They didn't block it, they just wanted a 30% cut. Yes it is abhorrent to rent seek 30% of every transaction when you literally contributed nothing whatsoever to that product.
I get why people have a negative reaction and it makes sense.
Then I look at retail where there are several wholeseller adding a %, stores adding a %, drop ship sellers adding a percent
There was a documentary that showed the price of a chicken sold in a store and how much the chicken farmer makes vs the retail price and I can’t say the situation is wildly out of tune with retail or the big SAP/ERP consulting
They want 30% of the Network Fees which are paid to Validators (Ethereum nodes that staked 32ETH to help secure the network). Coinbase never get any of that, it's not their commission etc.
It's more like Apple demanding a cut of your call charges.
The consumer owns one phone or the other, and the switching costs are ridiculously high (in no small part because of other properties of these anti-competitive store licensing models). The average consumer happily can shop at multiple grocery stores, even on the same day as part of the same trip... if isn't even uncommon. The segmentation of users into the ones that own an iPhone vs. the ones that own an Android device should be looked at as creating two separate markets, similar to how if you have a monopoly on groceries only in Wisconsin you somehow aren't considered a monopoly just because your national marketshare is small.
Yes, Android's share is much bigger, but the statement is too generalized to make a relative comparison. While Android has 70+% of global market share, it's important to understand how the users LTV of any consumer business varies based on geo dispersion, hardware price tier, user sophistication and sales distribution model. Apple delivers users that are quantifiably more valuable in every geo.
That said, Apple's monopolistic practices create a ripe oppty for Android to own web3's watershed moment
The equivalent situation would be if the world had two landlords which together owned essentially every single bit of commercial property on the planet (or at least most of the countries) and if you wanted to sell chicken, you'd have to agree to whatever terms those landlords set, which are mostly identical between them.
But it's ok because you have the option of building your own store on your own island and convincing enough people to relocate to your island to buy chicken direct.
If it actually mattered to enough people, they would sail over to that island. The fact that most don't is extremely telling about what people actually want, I think.
(F-Droid is right there. It's relatively trivial to install on an Android device. As is, last I checked, replacing the whole Android OS).
The law mandated phone number portability in 2003. Everything else is buyer beware. Why is the answer not just "Don't get in a contract with Apple hardware if you don't want to be stuck playing Apple's ballgame?"
That’s not what rent seeking is. Apple has a very strong distribution channel, in part because of how trustworthy it is, that costs money to run, so it’s fair they take a cut of sales.
I don't see an issue. If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
ETA: it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out... If apple is going to build a reputation for being hostile to use as a crypto transaction platform, then Android is just a quick trip to the nearest Best Buy away.
They didn't contribute that, the user already payed for it (and Apple pocketed ~40% of the MSRP). The hardware is paid for, same as the software it comes pre-installed with.
> If users have a concern, they can use another platform.
They can't. Apple locks the bootloader even after purchasing/unlocking the device. It would be nice if we could though!
> it does seem to be the kind of thing that the market will sort out...
No, I think the arbitrary limitation of what you can execute on hardware you purchased will be a bit more of a sticking point than that. At least when we're addressing the single largest corporation in modern American history, Europe seems to agree with me.
Another hardware platform, these days Apple functionally sells computing appliances, not general purpose computers. It's why I recommend Apple to all my relatives who don't want to think about the guts of the machine and I recommend windows or Linux to everyone I know who wants to write their own software.
That's great! Giving me bootloader access has nothing to do with how your grandma uses her iPhone though, at least if I'm understanding your grandma right.
It requires more than zero engineering effort on their part so they won't. It is also, technically, an attack vector... A sufficiently sophisticated phisher might be able to convince somebody to replace their bootloader, but we both know that's not why Apple does it.
They do it because it allows them to capture the revenue for use of their computing appliances and it saves them every headache of having to provide customer support for hardware they sell that isn't running an operating system they wrote.
Serving your use case isn't what they make computers for. Google does though. I recommend switching platforms.
Serving my use case is what computers are. If Apple doesn't make those devices, then why are their devices capable of doing everything I described? They already wrote the bootloader. They already wrote the sideloading code, app sandboxing model, filesystem isolation APIs and even the packaging standard needed to distribute iOS applications. What's the major engineering hurdle they're struggling with, relative to everything they've already done?
I don't follow either. If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience. Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves. You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care? I already know that. I own many of their devices and experience it first-hand.
> If this refrigerator got an update that started showing you advertisements, you'd want the manufacturer to have some form of accountability that they don't further degrade the experience.
Me personally? I might just let it happen (especially if it goes hand-in-glove with some other benefit, like lower cost). Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators.
> Having multiple choices benefits everyone and forces the OEM to not make bone-headed moves
That's the business model of the alternatives to Apple. Apple's business model is value delivered through vertical integration. For their end-users, they're building a better product because they own and control the hardware, OS, and software ecosystem.
It's Nintendo-Seal-of-Approval thinking, and it's not inherently wrong so long as there are alternatives (and there are many, just none that have a supported path to using Apple's hardware).
> You're arguing that Apple shouldn't do good things because... Apple doesn't care?
