EU Reportedly Planning to Charge Apple for Violating Digital Markets Act

[JimmyHook]

Some people are insinuating that the CTF should apply to everyone, regardless of where they get their app.

Let’s examine this fallacy.

What happens when an app stays in Apple’s App Store? It goes through a rigorous review process. Apple can enforce a host of privacy and security measures designed to keep users safe. Outside of the App Store, they cannot. If a user downloads a malicious app from a 3rd party store, it degrades their overall experience. They have no mechanism to get support, as Apple cannot provide support for a product they didn’t make. This leads to negative consumer sentiment that translates into lost revenue.

Inside the App Store, they can police the experience and do more to ensure all users have a great experience with their product. This translates into more revenue for Apple.

The CTF is fair. Apple spends billions on R&D, developing APIs for developers. If they want to venture out in a way that contributes nothing to Apple, then they should at least have to pay for their use of Apple’s engineering resources.

 

[AppliedMicro]

App developers don't develop apps for iOS/iPhone because they're altruistic. It's because iOS/iPhone are commercially successful and have a large base of customers that spend money on apps. It's like PC gaming. The reason most games are released on Windows and not on Mac is because the customer base for games on Windows dwarfs the Mac. That's where the money is.

Exactly. 👍
And thereby those app/game developers add tremendous value to Windows or iOS.

which is why I think some of the fallout from the DMA will potentially hurt small developers while benefiting the big ones, depending on how this all lays out.

It’s not the fallout from the DMA.
It‘s the fallout from Apple‘s choice of „compliance“ measures.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Small businesses pay 15%, and it appears all subs pay 15% after the first year.

30% gets touted as some big ripoff, but only apps generating >1mill/year pay that; and personally I'd love to sell >$1mill of my software product per year and gladly pay someone 30% if they could drive such revenue.

The 15% cut is why I think 3rd party app stores, other than one backed by a large organization, will find it hard to compete with the App Store since that 15% covers everything from payment processing to tax compliance, etc.


Fines, as with anything, are negotiable and Apple or any company can change their practices while they litigate and if they win revert back. Who nows what they will do but I bet they will push the envelope as much as they can to preserve profit margins.



It's not revenue but profit that counts. If Apple is forced to split off the App Store, it becomes a business decision to sell it outright, make it a wholly owned subsidiary or shutter it. I suspect a wholly owned sub would make sense, much like Claris, but then again since any profit or loss would simply get rolled up it could act in any way it wanted, pay Apple the same as any other store, and presumably be free of gatekeeper requirements. I suspect many would call foul in such a case.

I suspect an outright sale would be unlikely, as Apple would lose control of its customer base and tehre is likely to be concerns about privacy of the information, especially if say Meta bought it.


The US federal system ensures that states do not have the ultimate say in what the Federal government does, unlike the EU's system. It would be the Federal government's decision what, if any, action to take; and it need not be against tech. Look at the chicken tax fight, for instance.

I'm not saying the US would do it, but federal supremacy means it isn't up to the states, although they can exert political pressure the decision is not theirs. That is the key difference between the EU and the US political system; once a federal law is enacted all states must follow it and it trumps state law unless a federal court invalidates the law. Also, not everything need be a law, the President has some broad powers to issue issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and further existing laws.

I have no idea how the DMA will play out, but do not believe it will be the panacea some thing it is.

True, the question is what is a reasonable fee to use Apple's services.

mostly any fee the market think is fair and non discriminatory and

I agree, which is why I think Apple should adopt the Mac model in response to the DMA - allow sideloading, warn against unsigned apps, and charge for access to the APP Store and signing if a developer wants it. If they don't, they owe Apple zero.

True sideloading, however would open up a whole new set of problems for developers, IMHO.

Well it would essentially be the best and simplest thing for Apple to adopt and achieve real competition with their AppStore.

No more so than any company does while you are in their store or using their services.

Indeed, and they aren’t treated any differently in the EU.
Just how EDPB(European Data Protection Board) Reaffirms that personal data cannot be considered as a tradeable commodity, April 17 2024 . The right to data protection is enshrined inter alia in Article 8 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights and is a right that applies to all, regardless of payment or financial status. And essentially killed Metas intention to have only targeted advertising or a subscription to not have adds.

Apple's biggest problem is not compliance, IMHO, but the they built what is arguably the most lucrative app store in the world and some greedy big corporations want Apple to provide the customers on that store for free.

