[Thorentis]

Internet Explorer was already ubiquitous at that point. The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released. The iPhone become so widely used because of the popularity of the App Store. The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it. It's only now that people are turning around and complaining that a platform that was never open to begin with, is not open enough.

[stale2002]

> The iPhone was not ubiquitous when the App Store was released.

But it is ubiquitous now. As of last month, the iphone now has 52.4% of the US market.

> The 30% cut was there from the very start, and people were fine with it.

Anticompetitive behavior become illegal when a company has enough market power.

> It's only now that people are turning around and complaining

Well yes, that is how anti-competitive laws work. If a company has enough market power, previously legal practices can become illegal.

[Thorentis]

Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though. If anything, it allows other platforms to compete on price. Which is exactly what Android does. Developers can't whinge if people still buy iPhones despite the restrictions on what you can and can't do on it.

The Microsoft case is completely different, in that it favored IE over other browsers based on the APIs the software was allowed access to. Apple allows all apps to access the iOS APIs and uses those same APIs to develop its own apps. Taking a 30% cut of software that Apple distributes on your behalf might be steep, but is certainly not anti-competitive. If you think it costs too much, don't pay it! Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone. If you're lamenting that people are stupid enough to buy hardware they don't have full control over, then that speaks more of human stupidity and the fact that convenience will always win.

[stale2002]

> Taking a 30% cut from app store sales isn't anti-competitive though

That is not what the court case is asserting is anti-competitive.

The anti-competitive action is that Apple prevents competing app stores on the platform. Preventing competitors from competing is explicitly the definition of anti-competitive. High prices can be a consequence of anti-competitive behavior but is not really the main issue. The main issue has to do with.... reducing competition by stopping competitors, which Apple definitely does.

Apple doesn't even pretend to claim that it is not preventing competitors, honestly. The question is whether Apple is large enough that anti-competition laws apply to them. (Which they obviously are, given that they now have 52.4% of the phone duopoly, as of last month)

> it allows other platforms to compete on price

No, actually. Competing app stores cannot be put on the iPhone, due to Apple's actions. These competing app stores cannot compete for iPhone users.

> it favored IE

Apple favors its own app store, over competitors, in that it literally prevents other app stores from competing at all on the iPhone.

> Apple allows all apps

No, it does not allow other app stores, no.

> If you think it costs too much, don't pay it!

You should read the lawsuit. The anti-competitive behavior is not the price. This instead had to do with Apple preventing competing app stores.

Also, that is a bad argument, because "just dont use it" is not a valid defense when a company is engaging in anti-competitive practices.

> Nobody is forcing you to distribute software for the iPhone

Another bad argument. This would not at all be valid if Microsoft used it as an argument regarding software installed on the PC. That argument would be invalid, if microsoft prevented competitors from being installed on PC.

> If you're lamenting

No, I am saying that anti-competitive practices should be stopped.

[shados]

> Apple allows all apps to access the iOS APIs

No: it allows very specific kinds of apps that follow very specific rules that are selectively enforced, to use iOS APIs.

That's the problem. You can't, for example, build an app that competes with the app store itself.