Why does anyone oppose third-party app stores?

[Allen_Wentz]

This. The hypocrisy of some adamant Apple fans. Just ask in every situation “what if Samsung (or Google) would have done exactly the same? What would your reactions be?” E.g. What if Samsung (and not Apple) would have hold on to Lightning until Eu forced them to use usbc? Would you still defend Samsung and raise your fist against EU’s “over regulation”?

Strong YES to:
"E.g. What if Samsung (and not Apple) would have hold on to Lightning until Eu forced them to use usbc? Would you still defend Samsung and raise your fist against EU’s “over regulation”?"
with no apologies for shouting.

Governmental entities [worse still are committees of same] are NOT long-term capable of effectively deciding what tech is best. It really is that simple. E.g. if an EU had been present Apple would not have been able to lead the world away from floppy disks. The fact that many folks here think USB-C is a good way to go does NOT suddenly make the concept of government committees forcing tech companies to build the government committees' way appropriate.

Anyone who cannot see the truism in bold above needs to think better.

If Apple chose to keep Lightning ports, so be it. Let folks who prefer something different buy a non-Apple product or a dongle. Easy.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

I oppose the 3rd party app store because I trust Apple.com more than Acme-Apps-for-Apple.com. I agree: 30% take is excessive. The solution is not to open the market to fraudsters but for Congress to pass a law that regulates these software platform monopolies so the take rate is reasonable. We can then argue about "What is reasonable?" Personally, I would say 10%. Others might say 15% or 20%. Amazon Marketplace charges 45%. Microsoft and Google mark-up 12-15% (according to ChatGPT)

The 30% rate IS reasonable for any small developer. The marketing that a small developer gets for 30% is a huge bargain. It is only the large devs for whom the 30% becomes less of a bargain. I say let the large devs strike out on their own if the AS is not providing enough value. Simple.

 

[BaldiMac]

The 30% rate IS reasonable for any small developer. The marketing that a small developer gets for 30% is a huge bargain. It is only the large devs for whom the 30% becomes less of a bargain. I say let the large devs strike out on their own if the AS is not providing enough value. Simple.

Small developers only pay 15%.

 

[Astuces iOS]

They want it to be easy for the consumer. It would be very confusing if there were 50 different app stores that you had to download apps from.

Some developers don't like it because of money mainly.

As for me, I put my apps in the Apple App Store and that's it. No web distribution, just App Store, even on macOS. I want it to be easy for people to find my apps.

Hey willi is here !! And yes you are right, otherwise it could be very hard to find an app.

 

[I7guy]

Ever hear of Paypal or prepaid visa? You don't have to give any payment info to alternative app stores.

So now I’m going to have to change my payment habits in Order to have a bit of protection.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Isn’t it incredibly nice to have choices though? For example, suppose Apple- in pursuit of "another record quarter" or some such business objective- decided to up book prices by 3X-5X above market (like Apple RAM or SSD upgrades). If they were your only choice of where to get books… and you still wanted books… you’d have to pay 3X-5X more for books. If they opted to make that 8X or 10X and you want books, you pay 8X or 10X.

However, just the fact that Kindle and others exist for you, polices such actions.

Every week, there are "Deals" threads in which Apples own products are available from <other seller> for less than they are priced at Apple. You can buy that MBair from Apple anyway and pay full price... or you can save $200 and buy the very same product from Amazon/Best Buy/Walmart/etc (whoever is offering this week's sale price). End result for you is owning the exact same product. You can choose to pay more or less for the exact same product. But that choice only exists because there is competition fighting to try to get you to buy from them (and take presumably less profit on those transactions than if you buy the same thing from Apple). If you ever choose to save money on any such thing, you get to do so because there is competition selling the same things you want to buy. If you choose to never save money and just pay whatever the creator of such things wants as MSRP, you have that choice too. YOU get to decide, not some Company Store gatekeeper.

