[7tsfmCAusrQ]

As an app developer myself, with apps on both the Google Play Store and the App Store with over 250K monthly active users, I have become so frustrated with Apple's arbitrary and capricious enforcement of its App Store regulations, its bullying and coercion of developers, its extortionate fees, and its monopolistic anti-competitive practices, that I have stopped updating my apps on the App Store. I wonder how many other developers are in a similar position. As a consumer, I now know that if I want the latest, up to date apps, I'm better off turning to the Play Store or one of the many other app stores that can be used on Android devices.

I've also given up on the MacBook line, tired of the touch bar, the slate-like keyboards, and (now) the transition to ARM. My next laptop will be a Thinkpad or Dell. Most of my development these days is done under Windows using WSL2, and my primary focus is on Android.

It used to be that my apps made more money on Apple devices, but now I actually make more on Android. The Google Play review process is a breeze compared to Apple's laborious and stifling rules (although it is not perfect either by any means), and at some point, it's just not worth the hassle.

It's sad, I was an enthusiastic endorser of Apple products just 7 years ago, but can no longer recommend them. This is the first year I won't be buying a new iPhone, iPad, or Apple Watch, too - I'm looking to switch to the Pixel or Samsung Galaxy line and Wear OS.

I'd like to see regulation that forces Apple and Google to allow any and all app stores on their devices, and the process of installing apps through those stores must be, by law, equally easy and straightforward as through their own stores (i.e., no security warnings or other jank). The law should make illegal restricting developers to any specific payment processor(s), too.

[userbinator]

I'd like to see regulation that forces Apple and Google to allow any and all app stores on their devices, and the process of installing apps through those stores must be, by law, equally easy and straightforward as through their own stores (i.e., no security warnings or other jank).

I'm pretty sure that will have massive opposition, because they are deathly scared of opening their devices back to the general-purpose computers they actually are. However, I remain hopeful that people may finally wake up to the "security" excuse and stop sacrificing their freedom.

[klyrs]

> I'm pretty sure that will have massive opposition, because they are deathly scared of opening their devices back to the general-purpose computers they actually are.

Who's the opposition coming from? Apple? They can fart around and waste time and money on appeals, but if they get hit with an antitrust ruling there isn't much they'll be able to do about it.

[scarface74]

So tell me again when an “antitrust” ruling has ever been applied to a company with less than 50%?

[dragonwriter]

> So tell me again when an “antitrust” ruling has ever been applied to a company with less than 50%?

50% of what is the issue, though. Some arbitrary descriptive market the target company preferred to be used for the antitrust analysis, or the actual market in which substitution, and thus actual competition, occurs as found by the court hearing the case?

Because defining the relevant market is not infrequently a contentious point in antitrust.

[scarface74]

So can I define Epic having a monopoly on being able to buy things in Fortnite? What if I want to sell my cool “Scarface dance” next to the “Carlton dance” within Fortnite without paying the “Epic Tax”?

[apatters]

I upvoted your comments based on a good faith belief that you're open to learning more about how antitrust law works. It has little to do with market share, and everything to do with a concept called "market power."

Market power is the ability to coerce people into paying more for something via a mechanism other than actually offering a better product or service. A textbook example which most people would agree is bad is a trust/cartel situation where a few players artificially limit supply, and then can raise the price on consumers because there are no competitors. But if a firm is able to drive up prices with impunity for any reason, it's likely they possess market power.

When a firm possesses excess market power it's good for that firm, but bad for the market, consumers, and society. By definition a firm with a lot of market power has very little competition, so even as their margins grow, product quality will decline and price will increase. (Sound like Apple in 2020?) And new firms will find it difficult to compete in that market even as the firm with market power grows very rich, which exacerbates the problem of wealth inequality. (Sound like America in 2020?)

A society which doesn't place some sort of checks on a firm's ability to acquire market power ends up being a place where the way to get ahead is to find an unfair advantage, abuse it, and screw everyone else. (Again, sound familiar?)

