But can you be banned from doing business with millions of other people for offending the gatekeeper?
Using the store analogy - when you purchase at a store, the store has a markup on the product (usually 40%) - you cannot demand the store take a different markup because a store down the street is selling it for less, you can't set up a sign in the store telling patrons they can get a better deal down the road, and you can't say you want to pay in a particular currency because you don't have any of the local currency in your wallet. The store can establish policies like this for any patron that enters.
And the legality has yet to be determined.
Personally, I bought an Apple device specifically because it was so locked down.
I don't understand the desire to dictate how a piece of software should operate in this case. Why should Apple be forced to make their software operate like Google's?
There are alternatives so nobody is forced to use Apple's platform if they don't want to. They can buy another. How is this not a case of buyer's remorse?
E: and Google is no better.
Maybe it should be. This isn't just about Apple. It's about all e-waste as well.
The idea that I can't do anything with a perfectly workable device once the company providing software to it cuts it off is ridiculous.
How much waste are we producing because we think the company that made a physical device should have 100% say on what happens on said physical device?
There is only one store in iOS country.
You don't invest ~$1000 to go to a physical store.
Imagine there were only Walmart and Costco and literally nothing else, even small business. Now someone violates Walmart’s rules for a specific item in the store, and they not only ban that item, but also ban every item they sell.
Here’s where it gets dystopian. In all platforms that allow competitive stores, the fees settle way down from 30%. Look at windows, epic, steam. 5-20%. That’s what a competitive price looks like.
But because there exists literally only Walmart and Costco, they have 0 incentive to compete. That’s abuse of market power, and exactly what Antitrust concerns itself.
The tired analogy of “it isn’t a monopoly” just doesn’t hold up in two dimensions: there are only two major players, both disallow competition within their marketplace, and yet in alternative platforms (game consoles, windows, linux) you have alternative routes to delivery that show us the “real cost” of managing a platform.
Apple and Google are running their companies with 0 foresight. It’s a shame that Tim doesn’t have the foresight to pre-empt this, it’s terrible brand strategy and they are supposed to be good at it.
If Apple was allowed to make stupid mistakes like making it very hard to develop Unreal Engine games for iOS, or being jerks in general, then there would be much more justification for building a 2nd market or switching to a 2nd market.
I'm not pitching for no regulation, but the unintended side-effects of force Apple to play well with others is that there is now _no need_ for a competitor who is more open...
Or even, how does another viable store in Nevada help me if I live in Illinois? I know I can "just move" anytime, nothing's stopping me, but it's expensive...
To me this is like asking someone dissatisfied with the grocery store that has a monopoly over their town to just move to another city.
Really, where can iPhone users go obtain Fortnite from now? What? No place? Not the same.
Energy distribution is different because it's a government granted monopoly.
Should anybody be able to post anything they want on HN or YouTube or Facebook etc.? They can't.
Does Epic allow anyone to sell content for Fortnite without giving Epic any money? They don't.
The walled garden isn't a surprise, it's a feature.
You already do. Mechanics do this all of the time with aftermarket firmware.
> How about medical devices or any of the gaming consoles
Jailbreaking is explicitly legal.
Many practices which would be perfectly legally normally, become illegal if your company is large enough.
The market for iPhone apps is much much larger than the market for fortnite skins.
If the market for specifically fortnite skins was 50 billion dollars a year, then maybe you would have a point, but it is not.
Apple should ask for compensation proportionate to the value they are providing Epic. Which they do, in the form of paid Apple developer accounts, and a 30% cut on services Epic is using.
For instance, if you choose to make your app free, Apple won't get that 30% cut on sales. This doesn't mean they are magically entitled to money as compensation - the transaction simply didn't happen. If they don't like that arrangement, maybe they should charge more for developer accounts?
Make it possible to unlock iOS ability to sideload apps, either through a unique code, a security certificate, or a simple toggle and allows businesses to lock down (but not remotely enable) this ability using their MDM.
Of course, put the usual disclaimer that enabling this feature could weaken the device security, and don't simply enable it because an app or a website told you so.
That said, of course developers built the market, but not every developer built the market. Apple developers built it. Other developers have chosen to sell inside of it.
Without Apple Developers creating the store itself those developers couldn't sell anything. Apple could 100% do that if they wanted. In fact, the first iPhone was as such.