There is a mainstream brand gas station very close to my home. It is most convenient(ly located) to me, I'm confident the gas is secure, it's as easy to buy gas there as anywhere else, etc. But I'll generally drive 3 extra miles to save 10¢ or 20¢/gallon on gas. Why? It's the same gas. The car will run just fine on the lower-price gas as it does on the higher-price gas. Apparently, that cheaper competitor can either get gas for less or just demands less profit on gas to entice consumers to get their gas there. I'll sacrifice some convenience to save only pennies per gallon. And I suspect MANY of us do (for PENNIES). I'm glad there is more than one gas station company able to sell gas for my car. If not, a lone, convenient, secure, etc gas company could charge ANY price it wants for that gas and, if I want my car to run, I'd have to just pay whatever they demand.

Similarly, if some book you want that is definitely available right now but not in the Apple bookstore for whatever reason, you have other places to go get the book right now. Bookseller is not choosing what book you can and cannot own. YOU get to choose. If they don’t carry a book you want today, go get it at another bookstore today. Their choices as book gatekeeper don't have to be your choices... unless they are the only source of books. If they are, then they decide for you instead of you getting to decide.

Again, if my favored gas station happens to be out of the particular "mix" of gas required by my car, do I just not use my car until they get it? No, I can easily go to several competitors to get the gas I want today. If my preferred brand of gas company is in some fight with gas providers such they they are temporarily refusing to offer the mix of gas I need, no need for me to be involved in their squabble. I can just roll on to the next gas station to get the gas I want… because there IS a next gas station. If they were all one brand in control of all gas accessibility, I'd have to just walk or bike my way to my destinations until they either settle... or perhaps I'm walking/biking forever if they never settle.

And no, dumping an expensive car that runs on gasoline to buy one that runs on- say- kerosene, it not a good consumer option. I like my car just fine but I do want competition for key fuel that lets me use it as I want to use it. I'd be terrified of the concept of a single gasoline brand taking over as the only "store" for gasoline... because I'd know that prices will run higher and I'd have to just pay. And if they have some issue with my "mix" supplier such that they stop carrying my "mix" in protest, I'm having to just walk/bike.

Competition is always good for us consumers. No competition is always bad. Seller and some of us can attempt to rationalize the latter to try to frame it as good but the above 2 commonplace examples- among many others- of “what’s in capitalism for consumers?” always apply. Though some of us don't seem to believe it, we consumers are at least as important as any seller... including the favorite one. In fact, the sellers actually need consumers more than the consumers need the sellers… including the favorite one.

Of course "Competition is always good for us consumers."
That is a no brainer.

However governments forcing companies to make some specific technical decision is not "competition," it is government making decisions for tech entrepreneurs, which is very bad.

Personally I support the idea of government controls on monopolies (e.g. USA Sherman Anti-Trust Act). But Apple is not a monopoly. Not even close to being a monopoly.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Correct, GOVs getting involved is very bad... but they are generally the last resort option.

Else, in this situation where it's impossible for competitors to compete with Apple in selling & distributing iDevice Apps, how can any natural form of iDevice app competition rise up?

Leaving it unchecked for up to forever by "last resort" can't change anything if there is only one gatekeeper. In such situations, the gatekeeper will only continue to secure & exploit the lock on a market.

Apple should have been the one to address this issue proactively, BEFORE GOV felt it had to step in. But Apple chose $elf intere$t- as they all do when they get a lock on a lucrative market- and then GOV had to do what it always does in this kind of situation. And the end result is always the same too.

There's still time for Apple to proactively evolve in the rest of the capitalistic world... or they can just wait for other GOVs to feel compelled to take similar actions. Obviously, it is more lucrative to wait & fight & delay... but the ultimate outcome is inevitable, as illustrated countless times before throughout history.

 

[Naraxus]

"I bought into the Apple iOS/iPhone ecosystem knowing full well the restrictions Apple puts in place but I'm going to bitch anyway because Apple needs to accommodate my desires!"

I love this line of thinking.

 

[BaldiMac]

Correct, GOVs getting involved is very bad... but they are generally the last resort option.

