What you said above is true. Apple took a risk, maybe more of a gamble along with a vision. Their gamble paid off. There was of course no guarantees as to how this would turn out. But it turned into a thriving ecosystem. And as time went on, apple managed the App Store how they believe it should be managed. After all it’s their App Store.
You must not be old enough to remember the world of of third-party software applications prior to the iPhone, because the software development market that everyone is arguing about here did not exist prior to the iPhone's App Store. It did not exist.
Conducting in-app transactions through Apple's In-App purchasing system is a service.
No - they are charging for a transportation service. But when Spotify or Epic Games conduct transactions with customers directly on their own website, Apple are not providing a service.
They're providing a service to you. Apple does not when the transaction does not happen through them.
It is not given away.
...they require to stay relevant and compete fairly in the market.
Apple does not "own" their consumers.
Those on-device app stores did part of what I’m talking about, but didn’t do nearly what Apple's App Store did to eliminate risk for users to try apps from unknown developers. Like so many other things, Apple’s innovation here is in taking existing elements and creating a new paradigm that didn’t exist before and becomes the gold standard for a new product category. The iPod, iTunes, iPhone, App Store, iPad, and Apple Watch are all examples of this. Each had predecessors that you can confirm were “first,” but all of those predecessors look like half-baked prototypes by comparison. So yes, there were earlier online app stores, but they fundamentally lacked what Apple built that created a trillion dollar app development industry that did not exist before.
What should apple do about the DOJ lawsuit in USA? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-apple-monopolizing-smartphone-markets
It’s incumbent on the DOJ to soar in this one. I’m sure apple with its 1B legal fees per year will fight it tooth and nail.
Everything you said above points to the dma giving away apples ip. “Curbing” something back means apple cant use its intellectual property the way they want.
Ownership of „property“ does not mean you can use it any and every way you want. There are legal restrictions and obligations on use and exploitation of property (and now a few more on Apple).
When one can use your property, eg App Store and tomorrow by regulation your neighbor can use your property too that is exactly what is happening. Your property is being given away for free.
There have been bad regulations crafted in this instance with regard to that. You are allowed to exploit your property legally.
You are twisting things around to make it seem less than it is.
www.neowin.net
This is a bad analogy because we aren't talking about forcing Apple to let whatever apps into the App Store.
A worthy price to pay for freedom.Microsoft points finger at the EU for not being able to lock down Windows
The CrowdStrike Windows outage that hit the world this week stems back to an EU-Microsoft deal from 2009 that meant Microsoft had to give antivirus vendors the same Windows API access it had.
It looks like we may be starting to see the unintended consequences of regulation rear its ugly head here.
They have to distort language to make their point.
Well, as the saying goes - there is good in bad, and there is bad in good.
"You see this law that'd open up your ability to sideload apps? Yeah, well, it's not actually doing that."
"Regulation" is a meaningless term when it's used in a clearly ideological way. In fact, this distincton between "free markets" and "regulated markets" is downright useless. The intuitive and natural lens is to view each law separately and not against the backdrop of "markets". Do we do it with laws againat murder, privacy, copyright, or animal cruelty? No, we don't.
That wouldn't be theft. It might be copyright infringement, but it also doesn't constitute you being forced to do anything because the EU government(s) would just be *refraining* from enforcing copyright restrictions. IOW, it's a lessening of restrictions.
It's still unclear what the IP in question is.
Is this concerning Apple charging developers a fee to distribute outside of the App Store? That's tangential to banning device lockdown.
"Go elsewhere" arguments are always bad.
Gee, that's pretty paternalist.
Nah. We can perceive the difference.
And totally irrelevant when addressing a complaint about what behavior should be legal.
This is a terrible argument and is only hsed when someone has no better argument. If someone believes that some practice should not be illegal, it doesn't satisfy their goal to just avoid the people who engage in that practice.
Right. Instead, we support these laws because we think they are good.
This is not a philosophy class. It’s a commentary on laws which imo are meant to stifle rather than encourage competition.