At this point it's almost certain that Google is violating antitrust regulation by abusing its market power (proven in the EU, and the US looks poised to start filing lawsuits this year). Apple, Amazon and a few others are up for debate and it's also fair to say that antitrust regulations should evolve to address the tech industry more effectively. The antitrust problem isn't limited to tech however, anti-competitive behaviors of questionable legality have proliferated all over the US since the 80s due to a lax regulatory environment.

If you want to learn more about this topic, Matt Stoller's newsletter "BIG" on Substack is a phenomenal place to start.

[dragonwriter]

> So can I define Epic having a monopoly on being able to buy things in Fortnite?

If price increases for Fortnite IAP don't, empirically, drive people to stop buying them in favor of alternatives of some kind, yes. Or, rather, you can't define the market that way, but if there is no substitution effect a US court considering an anti-trust claim is likely to see that as the relevant market, not some broader, say, battle royale game IAP market in which price-driven substitution does not occur.

[ksm1717]

I guess that’s the value of evaluating on a case by case basis. Depends on what you define as a market worth pursuing antitrust issues for. I would also argue this informally happens when people start to talk about antitrust as it’s usually applied to markets that are general enough that more or less everyone participates in (or feels consequences from) them.

[Sargos]

You might be able to do just that after this Apple/Epic ruling. That's kind of why NFTs/digital ownership is so exciting. You might be able to buy or sell your dances on any store you want to and use them in the game.

[tomnipotent]

A lot, actually. It's called a "per se" ruling.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-case-filings-alpha

Most antitrust cases are for things like price fixing, bid rigging, and mergers.

[scarface74]

So “a lot” was a very specific example....

[tomnipotent]

The below took me about a minute to find through Google.

U.S. v Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S 150 (1940); United States v. Sealy, Inc., 388 U.S. 350 (1967); United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972); Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 363 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004), Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. US 356 US (1940); Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Circ. 2012); or In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation 385 F.3d 350 (3rd Cir. 2004), National Soc. of Professional Engineers v. U.S. 435 U.S. (1878); In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 618 F 3d 300 (2010); or In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, 739 F.3d 262 (2014).

[glerk]

Is that how the law works?Apple is not a monopoly because you can choose Android. This is an awesome loophole. Visa is not a monopoly because there is also MasterCard. At&t is not a monopoly because you can choose Comcast.

[scarface74]

It’s a “loophole” that it isn’t a monopoly because you have a choice? That’s kind of a the definition of a monopoly. It’s even in the first two syllables of the word....

I love my choice of AT&T over Comcast. $70 all fees included gigabit up and down.

[klyrs]

Your argument is based on a lay-definition and not a legal definition. It's good to know your etymology, but that doesn't get far in court. From the wikipedia article on us antitrust law:

> When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for the offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing, price discrimination, refusing to supply an essential facility, product tying and predatory pricing.

Apple is exercising exclusive control over the market of apps made for the phones they make, so it looks to me like they satisfy the first requirement. The second requirement is murkier, but several of the examples listed sound quite similar to how apple operates its store. IANAL but the more I read about their behavior, the more I become convinced of their monopoly status. Having a monopoly is not a crime. Abusing monopoly power is.

[asddubs]

i think apple has more than 50% of the US market now actually

[shagie]

46% https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

[thenewwazoo]

My “freedom” is mine to trade, thanks. It’s not an excuse, it’s an informed choice.

[ifmpx]

But others' freedoms aren't. Apple shouldn't be allowed to have this much control.

[xwdv]

Imagine having freedom and then making the wrong choices with it.

[inlined]

I think it’ll be interesting if Apple loses control of the App Store but still combats anti-practices through evolution of the APIs. It could become a consumer win.

[amelius]

I hope someone will officially propose a law that requires all hardware to be re-programmable by its owner (i.e. hardware should come with a fully documented and accessible interface); one good reason for this is the reduction of e-waste.

[jschenk]

That's literally what Epic is asking for.

[bloblaw]

I'm a libertarian. I believe in personal choice and freedom. But you have tons of freedom here.