Else, in this situation where it's impossible for competitors to compete with Apple in selling & distributing iDevice Apps, how can any natural form of iDevice app competition rise up?

Thus, "last resort."

Why should there be competition to sell access to private property? Can I rent out your house? I could even charge less than you would because I have no costs or investment in your property!

Competition already exists in the app market to keep consumer prices low. That's why we have a huge variety and low prices on the App Store.

Competition already exists for developers, who can choose from a wide variety of platforms including some they can access for free.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Why should there be competition to sell access to private property? Can I rent out your house? I could even charge less than you would because I have no costs or investment in your property!

Apps made by developers outside of Apple are Apples property?

Competition already exists in the app market to keep consumer prices low. That's why we have a huge variety and low prices on the App Store.

If you and I wished to partner and open our own iDevice App Store and take- say 5% and 10% cuts instead of 15% and 30% cuts to entice developers to sell in our store, could we? If developers want to sell and fulfill their own creations from their own websites just like they do now with Mac apps, can they? If Bundle Hunt and similar wants to partner with developers to bundle "pick 10 of 50" apps together for $5, can they?

That Mac-app like competition is what I'm talking about. And in all of the scenarios just shared, it's quite possible for consumers to end up with apps they want to buy AND/OR IAP and subscription fees AFTER the app purchase priced LOWER than they are now.

Competition already exists for developers, who can choose from a wide variety of platforms including some they can access for free.

To sell and deliver their iDevice app to iDevice owners? Where are such platforms? And let's not go jailbreak if that's what you mean.

 

[BaldiMac]

Apps made by developers outside of Apple are Apples property?

No, but you know that. If you have to make stuff up to support your point, that's just nonsense.

iOS is Apple's IP.

If you and I wished to partner and open our own iDevice App Store and take- say 5% and 10% cuts instead of 15% and 30% cuts to entice developers to sell in our store, could we? If developers want to sell their own creations from their own websites just like they do now with Mac apps, can they? If Bundle Hunt a similar wants to partner with developers to bundle "pick 10 of 50" apps together for $5, can they?

No, again, because we don't have the right to sell access to someone else's property.

To sell and deliver their iDevice app to iDevice owners? Where are such platforms? And let's not go jailbreak if that's what you mean.

No, I didn't say that. You just made it up. I clearly referenced a variety of platforms.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Correct, GOVs getting involved is very bad... but they are generally the last resort option.

Else, in this situation where it's impossible for competitors to compete with Apple in selling & distributing iDevice Apps, how can any natural form of iDevice app competition rise up?

Leaving it unchecked for up to forever by "last resort" can't change anything if there is only one gatekeeper. In such situations, the gatekeeper will only continue to secure & exploit the lock on a market.

Apple should have been the one to address this issue proactively, BEFORE GOV felt it had to step in. But Apple chose $elf intere$t- as they all do when they get a lock on a lucrative market- and then GOV had to do what it always does in this kind of situation. And the end result is always the same too.

There's still time for Apple to proactively evolve in the rest of the capitalistic world... or they can just wait for other GOVs to feel compelled to take similar actions. Obviously, it is more lucrative to wait & fight & delay... but the ultimate outcome is inevitable, as illustrated countless times before throughout history.

You are saying government should make Apple iDevice decisions. I shout NO. Consumers can go elsewhere easily enough and not buy iDevices if Apple is doing the wrong thing for consumers' desires. Apple does not even have #1 market share, let alone dominant market share, of its main product smartphones. Apple does dominate the high end of smartphones because of Apple's smart iDevice decisions that you suggest government should have control of. I say yes to competition, no to government control.

 

[I7guy]

Apps made by developers outside of Apple are Apples property?

They entered into an agreement with apple.

If you and I wished to partner and open our own iDevice App Store and take- say 5% and 10% cuts instead of 15% and 30% cuts to entice developers to sell in our store, could we?

Why should you be able to?

If developers want to sell and fulfill their own creations from their own websites just like they do now with Mac apps, can they? If Bundle Hunt and similar wants to partner with developers to bundle "pick 10 of 50" apps together for $5, can they?