The issue is Apple made a very profitable store they now can’t give up as they risk losing most of the user base.

Nobody is asking for the AppStore to be opened up, but simply the iOS devices to be freely able to pick other services that aren’t provided or controlled by Apple

Do you think EPIC or Spotify would be happy if Apple said:

"OK, you can side load without signing and pay nothing, if you want to be on the App Store you'll pay 30% of all subscription revenue or sales from the store? Or pay some smaller percentage if you use a 3rd party payment system?"

They now have the option of forgoing paying Apple, setting up their own store and forgoing access to the App Store user base. I suspect they would not be happy.

I think they would be very happy with that as they could have their app in the store, and offer their app from their website or competitors store and offer better services if some functionality isn’t allowed in the AppStore simultaneously. As well as have different prices etc. Just how steam, GOG, and epic store have the same games listed by the same developers.

With only caviat of wanting to link outside the app to their own website or inform them of a better store. Paying 0% and the 99$ yearly developer membership fee.

In some ways, the DMA may turn out to be case of be careful what you wish for as it may come true.

Edit:Typos and a few clarifications

Well perhaps, the issue is tho it’s all about the ideology of protecting the market’s competitiveness and try to ensure a meritocratic competition instead of underhanded methods.

If Apple wants to keep their market they need to stay competitive and make developers willing to pay the premium. Just how most games are on steam despite it being more expensive than the competition, but they simply offer better services for the price

Entrenched? It's mot like we arent up to PS5 and XBox xx... theyve been around for decades and are exactly the same monopolistic environments controlled by the hardware guys.

That just doesnt suit you (or the EU) though.

Yes…. Entrenched as when you have dominant market position. And Xbox/Playstation doesn’t have enough users to relevant for EU. And they allow you to buy games in competing storefronts as of now.

Dominance has been defined under Community law as a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking, which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on a relevant market, by affording it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of consumers

Article 82 applies to undertakings which hold a dominant position on one or more relevant markets. Such a position may be held by one undertaking (single dominance) or by
two or more undertakings (collective dominance)

The emphasis of the Commission's enforcement activity in relation to exclusionary conduct is on safeguarding the competitive process in the internal market and ensuring that undertakings which hold a dominant position do not exclude their competitors by other means than competing on the merits of the products or services they provide.

In doing so the Commission is mindful that what really matters is protecting an effective competitive process and not simply protecting competitors. This may well mean that competitors who deliver less to consumers in terms of price, choice, quality and innovation will leave the market.

People here seem to forget NOONE is forcing devs to make apps for iOS devices.
They are perfectly able to make them for Android if they want. Or MacOS or Windows or Linux...

But there is a reason Apple is seen as a good option: Apple users spend more.

Why is that? Might be the demographic (higher device prices might mean more disposable income) or perhaps the trust that Apple created with privacy and vetting apps means users are happy to buy there.

And nobody is forcing Apple to sell goods and services in EU. They are perfectly capable of selling it somewhere else.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Lololol!

So, “that’s what they are doing.” Then, “No”???

So they aren’t telling companies what is legal and what isn’t ahead of time… that was my whole point. Government-sponsored gaslighting. Great system… lol.

Yes, that’s what they‘re doing.
Engaging in constructive dialogue (as far as they can with someone as obstinate as Apple).
And that’s what they will be doing during the course of a market investigation.

Apple will get told what to change ahead of time.

Though they‘d probably try to paint it as having been fined „out of the blue“ to appeal to people like you - who seem not to have read the DMA or are uninformed about the commission‘s actions.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Some people are insinuating that the CTF should apply to everyone, regardless of where they get their app.

Let’s examine this fallacy.

What happens when an app stays in Apple’s App Store? It goes through a rigorous review process. Apple can enforce a host of privacy and security measures designed to keep users safe. Outside of the App Store, they cannot. If a user downloads a malicious app from a 3rd party store, it degrades their overall experience. They have no mechanism to get support, as Apple cannot provide support for a product they didn’t make. This leads to negative consumer sentiment that translates into lost revenue.

Good point so what is payed for then that isn’t already included?

Inside the App Store, they can police the experience and do more to ensure all users have a great experience with their product. This translates into more revenue for Apple.