Instead of using an OS (iOS in this case) with 25% market share that forces you to go through their AppStore, you can choose to use Android (which has 75% market share) and side load apps to your hearts content.

reference: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

[donmcronald]

You don't get to choose if you're a developer. For mobile apps a prerequisite for success is to have an app for both Android (via the Play Store) and iOS. With iOS you're forced to deal with Apple. With Android you're forced to deal with Google.

Yeah, you can opt to target only one of them, but you're (usually) going to get out competed by a company that targets both.

[scarface74]

There are plenty of indy iOS app developers who won’t go near Android and are doing quite well. I’m sure there are some Android only indy developers making a good living. I just don’t follow that market.

There are plenty of markets and Technologies I won’t touch with a ten foot pole.

[sebmellen]

Libertarianism is d̵e̵a̵d̵ * slowly dying, because it fails to recognize that corporations can exert a similar amount of oppressive force as governments. Your platform of choice is now your country, and the software that platform runs is your government.

[mindslight]

I wouldn't say libertarianism is "dead" but rather is quick to fall prey to logical contradictions justifying totalitarianism, similar to the two prime time political teams.

You're right that there is little difference between a corporation that one is de facto forced to interact with, and a bona fide government. For example, one can easily reframe USG as a corporation that you form a contract with by owning land, renting, or being on a public way. This does not mean that our current society is a libertarian paradise.

Turing completeness shows us the ouroboros of expressivity with programming languages. It's unfortunate people let their guard down in other areas.

[cgriswald]

Libertarian thought is complex, non-static, and (importantly), non-monolithic. This is especially true for the relationship between people, government, and corporations. The generalizing statements in this thread reject vast swaths of ideas for no reason at all; even ideas that generally agree with the ideas in the thread. My guess is most people hold in their minds a caricature of libertarianism informed either by "that one libertarian guy from college" or social media postings. That's somewhat deserved, but also a shame.

[commoner]

Many people associate the word "libertarian" with right-libertarianism, which is the predominant form of libertarianism in the United States. Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism is right-libertarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_S...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_and_libertarianism

On the other hand, left-libertarians oppose capitalism while supporting personal property rights. Left-libertarians and right-libertarians find common ground in rejecting authoritarian governments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

Libertarianism comprises a diverse collection of views that aim to advance individual freedom, and anyone who is not an authoritarian is likely to agree with some libertarian principles.

[scarface74]

Can a corporation reach into my bank account and take my money via civil forfeiture without a trial? Can a corporation in prison me? Can a corporation break into my house without identifying themselves and shoot me? Can a corporation stop me while driving down the street for “fitting the description”?

[jonas21]

I'm an independent app developer too, and I share your frustrations. Sometimes I wish I had the luxury of walking away from the App Store -- but with ~80% of my revenue coming from iOS, I can't do that.

Similarly, I can't give up on owning a Mac because you need one to develop for iOS.

On one hand, it's super annoying whenever Apple rejects an update for some arbitrary reason. But on the other hand, making a living by writing and selling my own apps has been a dream of mine pretty much forever -- and something that I didn't think would be possible before the app stores came along.

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

I feel your pain. I would encourage you to grow and develop your audience on Android. There is a big market there to be tapped, which with some effort could equal or exceed your revenue from Apple. It's much easier to write cross-platform apps now than it was five years ago, thanks to frameworks like Flutter.

Of course, Apple would like to have us all believe that app developers couldn't make a living by writing and selling apps before the Invention of the App Store, and that they have done us all a great favor, one that warrants us paying them 30% of our income.

However, the reality is, this has always been possible. As early as the beginning of the 80s, indy developers made millions writing games for the ZX Spectrum, the BBC Micro, the Amiga, and so on. You just had to work with a publisher or distributor, of which there were hundreds and it was a free market. In the 90s millions could be made from DOS and Windows apps in the same way. In the early '00s, it became possible to self-publish on the web and our apps would be indexed and marketed for us by search engines; we didn't even need a publisher, but could still choose to go through one if the value add merited the cost.

