No, but iOS and the APIs that allow third party apps to function on Apple’s devices are.Is a third-party app Apple’s property?
Are all third-party apps Apple’s property?
Is the third-party (e.g. Spotify website) linked out to Apple’s property?
Yes, I agree if you limit the pool to “iOS user” it doesn’t. But in my opinion that’s as silly as saying Burger King doesn’t compete for the purchases of a person inside McDonalds. The competition already happened.The Google Play Store does not compete for my purchases as an iOS user.
It does not compete for any iOS user’s digital purchases.
We don’t demand that every TV manufacturer be required to offer every streaming app because “there’s no competition in the LGTV store” and people pay a lot of money for TVs and don’t buy new ones frequently
I agree it seems unlikely Apple is paying 18% I’m sure they’re able to negotiate. But if Mall of America stuck to its guns and said 18% or else, then Apple has to decide to pay up or not. They don’t get to open a store in the mall and not pay the property owner because they think they deserve to be there.I would love to take a peek into Apple’s rental agreement for their Mall of America store.
I’d bet a good amount of money that they aren’t forking over a whopping 18% to the Mall.
Let’s take it a step further. Let’s pretend a store owner agrees to the mall’s terms to pay rent as a percentage of revenue booked in the store, but then in the store has all customers in the store use their phones to check out on the website to avoid booking the sale to that store, meaning the store has no revenue. They get all the benefits of being in the mall, get to use utilities for free, but don’t have to pay.
And you’re sitting here going: “yep, that’s fair and how things should work because customers inside the mall don’t have another place to buy the product when they’re inside the mall, and the mall owner makes too much money anyway.” And when the mall says “fine, but you need to pay a Core Utility Fee to at least reimburse us for that” you say “But the store pays an annual $99 lease renewal fee, so that covers utilities!”
Because governments shouldn’t get involved in private contracts between companies when there are other options! This assumption that developers have a right to be on iOS is as absurd as saying I have a right to be in the Mall of America.But to keep with the analogy:
👉 Does Mall of America take 30% - almost a hundred dollars - commission off my Final Cut Pro purchase from Apple's App Store - or otherwise prevent them from advertising Final Cut Pro to me?
👉 When I ask the Apple retail clerk: "Hey, where can I buy Final Cut?”, does he answer me “I wish I could tell you, but I can’t. We know it’s not ideal”
Answer: of course not. A mall does not claim ownership of the customer relationship after a product has been checked out from the mall.
You could, of course, argue…
…and say Malls should have that right. In which case I’d applaud your consistency.
But again: it’s beyond me why governments should tolerate or support this rent-seeking and overreaching business conduct.
Yes, but the iOS app doesn’t. Full stop. If they want an iOS app, rather than a web app, then they need to follow Apple’s rules. This isn’t difficult. Pay Apple for use of its property in the way Apple is asking. If Apple is asking too much, then don’t use their property!….but Spotify’s subscription will work (on other platforms) without Apple’s property being used.
So does my Fortnite virtual stormtrooper helmet or the Kindle eBook I’m purchasing.
Not an iPhone they don’t.👉 They all literally work without any piece of Apple’s property or programming code being used.