Can somebody provide a direct answer to the question of why Apple’s App Store policies are bad? The argument that always comes up is that it is anti-competitive, but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with, how they want to run their businesses, and how they design their platforms?
Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at how it was dethroned, it wasn’t dethroned because of government regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What, then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is the expected outcome?
Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed.
Apple has the right to decide who they do business with, but app developers shouldn't be forced to do business with Apple at all. That's the asymmetric part of the relationship. App developers should be allowed to distribute/sell apps directly to people. Specifically, the expected outcome is either that the App Store becomes optional (sideloading is allowed) or that the App Store becomes a neutral utility where everything is allowed.
> Firefox and Chrome were able to dethrone IE because Windows doesn't have any gatekeeper preventing apps from being installed.
What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though?
This really is just a story of two businesses who can’t agree with the terms of engagement: Apple requires subscription-based services to use their payment system if the services want to be available in their platform, and Librem doesn’t want to share their profits. I’m struggling to see why Apple’s terms are unreasonable here. Any business that has an ecosystem of products isn’t and shouldn’t be legally required to support competing ecosystems/platforms—and Apple already does have Google’s and Facebook’s apps in the App Store, by the way.
> What’s preventing people from buying an Android, though?
Nothing is stopping them, but the question was why Apple's policies are bad. If people need to buy a completely new device because they can't use the apps they want, then I would say those policies are bad.
They're bad for Apple because they make apps on the app store less capable or not available at all. They're bad for developers because they make it far more expensive to do business on iOS devices. And they're bad for consumers because they make apps on iOS devices more expensive, more confusing (unable to sign up / upgrade / manage account) or just plain unavailable in this case.
There's the issue of market power: given that >50% of the market already has iPhones, they won't switch to Android just to get one app. It's not about competing ecosystems/platforms; this problem applies to tons of apps.
> but how does that not encroach on every business owner’s right to decide who they want to do business with
There is no such right. There is a right to free association, but incorporation is a privilege granted by the state. It comes with many benefits, such as being able to walk away from the business if it goes bankrupt. It also comes with some responsibilities, such as not violating civil rights and antitrust laws.
In practice, some businesses start exerting too much power and start harming other entities, so they have it reduced.
Also, one of the examples that always comes up in these discussions is how Internet Explorer came to be dominant in the 90s and 00s stifling innovation in the web, but if you look at how it was dethroned, it wasn’t dethroned because of government regulation; IE was dethroned because more innovative products entered the market, i.e. Firefox and Chrome, and this all happened under the framework of free market capitalism. What, then, is the argument for regulating Apple, and what exactly is the expected outcome?