So there has been no radical innovation, no Invention that has changed what is possible for us to achieve as app developers. It's arguably a little bit easier to get our apps to market than it used to be, but given how onerous Apple's "guidelines" have become, I'm not even sure that is true. Writing websites serving apps and integrating with checkout engines just isn't that difficult... and most apps still need marketing to succeed because being listed in the App Store is not by itself sufficient.

The only thing that has changed, now that the mobile computing revolution has almost reached saturation point and the majority of screen time by consumers is on mobile devices, is that we are now all forced to publish through a single store on each platform, and we are permitted no alternative if we want to reach our customers. Equally, our customers are permitted no alternative way to obtain our products. There is no competition between publishers on Apple's platform, because there is only one publisher, Apple, by fiat of Apple; and we are now forced to pay a 30% tax, a figure which is not challenged by the usual mechanisms of competition, and supply and demand, which make markets efficient.

[donmcronald]

> and something that I didn't think would be possible before the app stores came along

Isn't that more a result of mobile devices opening up a new market? I agree the app stores made a lot of difference initially when they provided a lot of visibility (ie: free advertising) to small developers, but those days are over aren't they?

[amelius]

> On one hand, it's super annoying whenever Apple rejects an update for some arbitrary reason. But on the other hand, making a living by writing and selling my own apps has been a dream of mine pretty much forever -- and something that I didn't think would be possible before the app stores came along.

I wonder how many apps actually are ramen-profitable on the App store. I often think that the dream of becoming rich (or even making a living) through the App store is just a myth perpetuated by Apple to attract developers; and nonsense from a statistical point of view. Do we have any numbers?

[cageface]

Getting out of iOS dev was the best career decision I’ve ever made. My baseline level of stress and frustration has plummeted. I also enjoy using my Samsung Note much more than I ever did any iPhone. It feels like the training wheels have been taken off my phone.

As developers I think we should all do what we can to nurture the open web. It’s the last truly developer friendly platform.

[city41]

Apple more than anyone is hostile to the web. I still have a recurring iCloud charge I tried to cancel today. But I literally can't as it's not doable on any Apple website. You must use an Apple device or iTunes, neither of which I have.

[microtherion]

Apple has instructions for canceling subscriptions from non-Apple devices: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039

As a last resort (e.g. if all you have is an Arduino), they advise you to contact Apple support.

I'm pretty sure it would be unlawful to have no way to cancel other than with an Apple device.

[christoph]

I agree. There really is nothing more frustrating than spending months working on an app, to get it either rejected on some really minor issue or have to go back and forth with Apple for weeks explaining how things work from a customer and business perspective, constantly on tenterhooks as to whether they will give it the OK nod.

Then you go through the same thing each time you push an update, even for a minor bugfix like amending some foreign language strings, get a different reviewer who hasn't read the case notes (I'm guessing these must exist) and decides to do a deep-dive, or maybe a quick rubberstamp in a matter of hours. It seems like a total lottery from my experience. Maybe they just suddenly added a new clause that requires something being done differently and you aren't up on the latest app store guidelines... It really is so frustrating from a developers mental health perspective.

[amelius]

> As developers I think we should all do what we can to nurture the open web. It’s the last truly developer friendly platform.

This is why Mozilla's recent layoff is extra painful.

[stephenr]

> It’s the last truly developer friendly platform.

Right because no one ever complained about browser inconsistencies, the inherent limitations of a browser runtime, etc.

[cageface]

If I have to choose between a flawed platform and a broken ecosystem I'll take the former any day.

No browser quirk is anywhere near as annoying as having a bug fix update to your app rejected for some new random capricious reason.

[stephenr]

That's your choice to make, but pretending that developing web apps is all sunshine and lollipops and developing local apps for distribution via an OS vendor's store is fire and brimstone, is not realistic.

[cageface]

Do you really think that's a fair characterization of my point?

If any of it was all sunshine and lollipops they wouldn't have to pay us to do it because people would be queuing up to do it for free.

[stephenr]

I don't know because you started off by making claims about "broken ecosystem".