The CTF is fair. Apple spends billions on R&D, developing APIs for developers. If they want to venture out in a way that contributes nothing to Apple, then they should at least have to pay for their use of Apple’s engineering resources.

According to what metric? They already pay the developer membership fee of 99$ a year, and reading their terms and information it seems to contain everything.

So what is this CTF paying for? Sound alike double dipping as you pay the same fee if you list apps outside and inside the AppStore.

Are the APIs not already payed for in the iPhone devices?

 

[AppliedMicro]

What happens when an app stays in Apple’s App Store? It goes through a rigorous review process. Apple can enforce a host of privacy and security measures designed to keep users safe. Outside of the App Store, they cannot

👉 Outside of the App Store, it still goes through the same review process (as per rules Apple have chosen themselves).

No need to read further on your claim your or expand on my reply.

The CTF is fair. Apple spends billions on R&D, developing APIs for developers. If they want to venture out in a way that contributes nothing to Apple, then they should at least have to pay for their use of Apple’s engineering resources.

So should developers publishing on Apple’s App Store.

They’re using Apple’s resources just as much - if not more, as you claim.

Your point is an argument that publishing on Apple’s App Store should be more expensive for cheap/free-to-download apps - but that’s precisely what they want to make impossible: Third-party stores to undercut them on the business model of free-to-download apps.

 

[Abazigal]

It’s not the fallout from the DMA.
It‘s the fallout from Apple‘s choice of „compliance“ measures.

Yeah, because the EU basically handed Apple a "take it or leave it" scenario with the DMA.

I know what you all basically want Apple to do - open up sideloading and the option to install third party app stores like what Android has always offered since day 1. On paper, it sounds like a very easy thing for Apple to do and get the EU off their backs. That said, I do not feel it is in the best interests of consumers that iOS becomes more like Android (because what then is the point of having two mobile OSes that are functionally the same thing?), and so I am really in favour of the use of the CTF incentivising developers to stay in the App Store (especially makers of free apps), which in turn makes it easer and more convenient for users to locate and download their apps without the need for sideloading.

I also acknowledge this is counter to what the DMA is intended to achieve, and I have categorically stated that I simply do not feel that the DMA is a good piece of legislation, and I stand by it.

Personally, I would rather Apple just charge apps sold outside of the App Store 27% (which allow makers of free apps to venture outside of the App Store should they so desire), and if developers end up being burdened with periodic audits, then so be it.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

That may be the underlying theory, however, what they are practicing now is naked protectionism. They’ve openly admitted they should have done more to prop Nokia up. They are upset that the EU isn’t the center of innovation. I get it, politicians want power. But trying to mask it and make these unelected folks out to be heroes is pathetic.

Not at all, it’s just simply a different philosophy from what’s practiced in the USA. And it gives vastly different environment. EU already are in the center of innovation in different fields, but it hasn’t existed for that long as it work currently (2009).
the freedom of individuals to compete in markets) and laissez-faire (the freedom of markets from government intervention) are separated. And Nokia is still in business fyi.

Unless EU does take active measures to foster healthy competition, firms with dominant market power (such as Apple, Microsoft, ASML) will emerge, which will not only subvert the advantages offered by the market economy, but also possibly undermine the government for their own interestas well as stifling innovation as just the bair minimum is done.
Strong economic power= political power.

Democracy is the core of a free society. The EU isn’t democratic.

EU is a democratic quasi federal union. And there’s no protectionism being enacted. The rules are equal to everyone. EU doesn’t have the power to prop up any company as its illegal for both EU and individual member states unless a new treaty is ratified, and that’s unlikely.

Ordoliberalism and social market economy. Have been practiced since day one of EU.

Germany doesn’t want French companies in their market being propped up by the French government.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Nothing is stopping software developers from selling their product if they don’t like the terms of Apple’s store. They just (in my opinion) shouldn’t get to sell them to Apple’s customers without playing by Apple’s rules. If you want access to a mall’s customers, you abide by the mall’s rules.

Instead, Apple built a mall and the EU is saying “you have to let Spotify in your mall, use your resources, and sell to your mall’s customers, without paying rent” even though there is an open air market (Android) across the street, that actually has more customers, where anyone can sell anything in any way they want.

Apple does not own their customers, nor should they. The implications of your post are concerning.

I own Apple products. Apple does not own me or my wallet.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

Why should any company get access to Apple's App Store and consumer base for free? These companies like Epic Games and Spotify have done nothing to add value to the ecosystem and are using the EU to parasite off Apple.

