stability, consistency, fraud protection, etc. It's created a market of trust for the otherwise untrustworthy! But even in light of all of these benefits, it still doesn't exempt Apple from antitrust behavior. I really think we're seeing the end of the tightly-controlled App Store era regardless of the outcome of this case. And the sky will not fall either when it happens.