The App Store may have undesirable qualities for some parties but to claim that it is a "broken ecosystem" just tells me that you're looking to exchange ridiculous hyperbole.

[axlee]

How does developing for iOS impacts your personal choice of phone hardware? I develop windows and MacOS software, but I am running Fedora.

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

It's not really practical to develop apps for iOS without owning an iPhone. Yes, there is a simulator available which you can run on Mac OS in a VM or on a Hackintosh, but you still will need a real device at the end of the day. Certain features like in-app purchases can only be tested on real devices. Furthermore, the App Review Board has the power to reject your app at any time until you provide them with a demonstration video which must be screen recorded on a real physical device, and on this ridiculous and unnecessary hoop to jump through I am speaking from personal experience.

Of course, you could always have a personal Android device and an iPhone solely for development purposes. Apple tries to force you to own a Mac and at least one iOS device (be it iPhone or iPad) to develop apps for the App Store. This is yet another example of their corporate greed. You can develop Android apps on Windows, Mac, or Linux, and there's no need for a physical device.

[tomnipotent]

> It's not really practical to develop apps for iOS without owning an iPhone

This applies to all platforms. I wouldn't want to do business with a developer that doesn't own the device they're developing for, we learned that lesson with Blackberry thank you.

[arvinsim]

Any developer would gladly do so as long as you shoulder the purchasing of the hardware or subscribe to a SaaS that provides such service.

[scarface74]

The CEO of Google refused to use an Android device for years....

https://9to5google.com/2013/03/21/google-chairman-eric-schmi...

[romanoderoma]

at least Eric Schmidt did it because he was used to Blackberry, which was better than iOS and Android when they both came out

Steve Jobs didn't let his kids around an iPad because it was dangerous for them

In an interview he said: “Actually we don’t allow the iPad in the home. We think it’s too dangerous for them in effect.”

I think we can trust Steve Jobs when he talks about his (baby) products

[cageface]

A freelance iOS developer that doesn't use an iPhone is going to raise a lot of eyebrows.

[JimDabell]

I did exactly that for years and nobody cared at all.

[mqus]

>I'd like to see regulation that forces Apple and Google to allow any and all app stores on their devices, and the process of installing apps through those stores must be, by law, equally easy and straightforward as through their own stores (i.e., no security warnings or other jank). The law should make illegal restricting developers to any specific payment processor(s), too.

Not the same kind of regulation you describe, but still one that may solve a big chunk of your issues was covered here roughly a month ago[1], In which the EU plans to make those kinds of platforms more transparent, especially concerning bans and sudden refusals. But I see how that may not go far enough.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23841409

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Thanks for the link, it's great to see the EU regulators starting to tackle these issues with actual regulations. I agree that it does not in its current form go far enough, but it's a good start.

[dboreham]

Another shout out for WSL2. Feels good to have real Linux not Apple's kind of close but not quite, plus wide range of hardware to choose from and compatibility with commercial GUI apps.

[stephenr]

... So many things wrong with this comparison.

(a). WSL is just a Linux VM. You can do this on any desktop OS. If you're not using WSL, you can even do it with multiple hypervisors at once if you so wish.

(b). macOS isn't, and has never tried to be, "Linux". It's POSIX.

[jjeaff]

There's a little more to wsl2 than just a VM. It's lighter and partially integrated. More like a VM running alongside windows instead of on top of windows.

[stephenr]

> More like a VM running alongside windows instead of on top of windows.

It's not like that, it literally is that, because to enable WSL2 you end up running Windows itself on top of Hyper-V, and the Linux VM as a parallel VM.

> It's lighter and partially integrated.

I don't know what you think it's "lighter" than - it's a VM running on Hyper-V.

[jjeaff]

Lighter in that Hyper-V is lighter than VirtualBox.

[stephenr]

Given that with WSL/Hyper-V you'll be running Windows in a VM permanently, and WSL.. whenever it thinks you need it (maybe always too?) while Vbox you can just stop when you wish, it seems weird to refer to one as "lighter".

They're very different approaches with different tradeoffs for each.