Yes, if they develop their own platform. The iOS App Store (except in the eu where it is public property) belongs to apple.

That Mac-app like competition is what I'm talking about. And in all of the scenarios just shared, it's quite possible for consumers to end up with apps they want to buy AND/OR IAP and subscription fees AFTER the app purchase priced LOWER than they are now.

Mac is not iOS.

To sell and deliver their iDevice app to iDevice owners? Where are such platforms? And let's not go jailbreak if that's what you mean.

Jailbreak if you want. The iOS App Store in most of the world is not public property.

 

[I7guy]

Correct, GOVs getting involved is very bad... but they are generally the last resort option.

Else, in this situation where it's impossible for competitors to compete with Apple in selling & distributing iDevice Apps, how can any natural form of iDevice app competition rise up?

There’s a false narrative about the iOS App Store. And hopefully we’ll see some of the eu stuff dialed back.

Leaving it unchecked for up to forever by "last resort" can't change anything if there is only one gatekeeper. In such situations, the gatekeeper will only continue to secure & exploit the lock on a market.

It’s their creation. Your arguing for failure for all.

Apple should have been the one to address this issue proactively, BEFORE GOV felt it had to step in. But Apple chose $elf intere$t- as they all do when they get a lock on a lucrative market- and then GOV had to do what it always does in this kind of situation. And the end result is always the same too.

Nope. It’s apples app
Store. Through various lawsuits nothing came of their “illegal monopoly”.

There's still time for Apple to proactively evolve in the rest of the capitalistic world... or they can just wait for other GOVs to feel compelled to take similar actions. Obviously, it is more lucrative to wait & fight & delay... but the ultimate outcome is inevitable, as illustrated countless times before throughout history.

Nope. Apple will legally fight tooth and nail. Draining resources that could be out to better use. If governments want competition then let them create the proper competition. Not play Robin Hood.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You are saying government should make Apple iDevice decisions. I shout NO.

No I'm not saying that. I shout No right with you. (but we're both wasting our breath in all that "NO" shouting).

Where we differ though is that when there is no more choices... when GOV is last resort... then GOV has to step in. And that's why were are having this little conversation on Safari instead of IE and if we called each other to discuss on the phone, it would not be through AT&T long distance, etc.

Consumers can go elsewhere easily enough and not buy iDevices if Apple is doing the wrong thing for consumers' desires.

Yes they can. But this kind of argument isolates ONE thing like it THE deciding factor. Smart devices from both platforms are loaded with all kinds of desirable and undesirable features & benefits. I'd guess there are few if any single variables that drive choosing I vs. A. There's nothing wrong with consumers wanting the best smart device hardware and the best options for the software it runs.

We all own Macs and we all already have these freedoms. I would guess the majority of those taking the side so hard AGAINST this point probably have apps on their own Macs NOT purchased through the Apple Mac App Store. I have some I got for extreme bargains though the Bundle Hunt-type deals. I have some that are excluded from being in the Apple Store by Apple. I have some purchased direct from the developers even though I could have also got them from the Mac store. Why didn't I buy all Mac apps through the Apple Mac App store? Often it was because I could get the same app for less from some place else. Competition at work got me the SAME apps for LESS money.

If others- like you- have some apps on your own Mac not sourced from the Apple Mac App Store for the same reason, why come out so hard against desiring the same capability for the other kind of computer from Apple? It's not like you would be forced to buy iDevice apps from other places if you only want to get them from the Apple App Store... just as I'm not forced to buy apps from other places if I want to get them from the Mac App Store.

And yet here so many are... making exactly those kinds of cases... many of which probably shopped around for a better price for some of the Apple stuff they own (because Apple themselves widely distributes their own creations through many stores not owned by Apple) and/or have some apps on their Macs that they did not get through the Mac App Store.

Apple does not even have dominant market share of its main product smartphones.

