Very valid points. In my view they miss the mark however.
Blaming Apple for optimizing their platform model isn’t the problem, it became a problem. Imagine 2007 and the following years already with the EU act in full effect. AppStore would be dead on arrival.
In my view Apple’s AppStore went from feature some people have when they buy a smartphone to necessity. 2007 and even 2016 was a perfect time to opt for a live without smartphones.
Not so 2024.
So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.
Some often overlooked fact is, that Apple decides at will who is allowed to publish apps via AppStore and who is not.
This is an area where regulation is needed in my opinion. In other areas of life you simply cannot take down businesses at will, while Apple can.
> Imagine 2007 and the following years already with the EU act in full effect. AppStore would be dead on arrival.
No, it wouldn't have been, as the DMA only applies to 'gatekeepers' and if you're new, you're simply not a gatekeeper. You need at least 45 million monthly active users and 7,5 billion of revenue for three years.
> So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.
That's the whole point of the DMA: designate these parties as 'gatekeepers', providing essential services ('core platform services' in terms of the DMA). Once you are, you have certain obligations that should allow proper interoperability with other/smaller parties.
> You need at least 45 million monthly active users and 7,5 billion of revenue for three years
Minor nitpick that does not really changes the point but might provide context: these are the criteria to automatically be classified as gatekeeper. You can be a gatekeeper even if you do not meet them, but the EU needs to prove that you meet some other more detailed criteria.
Fun fact: Apple originally didn't want an app store and wanted to go with web apps. It was only when third party apps installed after jailbreaking got super popular, that Apple opened their own app store (and then made it a huge commercial success).
So it actually shows that a third party app store would thrive, even if there is no first party app store. Especially if there were no barriers for using such a third party app store, such as requiring a jailbreak.
> Imagine 2007 and the following years already with the EU act in full effect. AppStore would be dead on arrivaL.
Why do you think so? I think it would be different, but not dead. Giving their users a simple means to discover selected apps would still be win-win for both Apple and their customers, even if users had other means to obtain the apps.
Apple could also charge companies for having their apps in that store.
The problem is not just the app store, it's the lack of sideloading, the fact that as a developer, you HAVE to go through the app store to have an iOS app at all. The fact that Apple forcibly inserts itself between you and your users and acts as if they had a role in you earning this relationship.
While in real life, app stores themselves hardly earn apps any users. Most of the time, people install an app thanks to the app developer's own marketing efforts.
If you want a real-world example of an app store on a platform where there are alternative methods of app distribution, just look at macOS. Same idea, same rules, but there is sideloading as an alternative. It turns out neither users nor developers are having any of it.
Apple - and the rest of the large companies manage to order their payments so that their profits are offshored out of Europe. Which means they are not paying the corporate tax an EU resident company would. So EU is not getting their fair share.
Corporate tax doesn't go to the EU, it goes to the government of the country you're incorporated in. Countries like Ireland and the Netherlands have very low tax rates, and big tech companies benefit from that.
The EU fines are typically fairly small. Every time one is given, you can see someone on HN commenting it's spare change for the company. Those fines in practice are set to "pay this symbolic amount and fix things, or the next fine will be huge". I don't think anyone refused to implement the required fixes yet.
Certainly not. PMF was already established via the jailbreaking scene and Installer.app / Cydia. Millions of people went through the annoying processing of jailbreaking their phone to get apps.
And funny enough, Steam has some competition, namely GoG.
Speaking of game stores, how about an "alternate iOS app store" that only has hand curated pay once games? Might entice me to actually check mobile games again and even buy some.
Honestly I don't think most users care, at all. The complaints regarding the AppStore comes from a few tech companies and a small percentage of highly technical users. For everyone else it's fine. The EU mandating alternative stores or side-load won't significantly hurt Apples bottom line.
The most valid complaint, and this is something Apple needs to address world view, is the move towards in-app purchases and subscriptions. I believe that is due to a limitation in the AppStore, where Apple isn't allowing upgrade pricing, but allowing subscriptions to enable features. In-app purchases is destroying the AppStore. You could say: Well that would be fixed with an alternative store, but I have serious doubts about other app store operators not being tempted by the recurring revenue as well.
We have the world without it available for inspection. The Android ecosystem is a shambling mess compared to the quality that is availabe in the Apple Playstore. It does look heaps better on many dimensions.
I worked for a guy who made a fortune on an iOS app named "Ugly Meter".
Any difference in quality stems from the fact that Apple product users are more willing to pay for things. The free apps are equally bad in both stores.
Meanwhile Android allows for alternative stores like F-Droid, where you won't see the usual spam, as the apps are FOSS.
Google is a ponzi scheme propped up by trapping everyone in a War for finite Attention. They tell content creators/advertisers+marketers(corporations that pay)/politicians we can get you eyeballs, no matter how much content explodes, not matter how many people are competing for finite attention. Its basically Fraud. People will work it out in their own sweet time cause its the largest ponzi scheme of all time. (Google subprime attention crisis)
Apple benefits from the Attention War just like anyone who has more cash benefits, cause they can outspend anyone to capture Attention.
Bud, are you OK? You seem to be raging against everything. Capitalist companies exist to make money, and they make money by providing a service that users want. Sometimes they are bad for uses (alcohol, cigarretes, gambling) but nobody is forcing anyone to buy any of these things.
Just because a user likes to spend $1500 every year on latest iPhone because it makes him "feel cool" or "have self worth" isnt fraud. Apple is just catering to that person.
Blaming Apple for optimizing their platform model isn’t the problem, it became a problem. Imagine 2007 and the following years already with the EU act in full effect. AppStore would be dead on arrival.
In my view Apple’s AppStore went from feature some people have when they buy a smartphone to necessity. 2007 and even 2016 was a perfect time to opt for a live without smartphones.
Not so 2024.
So EU should change Apple’s and Google’s status from producer to provider of essential service like electricity for example.
Some often overlooked fact is, that Apple decides at will who is allowed to publish apps via AppStore and who is not.
This is an area where regulation is needed in my opinion. In other areas of life you simply cannot take down businesses at will, while Apple can.