[shagie]

macOS is UNIX too (Linux isn’t). https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Yes it's fantastic. Even the small things make a difference - for example, it's really nice to be able to use the same package manager on my local machine as I use on my Google Cloud servers, on which I'm running Ubuntu, instead of having to use brew. I can use GNU variants of CLI utilities like ps, head etc. rather than the quirky BSD variants found on Mac OS X. iTerm2 was binding me to Mac OS for a while, but Windows Terminal Preview is getting quite good, and IntelliJ itself has a very good built-in terminal that works well with WSL2.

[Shared404]

VSCod(e)/(ium) has a very nice built in terminal emulator as well. It's what I typically use on windows.

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Thanks, I'll give it a try! I'm looking forward to testing out Win-Kex also.

[vturner]

This is off-topic, but your comment on your user base caught my attention.

Do you think Android app development can be monetarily worth the time investment for individual developers who would be just starting out?

I made two apps years ago and greatly enjoyed it, much more than any development I've done since. At that time, the markets were dominated by the big players. Only the big apps made any $$. Is that still the case making individual development a hobby with the occasional bit of $$?

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Absolutely, yes, but if you are writing your own apps rather than being paid to write apps for other people, there's a strong luck element as with any entrepreneurial activity. I have six apps out right now, of which just one accounts for 90% of my revenue. Rather than setting out to write apps, I think it's better to think about an app as merely a vehicle to deliver a service, a product, some unit of customer value, from you to your customers. If you have something to offer that is of high value, you can definitely make a lot of money from an app. If you don't, no matter how well designed and built the app is, it is likely to fail.

[thdrdt]

I think it is also good to keep in mind you won't get customers from app stores.

You need to get in contact with your customers in another way and then let them know where they can download your app.

[cglong]

Just wanted to say, as someone who's been a fervent Apple fan since 2007, getting a Pixel was the best tech decision I've made in years :)

[Razengan]

> It used to be that my apps made more money on Apple devices, but now I actually make more on Android.

Which apps are those? Genuinely interested in seeing the numbers.

[hartator]

> My next laptop will be a Thinkpad or Dell.

Why haven’t you switched yet? Competition is not that good unfortunately.

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Since being apartment-bound due to COVID, I've switched to doing most of my development on my desktop machine, so there hasn't been any urgent need for me to have a new laptop. I still have my late-2013 MBP, one of the last non-Butterfly / non-Touchbar laptops Apple made, which I use on rare occasions.

I've looked at the Windows laptops extensively though, and will likely get a ThinkPad X1 Extreme G2 or G3, or a Dell XPS 15, when the time comes. They both seem very good, with superior keyboards, displays, performance, and value compared to Apple's current lineup.

[keyb0ardninja]

> I've looked at the Windows laptops extensively

You can also take a look at linux vendors like System76. Check their line-up here: https://system76.com/laptops

Among Windows laptops did you consider the ASUS Zephyrus G14?

[7tsfmCAusrQ]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of those Linux laptops, and will definitely check them out. I hadn't seen the Zephyrus G14 either. How great to have so many choices!

[hn_check]

Because the story is an absurd lie. The guy has gotten 100+ upvotes for that hysterically dumb bit of fiction.

HN has proven to be outrageously gullible time and time again, and this one takes the cake.

[motoboi]

Do people really buy android apps?

[sprayk]

Yes.

[adventured]

> its extortionate fees

Their fees are not so high as to be extortionate. They're not close to being deserving of that hyperbolic label.

The Apple and Google fees are a dramatic improvement over the model that they gradually replaced over the past decade.

Want to get on a retail shelf? Nope, you can't. One in a zillion odds you find someone to publish your box to retail - congratulations, now you get to keep less than 20% of the sale price.

If Apple's fees were 1/2 what they are, developers would be saying exactly the same thing about them. That's because the fees will always be too high unless they're close to zero, and in that scenario Apple is carrying an unfair burden.