It's not about that. It's not about monopoly. How much share of store dominance does Apple have of iDevice app sales? 100%. And Apple is no longer small fish competing in a vast sea of other tech competitors. They are now among the Kings of not just tech but all companies everywhere. When you get to the top of the hill, GOVs take notice... long before anything you are doing can become too controlling. You're obviously a smart guy and you've probably read this a thousand times in a thousand EU threads. Why do we keep circling back to "Apple is not a monopoly." "Apple does not have dominant share" like some posts are implying that.

EU GOV did NOT take action claiming Apple is a monopoly. They took action because Apple is now so large there is greater risk that they COULD become one and in this particular way, they do have 100% lock of this particular market of iDevice apps.

Apple does dominate the high end of smartphones because of Apple's smart iDevice decisions that you suggest government should have control of. I say no.

I say no too. So don't tell me what I say. I own LOTS of Apple stuff for decades now and I like Apple stuff better than competitors stuff. But I also chat in these threads as a consumer first... not shareholder first (though I'm that too) and not as a paid or unpaid representative of Apple. I can like/love Apple and be critical of them about some things at the same time. I can like/love a S.O. and be critical of some things they do or say at the same time too. I suspect we can ALL do that. And that's OK. Nobody (and no company) is perfect in every way. I can certainly be completely wrong about many things too, and those who like/love me can still like/love me but recognize and point out what I've got wrong.

When I'm arguing FOR Apple- even defending- Apple in threads (most notably and obviously in Vpro threads) guys like you- and including you- are right with me there, thumbs up and all approving. But when I take a stance against what Apple wants in other threads- such as this topic- apparently I'm no longer suitable to have an opinion that "thinks different."

Apple is great! Apple is wonderful. Genius. Smart. Makes fantastic tech. Shall I go on? Love my Macs. Love my iDevices. Love AppleTV. Love accessories. They are all freaking great! But in this ONE thing- this one, fairly small part of their overall business empire, I think they are WRONG. Apple doesn't need this particular "lock" to be preserved to continue to be insanely successful and grow to ever greater records. Snap our fingers and spread the EU law globally TODAY and Apple would be just fine, still King or nearly King of the entire capitalism mountain and still making huge money every day hand over fist (including from their own Apple App Store). And that's MY opinion. You and all others have every right to yours.

We're all wasting our energy anyway because the EU thing is already done and history shows that will inevitably spread in time. We can debate for 50,000 more posts about this but all we write doesn't matter. EU GOV has spoken and Apple has chosen to comply. If <other country> takes action, Apple will comply. OR Apple can exit all such countries so they don't have to comply with their laws and take far greater revenue losses in not making money all the other ways Apple does than the small hits complying with EU-type laws can potentially take from them in this one little part of the whole, broad mix of revenue-making models.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

No I'm not saying that. I shout No right with you. (but we're both wasting our breath in all that "NO" shouting).

Where we differ though is that when there is no more choices... when GOV is last resort... then GOV has to step in. And that's why were are having this little conversation on Safari instead of IE and if we called each other to discuss on the phone, it would not be through AT&T long distance, etc.



Yes they can. But this kind of argument isolates ONE thing like it THE deciding factor. Smart devices from both platforms are loaded with all kinds of desirable and undesirable features & benefits. I'd guess there are few if any single variables that drive choosing I vs. A. There's nothing wrong with consumers wanting the best smart device hardware and the best options for the software it runs.

We all own Macs and we all already have these freedoms. I would guess the majority of those taking the side so hard AGAINST this point probably have apps on their own Macs NOT purchased through the Apple Mac App Store. I have some I got for extreme bargains though the Bundle Hunt-type deals. I have some that are excluded from being in the Apple Store by Apple. I have some purchased direct from the developers even though I could have also got them from the Mac store. Why didn't I buy all Mac apps through the Apple Mac App store? Often it was because I could get the same app for less from some place else. Competition at work got me the SAME apps for LESS money.