I would switch to Android if Spotify left. I imagine people would leave if Instagram or Whatsapp left. They add THAT much value to the Apple ecosystem. If you cannot see that, it's because you're choosing to cover your eyes and ears.

 

[Zest28]

As I have said for ages, Tim Cook should have simply put Android on the iPhone in the EU. If the EU doesn't want an iPhone, then you don't get an iPhone.

 

[Zest28]

I would switch to Android if Spotify left. I imagine people would leave if Instagram or Whatsapp left. They add THAT much value to the Apple ecosystem. If you cannot see that, it's because you're choosing to cover your eyes and ears.

You realize Instagram and Whatsapp pay absolutely nothing to Apple right? They get the use the platform 100% free. So FaceBook is never leaving.

And Spotify can be accessed in Safari in iOS just like on Mac OS, so Spotify will always be there, even if they pull their app.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You realize Instagram and Whatsapp pay absolutely nothing to Apple right? They get the use the platform 100% free. So FaceBook is never leaving.

Doesn't matter. I was responding to the claim that 3rd parties, one of which is Spotify, don't add value to the platform. Fact of the matter is that they add immense value. Maybe not to you or I, but to the 2 billion regular instagram users. Or the 600M Spotify users.

 

[Zest28]

Doesn't matter. I was responding to the claim that 3rd parties, one of which is Spotify, don't add value to the platform. Fact of the matter is that they add immense value. Maybe not to you or I, but to the 2 billion regular instagram users. Or the 600M Spotify users.

You realize that all these "apps" are just websites mostly right? If they disappear, nothing much of value is indeed lost, because you can always use the browser and use the "app" from there.

This includes Spotify, which you can also use in the browser.

 

[britboyj]

This ultimately comes down to a difference in how laws are written.

The US has extremely proscribed and precise language in law. If it's not proscribed, it is generally understood by most courts that that was not as the law was intended (this is more applicable to newer laws, less the Constitution, but I digress).

The EU has very vague and broad terms in its legislative language. It is meant to be adhered to in spirit. If the law says "You must do X" and doesn't say "No, you have to do X, and also Y to be in compliance" then a US company will not do Y, because there's nothing legally requiring them to do so.

That a EU court can them come in and say "No, but we meant Y as well" is asinine and frankly backwards. I can agree with the spirit of the EU's goals here, but if they want compliance a certain way, then they should say so and stop the moving goalposts approach.

That the EU continues to assert it has claim on revenues outside the EU is also laughable and punitive. The colonial days are over, you don't own what happens in other countries anymore. By all means, fine off of EU revenues though.

At some point, a major tech company or platform is just going to say "Screw it, not worth it," and leave the EU.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Yeah, because the EU basically handed Apple a "take it or leave it" scenario with the DMA.

Well it’s a law, they where not unaware it.

I know what you all basically want Apple to do - open up sideloading and the option to install third party app stores like what Android has always offered since day 1. On paper, it sounds like a very easy thing for Apple to do and get the EU off their backs.

Nah, more like how it’s open like Mac.

That said, I do not feel it is in the best interests of consumers that iOS becomes more like Android (because what then is the point of having two mobile OSes that are functionally the same thing?)

Really? You seriously think the openness of the store is the only major difference? Not the unique faceID, Apple SoC? The interface? Unique apps? Etc

, and so I am really in favour of the use of the CTF incentivising developers to stay in the App Store (especially makers of free apps), which in turn makes it easer and more convenient for users to locate and download their apps without the need for sideloading.

That’s a shame, I would rather developers stayed by their own free will because Apple have the best services, and not because apple pressure them to do so.

I also acknowledge this is counter to what the DMA is intended to achieve, and I have categorically stated that I simply do not feel that the DMA is a good piece of legislation, and I stand by it.

That’s far as it goes counter to your ideological values.

Personally, I would rather Apple just charge apps sold outside of the App Store 27% (which allow makers of free apps to venture outside of the App Store should they so desire), and if developers end up being burdened with periodic audits, then so be it.

I rather have developers pay for what they actually use. They should be able to sell the app without using any of the APIs Apple takes extra payment for. And I think the APIs on devices should already be payed by the user when they purchases the phone.

Just how I don’t think Qualcomm should have double/ triple dipped in the fees they asked Apple to pay.

