People as in consumers? 99% of Apple consumers don’t care about this drama. They just want to click and install an app that’s safe, vetted, and no one will steal their credit card.
Same as I don’t care when digitally buying PlayStation games. I don’t care how much Sony charges developers to be on their marketplace, and I don’t want to use alternative stores with additional places where I have to put in my credit card or ask for refunds.
At the moment there's no point in caring. You don't have a choice, so why worry about it?
You have to remember that you, as someone who doesn't care about alternative stores and wouldn't switch, aren't the market for an alternative store. This is about other people and their freedom to choose. Arguing that the Apple iOS store works for you and therefore it should work for everyone else is not how free markets work.
There were more options in the past.
There was Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, BlackBerry, Nokia, Symbian, etc.
But when Apple came to market, they made such an excellent device, along with great developer and consumer experience, that developers agreed for 30% cut and most decided to ditch developing for other platforms, and consumers decided to ditch other now "shitty" phones where they couldn't download their favourite apps for.
Microsoft released great phones, but still had issues with software. They tried solving that with throwing money at developers, but developers still didn't want to develop for Windows Phone.
Developers played crucial part in the last 10 years to form the market where we are today.
And suddenly in 2022, after playing on the same terms for the last 10 years, an access to a marketplace with 1+ billion active users needs to be a free, basic human right that everyone cries for.
Why would a business transaction between you and a third party necessarily involve Apple being a payment option?
And you are a participant of this marketplace, because Apple spent billions on R&D and ended up being so good, that developers and consumers abandoned other platforms in droves.
Apple also smoked previous multibillion competitors (BlackBerry and Nokia) into shame, and they’re now part of history and MBA lectures on how a young and innovative player can kill your slow and boring business in a short time.
That’s why Apple is a market leader, with the best vertically integrated hardware and software devices, as well as a marketplace with billion people that both devs and consumers eagerly want to be part of.
The same marketplace developers agreed to join by paying up 30% of revenue 10+ years ago, while abandoning Windows Phone and others, and playing part in the shaping the market where it is today.
And suddenly developers cry wolf that it’s a basic human right to have access to a marketplace with 1 billion people for free, which they played active part in building.
It is not "giving access" to third parties, it is restricting them from accessing my phone unless they use Apple's preferred software distribution method.
The fact that they were in the right place at the right time with the right fashion and right look and feel to capture this market does not entitle them to perpetually profit from it. And I do say "happened to", because the iPhone had nothing other than chance going for it, and it was simply an idea whose time had come. Several others were developing smartphones at the same time, such as Nokia, LG, and Google's Android. Apple had better and faster execution, much better marketing, and luck.
It seems to me that Verizon and others are in a state of perpetually profiting their consolidation of companies that were in the "right place at the right time."
Would you agree with this? If so, do you think these companies are making outsized profits given lack of entitlement?
How would you craft policy that would cover not just the Apple but other companies like wireless carriers?
Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software?
Still, this seems like a separate problem to me - one is consolidation of different service providers into fewer ones; the other is extending your market position in one space (smartphones as hardware) into another (smartphone software). I doubt the exact same legislation could cover both, as acquiring/merging with competitors is different from creating your own market monopoly.
I don't know enough about how these things can exactly be regulated to propose actual legislation. I can only say that the current situation is bad and getting worse, and that allowing huge mergers, and allowing companies to control all activity on the hardware they sell, are both negatives that need to be legislated somehow.
> Separately, you mention Mentor Graphics above. Did you mean to refer to chip-level design tool software?
Yes, it was the first thing that came to my mind as Unix-based commercial software. Honestly, I have no idea if it actually runs on a Mac, but the exact software was immaterial to my point, so I didn't do too much research.
And while I could use F-droid on an Android, I would lose access to important software that clings to the Play Store, such as MS Office support and many banking apps - though, admittedly, that is a different issue to tackle and less Google's fault. And I'm not referring to the fact that they may simply be unlisted there, but the fact that they will refuse to run unless the phone is locked down using Play services.
Edit: Not to mention, the point is to improve the iPhone (and Android phones), not just to seek for alternatives. We can look at as system and decide as a society that we want to do better, we don't have to wait until someone provides that better thing and then "vote with our wallets".
That's 5 million people who do care then, considering 500 million iPhone users (which is a conservative number).
There are alternatives there.