If others- like you- have some apps on your own Mac not sourced from the Apple Mac App Store for the same reason, why come out so hard against desiring the same capability for the other kind of computer from Apple? It's not like you would be forced to buy iDevice apps from other places if you only want to get them from the Apple App Store... just as I'm not forced to buy apps from other places if I want to get them from the Mac App Store.

And yet here so many are... making exactly those kinds of cases... many of which probably shopped around for a better price for some of the Apple stuff they own (because Apple themselves widely distributes their own creations through many stores not owned by Apple) and/or have some apps on their Macs that they did not get through the Mac App Store.



It's not about that. It's not about monopoly. How much share of store dominance does Apple have of iDevice app sales? 100%. And Apple is no longer small fish competing in a vast sea of other tech competitors. They are now among the Kings of not just tech but all companies everywhere. When you get to the top of the hill, GOVs take notice... long before anything you are doing can become too controlling. You're obviously a smart guy and you've probably read this a thousand times in a thousand EU threads. Why do we keep circling back to "Apple is not a monopoly." "Apple does not have dominant share" like some posts are implying that.

EU GOV did NOT take action claiming Apple is a monopoly. They took action because Apple is now so large there is greater risk that they COULD become one and in this particular way, they do have 100% lock of this particular market of iDevice apps.



I say no too. So don't tell me what I say. I own LOTS of Apple stuff for decades now and I like Apple stuff better than competitors stuff. But I also chat in these threads as a consumer first... not shareholder first (though I'm that too) and not as a paid or unpaid representative of Apple. I can like/love Apple and be critical of them about some things at the same time. I can like/love a S.O. and be critical of some things they do or say at the same time too. I suspect we can ALL do that. And that's OK. Nobody (and no company) is perfect in every way. I can certainly be completely wrong about many things too, and those who like/love me can still like/love me but recognize and point out what I've got wrong.

When I'm arguing FOR Apple- even defending- Apple in threads (most notably and obviously in Vpro threads) guys like you- and including you- are right with me there, thumbs up and all approving. But when I take a stance against what Apple wants in other threads- such as this topic- apparently I'm no longer suitable to have an opinion that "thinks different."

Apple is great! Apple is wonderful. Genius. Smart. Makes fantastic tech. Shall I go on? Love my Macs. Love my iDevices. Love AppleTV. Love accessories. They are all freaking great! But in this ONE thing- this one, fairly small part of their overall business empire, I think they are WRONG. Apple doesn't need this particular "lock" to be preserved to continue to be insanely successful and grow to ever greater records. Snap our fingers and spread the EU law globally TODAY and Apple would be just fine, still King or nearly King of the entire capitalism mountain and still making huge money every day hand over fist (including from their own Apple App Store). And that's MY opinion. You and all others have every right to yours.

We're all wasting our energy anyway because the EU thing is already done and history shows that will inevitably spread in time. We can debate for 50,000 more posts about this but all we write doesn't matter. EU GOV has spoken and Apple has chosen to comply. If <other country> takes action, Apple will comply. OR Apple can exit all such countries so they don't have to comply with their laws and take far greater revenue losses in not making money all the other ways Apple does than the small hits complying with EU-type laws can potentially take from them in this one little part of the whole, broad mix of revenue-making models.

You say "How much share of store dominance does Apple have of iDevice app sales? 100%." but you could say the same thing about me: How much share of app dominance does Allen have of histinyapp sales? 100%.

So yes market share matters. As long as Apple is not a monopoly - and Apple is not even remotely a monopoly - then Apple's App Store should not be run by government.

 

[icanhazmac]

Where we differ though is that when there is no more choices... when GOV is last resort... then GOV has to step in.

Gov(s) are not stepping in to ensure that consumers have choice, they are over-stepping to ensure that other corporations can open a store, big difference.

By forcing alt-stores via regulation all they have done is enable Epic and Steam to open and begin to distribute. When those two stores start fighting for exclusive rights to top $$ generating games, and they will, the consumer will still see 1 single store in Epic or Steam. How exactly did consumers win in that?