 

[Zest28]

This ultimately comes down to a difference in how laws are written.

The US has extremely proscribed and precise language in law. If it's not proscribed, it is generally understood by most courts that that was not as the law was intended (this is more applicable to newer laws, less the Constitution, but I digress).

The EU has very vague and broad terms in its legislative language. It is meant to be adhered to in spirit. If the law says "You must do X" and doesn't say "No, you have to do X, and also Y to be in compliance" then a US company will not do Y, because there's nothing legally requiring them to do so.

That a EU court can them come in and say "No, but we meant Y as well" is asinine and frankly backwards. I can agree with the spirit of the EU's goals here, but if they want compliance a certain way, then they should say so and stop the moving goalposts approach.

That the EU continues to assert it has claim on revenues outside the EU is also laughable and punitive. The colonial days are over, you don't own what happens in other countries anymore. By all means, fine off of EU revenues though.

At some point, a major tech company or platform is just going to say "Screw it, not worth it," and leave the EU.

It's a bit of a mickey mouse show there in the EU.

For example, the EU is giving state funding to push for green energy such as solar panels, but at the same time they are trying to punish China by making accusations that China is giving state funding. How does that make any sense?

They are not only incapable of writing laws, they also seem to bend them to whatever they see fit.

 

[surferfb]

Apple does not own their customers, nor should they. The implications of your post are concerning.

I own Apple products. Apple does not own me or my wallet.

I’m not saying they own you. I’m saying if you’re at the mall they designed, built, and instituted rules to make a nice environment for all customers they have a right to keep rules that they want for the commerce that happens on their platform. You have other options.

If you don’t like the rules of the small STOP SHOPPING THERE. There is a perfectly acceptable platform that lets you install whatever you want. Instead you’re making my phone worse and less secure so Spotify can make more money.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

This ultimately comes down to a difference in how laws are written.

The US has extremely proscribed and precise language in law. If it's not proscribed, it is generally understood by most courts that that was not as the law was intended (this is more applicable to newer laws, less the Constitution, but I digress).

The EU has very vague and broad terms in its legislative language. It is meant to be adhered to in spirit. If the law says "You must do X" and doesn't say "No, you have to do X, and also Y to be in compliance" then a US company will not do Y, because there's nothing legally requiring them to do so.

Eu law is written in all the 27 official languages. And are equally valid. And American law I guess tells you what you must do, EU law also tells you what the result must be. And this is something you can test.

And our laws are codified, and don’t need to worry about precedents in other judicial rulings.

That a EU court can them come in and say "No, but we meant Y as well" is asinine and frankly backwards. I can agree with the spirit of the EU's goals here, but if they want compliance a certain way, then they should say so and stop the moving goalposts approach.

The court isn’t the one that makes laws, that’s up to the commission as they are separate and independent branches.

And EU primary law is broad and vague. Secondary law like the DMA isn’t. And you have 27 other language versions of the law if you want a clear definitions, or go to other sites laws and Supreme Court rulings to get the definition.

That the EU continues to assert it has claim on revenues outside the EU is also laughable and punitive. The colonial days are over, you don't own what happens in other countries anymore. By all means, fine off of EU revenues though.

Are fines just the cost of doing business for you? And would you rather the fine was capped to global sales or uncapped?

At some point, a major tech company or platform is just going to say "Screw it, not worth it," and leave the EU.

Sigh
The legal interpretation techniques in the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and U.S. courts differ in several ways, particularly when considering textual, systematic, and teleological aspects, as well as the use of comparative law methods.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the U.S. legal system handle legal technicalities and the vagueness of language in regulations differently, reflecting their distinct legal traditions and approaches to jurisprudence.

CJEU’s Approach:

• The CJEU often deals with legal technicalities by focusing on the purpose and objectives of EU law.
• It seeks to interpret regulations in a way that promotes integration and effectiveness within the EU, even if the language is vague.
• The CJEU’s interpretative methods include considering the context and intent behind a regulation, as well as the consequences of different interpretations.

Textual Interpretation:

• CJEU: Tends to use textual interpretation as a starting point but does not strictly confine itself to the literal meaning of the text. The CJEU often looks beyond the text to the objectives of the EU treaties
• U.S. Courts: Generally give primacy to the text of the law, adhering more closely to the literal and plain meaning of the words used in statutes and the Constitution.