I don't think Apple sees opening the bootloader as a good thing. It increases the ways the machine can be in a broken state with the only benefit to people tech-savvy enough to just use other hardware. And, of course, from a pure-business standpoint, it might kick a leg out from under the money-made-through-vertical-integration stool, which is of concern to them.
> Or if it's too annoying I'll switch refrigerators.
You think that having to switch a working major appliance for another because of a post-purchase update by the manufacturer is an acceptable cost for consumers to have to take on? I assume this is because you think the free market forces always end up optimal in the end somehow, and that regulation will cause more harm than good?
Just the second part in this case. Specifically because the customers for Apple products are those who want Apple making these decisions for them.
People buy into Apple for a certain security that the company does its best to vet the store contents. Stepping on their ability to do that diminishes the product value for the intended consumer.
I specifically buy Apple phones for this reason. I have read the T&C and have agreed that I don't get access to specific things - I don't want to ever think about it. I don't want there to be an option to unlock the bootloader, or change the store. I buy an iPhone for a family member and I'm sure there is no way they get scammed like they used to on Android by installing "the new OS update from their computer but they need this downloader or their photos will get deleted - just go in settings and enable this setting".
I want this lock-in because THAT is what I want. THAT is what I bought and THAT is why I went Apple and not Android.
If someone asks me what phone to get I say iPhone most of the time because I know their needs and that they don't want to deal with headaches. If they need more stuff I'd recommend either G Pixel or Fairphone but they I tell them to do the research.
Other options, such as how the EU is going to force Apple under threat of government force to make changes.
Anti trust laws have existed for a century now. We can make new ones, or use those existing uncontroversial laws to apply to the newer tech monopolies.
If Apple doesn't like it's then they can stop selling their product in every country where this is the law. (So that includes the entire EU, and hopefully the USA soon, as there are laws in Congress being considered right now).
EU antitrust differs from American antitrust, IIUC, because American is couched in harm to consumers while Europe is couched in harm to merchants.
So I can see how the EU might see a way towards saying "Your ownership of the vertical stack makes you a market-maker and market-caller on a very lucrative app market; you bear some responsibility to making that market fair and competitive." This is the same kind of thinking that caused France to crack down on Amazon offering discounts on books that undercut local booksellers because they could collapse the booksellers' guild (even though Amazon's shipping integration means they actually can afford to charge so little).
But in the US, the first hurdle such a case has to cross[1] is "Why doesn't the user and app maker just go to Android if Apple's so bad?" Which, indeed, is the question I'm asking myself here; Coinbase could just jump ship and offer their app only on Android, and then, hey, the Android ecosystem is slightly better than their competition.
[1] ... unless the law changes, of course, as you've observed. I can imagine something coming out of the John Deere tractor "right to repair" angle, though I haven't been following this space.
I mean yes they are - there are so many manufacturers.
With the same argument you can say - open access to every device which will diminish a lot of the security by increasing the attack vector.
Why isn't my TV open or my Xbox or my PS? Why can't I edit the code of Windows is not such a stretch based on your arguments?
Also why should companies be forced to open stuff? They market it as a closed system - maybe respect the consumers who like closed systems. There are options for you - it's other vendors. So you have a choice. But even if you didn't there is no reason or expectation you should have a choice if the market doesn't want to cater.
One possible solution is for apple and other manufacturers to be forced to sell developer devices where the restrictions are minimal or non-existent. That I think will solve your quarrel.
This analogy doesn’t make sense to me. This isn’t a bank transfer, it’s a purchase of a digital artifact. Is Apple wrong to ask for 30% of IAPs in Candy Crush? Because this seems pretty much the same to me.
So what makes digital artifacts (especially those that don't have anything to do with Apple's platforms) different from physical products. Would Apple be wrong to ask for 30% of purchased made through the eBay or Amazon apps?
It seems like it's their product and their right to draw the line wherever they see fit. They risked investing a lot of time and money into a platform that apparently now counts as best user experience. There is no ethical challenge, software developer gets access to wealthy customers thanks to Apple's decades of work.
Then don't use Apple - who is forcing you to build for their OSes? Your customers are there? Well maybe they have made a choice to be there for some reason. Respect that or don't go after those customers.
I have made a choice to use apple because I know all purchases for digital products go through iAP so my card details are never passed to the developer in any way. It makes me sleep better at night. I don't want other options.
I don't want to be offered the choice with 28-27% discount because it will make me share my creds (we know most ppl will choose the cheeper option and I admit I will do so as well from time to time).
I don't need the additional cognitive overhead because some developers are unhappy they have signed up to terms they don't like.
Honestly everyone that complains about the 30% so far hasn't given me a good reason other than greed. It's not a better UX, it's not a more secure option, it's not in my best interest (except the argument it will be cheaper but we all know that if possible most if not all companies will just pocket the 28-27%), it's not respectful of my choice of OS (again my reason is that I WANT the iAP as the only option).
But devil's advocate - It's agains apple's Dev ToS and I don't get an itemised bill showing me a breakdown of how much Visa or MS charge me when making other payments.
I want to know the name of the company to see if they do the same when I make a purchase with a debit card.
I've seen exactly zero apps on Android in the last 5 years. I understand there's a lot of apps infested with ads out there, but why would you install those?
Agreed on breaking duopoly though. I'm pretty hopeful about Linux on mobile these days, there's some pretty big developments lately.