Now, if the regulations were such that exclusive distribution were banned that would be closer to what you are describing, and I think hoping for, true consumer choice. However, that would be even more egregious overreach and probably won't happen.

Now, take the likes of Meta, they will open their own store, probably just for their apps. This limits consumers to 1 store, there are no choices here either.

In the end, consumers will still have 1 store. Granted, this will probably apply to the biggest names, Steam and Epic will not fight over no-name apps for exclusivity.

 

[macfacts]

1. It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. Only illegal if 1. You're a monopoly and 2. Engage in anti competitive practices. Apple is clearly engaged in number 2.

So "technically" apple isn't doing anything wrong or illegal.

 

[johannnn]

What’s wrong with giving consumers more choice?

It becomes a fragmented mess.

 

[Tyler O'Bannon]

Simply put: 3rd party app stores are long overdue. It needs to be like the Mac. Use the app store if you want. Download from the web if you want. People that are against that are a tough crowd.

 

[icanhazmac]

Simply put: 3rd party app stores are long overdue. It needs to be like the Mac. Use the app store if you want. Download from the web if you want. People that are against that are a tough crowd.

So show up after days and 6 pages of debate but don't address/acknowledge any opposing points.

1) What will alt-stores get consumers? Be specific.
2) When alt-stores begin to offer exclusivity deals to devs how exactly will that benefit consumers? They will still be locked into a single store.
3) How is spreading your personal and payment information around to 10+ stores vs 1 better for consumers?

PS - Some of us wish the MacOS store was just like iOS. I doubt it will ever happen, but one can dream.

 

[I7guy]

1. It isn't illegal to be a monopoly. Only illegal if 1. You're a monopoly and 2. Engage in anti competitive practices. Apple is clearly engaged in number 2.

So "technically" apple isn't doing anything wrong or illegal.

Apple is clearly engaged in #1

 

[Plutonius]

I feel like a lot of people give positive or neutral reactions to the fact that third-party app stores are still not available in the US, even though they are in Europe (because the EU forced it). I don’t get it.

Third-party app stores have pluses and minuses. They allow content that wouldn’t be allowed in the App Store (which can be a good thing or a bad thing), and there may also be security concerns.

But here’s the thing: You are never forced to use third-party app stores. If you don’t feel it’s worth it, just don’t install it. All it does is put the choice in your hands instead of having Apple make it for you.

What’s wrong with giving consumers more choice?

The only argument I can think of is, “If developers can move apps to proprietary app stores, and a developer has an app you really need, that would force you to use a third-party App Store when it otherwise would have been in the original App Store.” But it seems to me that this is not how it’s playing out with developers. We all know that when Epic was given the choice of “It’s Apple’s App Store, or nothing” - they went with nothing. If developers really want you to use a third-party App Store, they can stick to their guns even if it that leaves you with no solution.

Probably for the same reason people don't care for the number of streaming services we have now. Initially, you could get everything on Netflix. Now it's fragmented and nobody is happy.

 

[Lynxpoint]

I don't have an issue with more stores, but I have learned about myself that I won't go looking through more stores...

So a 'store of stores' would be needed if I were to attempt to use a multiple stores. I might well not use it though, as I currently don't use the 'this is the list of things across all your media services' functionality I now have.

I would be 'pro' alt-stores if I thought it would drive out the 'en********ation' all stores now seem to suffer from - far too many junk apps to try and get past to find anything worth the effort. I find this the case in the Apple app stores, Garmin store, Nintendo store, and back when I used it, the Google Play store (and truthfully with the media stores as well).

 

[Basic75]

Consumers can go elsewhere easily enough and not buy iDevices if Apple is doing the wrong thing for consumers' desires.

If iOS doesn't work for you there is exactly one other operating system for phones that you can use. Making a grand total of two systems that might however differ in dozens of ways relevant to you.

You can't cherry pick the combination of features and behaviour that you really want. I'd love to have separate volume controls like on Android. But I'm not willing to give up Apple's secure enclave for it.

There really is not much choice, either it's one set of trade-offs or the other one.