Systematic Interpretation:

• CJEU: Systematic interpretation involves considering EU law as a whole, ensuring that new interpretations are consistent with existing legal framework and principles.
• U.S. Courts: Also consider the systematic aspect, ensuring that interpretations fit within the broader legal system, but they may be more focused on precedent and the consistency of judicial decisions.

Teleological Interpretation:

• CJEU: Strongly emphasizes the purpose and objectives behind laws, particularly the overarching goals of the EU, such as integration and fundamental rights.
• U.S. Courts: While purpose can inform interpretation, U.S. courts are less likely to use teleological reasoning as a primary method, especially if the text is clear.

Comparative Law Method:

• CJEU: Regularly employs comparative law methods, looking at the laws and practices of member states to inform its interpretation of EU law
• U.S. Courts: Comparative law is less commonly used and can be controversial, especially when interpreting the Constitution

 

[Sophisticatednut]

It's a bit of a mickey mouse show there in the EU.

For example, the EU is giving state funding to push for green energy such as solar panels, but at the same time they are trying punish China by making accusations that China is giving state funding.

Notice it was state funding to 100% of solar panel companies. You can’t provide state funding to 1 special solar panel manufacturer.

State funding can’t discriminate between companies unless it’s related to defense.

 

[dumastudetto]

Didn't I call this? Didn't I say this was going to happen? This was never about consumer rights, or protection. It's corruption. Pockets are being lined. The game is rigged. And until Cook decides to pull an Elon or a Jobs and tells them to go stuff themselves, it's not going to stop. They will keep finding new ways to come after them. One annoying and pointless thing after another.

Apple participates in the same rigged game via their own army of corporate lobbyists. I think Apple probably needs to up their lobbying game in the EU substantially, because harmful laws and regulations like these should have been buried long before compliance ever became a worry.

 

[ProbablyDylan]

You realize that all these "apps" are just websites mostly right? If they disappear, nothing much of value is indeed lost, because you can always use the browser and use the "app" from there.

Tell that to my offline library 🤷🏻‍♂️ PWAs can have offline functionality but Apple has those semi-gimped too...

If you don’t like the rules of the small STOP SHOPPING THERE. There is a perfectly acceptable platform that lets you install whatever you want. Instead you’re making my phone worse and less secure so Spotify can make more money.

I'm not moving just because I don't like the shopping mall in my town. I'm not switching platforms just because I disagree with Apple's policies.

If getting apps elsewhere makes your phone bad, I imagine the Mac is downright awful to use.

 

[mike2q]

Get out, Apple. It will never end if you don't. These morons hate success.

You always have the most laughable takes on this subject. Europe is Apple's 2nd biggest market making up 25% of its total revenue. If they abandoned that massive revenue stream their stock would tank right out of the gate. Public perception of the company would suffer worldwide causing even more (possibly irreversible) damage to the brand. Other governments would take note to Apples giving the middle finger to local laws and policies and likely take action of their own.
Apple would never do anything that dumb though. Look at the hoops they'll jump through to keep the Chinese government happy to keep selling there and that market is a good bit smaller than Europe. All they're doing is testing the government's resolve which is a miscalculation on their part considering they'll now be seen as untrustworthy and antagonistic by those governments.

Time will tell but my take is this is a big mistake that could eventually cost Tim his job.

 

[wbeasley]

That‘s ludicrous. Without the ecosystem of third-party apps, Apple would be nothing. The thing is, of course: One individual developer adds negligible value to the ecosystem. But all third-party developers together, the „sum of the parts“ so to speak, adds tremendous value to the ecosystem. And Apple are masters at exploiting that value - and playing off against each others the developers.


There’s just one monopolist store for each OS/platform. Customers commit to a platform by their purchase and use of a device. And their terms and fees are very similar. It’s not as if Google Play competed with the iOS App Store.

That's incorrect.

There are lots of Android stores and you can load APK files yourself. I've done it. It's not hard at all.
Which is part of the issue really. Anyone from an email attachment or link can install one.
Plenty on non-tech people load stuff from "a link a friend sent" on desktop and phones and caused themselves grief.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

As I have said for ages, Tim Cook should have simply put Android on the iPhone in the EU. If the EU doesn't want an iPhone, then you don't get an iPhone.

Probably the nuttiest comment i've ever seen on here.