And if you forcibly open up more app store competition, and then Apple decides to drop their fees below other competitors, it'll kill the store competition and Apple can sustain that indefinitely thanks to their device margins. They don't need to make money on the market. Then everyone will bitch about that being unfair competition, despite Apple serving up the low fees that were demanded. And on the complaining will go forever until we have a hyper regulated market with pricing set by bureaucrats. Why? Because Apple is really big, that's the real reason why. People hate big corporations almost universally, Apple is in the can do no right group; no matter what they do, a lot of people will bitch about their choices. The end result will be massive, stifling regulation, which everyone will then bitch about the consequences of.

> now I actually make more on Android. The Google Play review process is a breeze compared to Apple's laborious and stifling rules (although it is not perfect either by any means), and at some point, it's just not worth the hassle.

You should be making more on Android, it's a larger market. It's good that that former imbalance has corrected itself. Fortunately you're not entitled to an easy review process. It's a great thing that Apple adds friction to their store. It's their market, they should be able to set the rules. If it's not worth the hassle, then it's not worth the hassle, you've solved your own problem: give up on the Apple store.

[ubercow13]

I don’t know where to start with this. Antitrust is specifically about big corporations, that’s the whole point. We treat them differently. You’re saying if the market was opened up, prices would drop due to competition, so that means it shouldn’t be opened up? You think Apple’s in a situation where it has an unfair burden despite being one of the largest companies in the world?

[scarface74]

So I am sure you have case law showing where anti trust charges were filed against a company with 50% market share.

[bloblaw]

> [..] and its monopolistic anti-competitive practices,

iOS owns 25% of the market. How is that a monopoly? You might not like their policies, but as you mention, you have a choice to move to a competitor with a vastly larger market share.

> I'm better off turning to the Play Store or one of the many other app stores that can be used on Android devices.

Doesn't this demonstrate that the Apple AppStore isn't a monopoly? That you have a clear alternative with 74% market share.

> I'd like to see regulation that forces Apple and Google to allow any and all app stores on their devices,

...but why would they do that? There is healthy market competition between Apple and Google. I'm old, so I remember when Windows dominated everything. That was 2007 (or '98 if you wanna talk IE anti-trust case). 13 years later and Microsoft has 0 market share in mobile devices. In another 13 years it is likely a new competitor could supplant the Google and Apple dominance.

reference: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

[partiallypro]

a) Global market share is irrelevant, show US share, which is about 51/49

b) Apple makes up the plurality of all store revenues, despite having a smaller install base both globally and in the US.

c) You can display monopolistic/duopoly behavior without having 100% of the market.

[bloblaw]

a) It's an opinion that global market share is irrelevant, but I will report the fact that Apple has 58% USA market share.

b) source?

c) But can Apple be a monopoly with 58% of the market and a trillion dollar competitor with 41% of that market...and 75% control of the global market?

A question for the courts, for sure, but it certainly isn't obvious to me.

reference: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/united...

[partiallypro]

Apple users spend 80% more on apps than Android users, and that's using global numbers which makes the number even more staggering.

https://fueled.com/blog/app-store-vs-google-play/#:~:text=Ap...

https://www.statista.com/chart/14590/app-downloads-and-consu...

[yzmtf2008]

b) isn't it fair then that Apple charges a premium for access to a better market segment?

[scarface74]

Ok so when was 49% considered a “monopoly”. Can you name one incident in case law where that was the case?

[ardit33]

it is a defacto 'duopoly', or an informal cartel... plenty of laws around it if you are not too lazy to google them...

[scarface74]

Words Mean Things.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cartel.asp

“ A cartel is an organization created from a formal agreement between a group of producers of a good or service to regulate supply in order to regulate or manipulate prices. In other words, a cartel is a collection of otherwise independent businesses or countries that act together as if they were a single producer and thus can fix prices for the goods they produce and the services they render, without competition.”

Do you have any evidence that Apple and Google are conspiring illegally to set prices? Are they talking to each other to agree on price?

“Informal cartel” has no legal meaning.

[SCLeo]

He/she meant monopoly over iOS software market, not over the entire smart phone market.