[arielm]

Sounds like whoever wrote it doesn't know too much about the App Store as a consumer or developer.

The truth is that as right now, ~78% of apps in the App Store are free to download/play. The remaining ~22% that are paid stack around the $0.99 price point, which is the lowest possible price tier for a paid app.

I don't see how this "monopoly" is raising prices...

Opening the store in a way like the one being described would result in malware and low quality apps. It'd add clutter and an incredible amount of noise (aka. Competition) hurting developers and consumer.

It's a lose lose situation IMO.

If you need proof just look at Android. Lots of stores, low quality apps, and a very fragmented way for developers to monetize.

[tracker1]

Yes, because Apple Store is known for having such high quality apps[1] all around. There's definitely room for a mobile store than actually reviews every app, with a person running said app. Bans on spyware/adware, and only apps for purchase. An initial review could be as little as $50 to the developer, and update reviews paid out of the top of sales. Charging well below 30%.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=apple+store+iphone+fart+app

[arielm]

You understand you're describing the App Store, right?

Apple reviews every app, there's no malware/spyware, apps are sandboxed.

[arielm]

By "it" I meant the original article. I assume this misunderstanding is why this response was downvoted :|

[sangnoir]

There's no misunderstanding - you just went on a tangent. It's not a matter of knowing the App Store but of interpreting the law.

[arielm]

The law is there to protect consumers. How does this protect consumers?

If you enable lower quality apps and increased competition?

[sangnoir]

You are conflating terms: in this narrow case, the 'consumers' are app developers.