Why should that be Apple's job in the first place? If I go to a big shopping centre, and I buy something from one of the shops there, and subsequently it turns out to be defective, that's between me and the shop who sold it to me. No-one would expect the shopping centre to have any control over that commercial relationship just because the shop happened to be under its roof.
But then if the shop is a dick to you, or it scams you, otherwise does a dirty on you, it would affect the credibility of the shopping center (how are they allowing scammers to rent shops here), even the concept of doing business with shopping centers as a whole.
Also "shopping center" analogy somewhat breaks down because you buy something from a shop and use it somewhere else. When you buy an app, you use it in the device only (inside the shopping center) using the device's affordances. So they are somewhat more intimately tied.
In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp. Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform. Can they decide to get 99% cut from all purchases? Yes, it is their business, their platform. Up to them. If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own. If it is there, whining feels to me like entitlement.
The other camp thinks private companies should be bound to rules such that even if they provide immense value, there should be a "limit" to how much return they can get from it, mandated by governments etc. I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.
One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors - if the value proposition wasn't there, it would fail - and if they screw up it will fail" and I'm in this camp.
I would have more sympathy for that position if having one of two types of smartphone were not now assumed by so many organisations and if people buying those phones hadn't dramatically reduced the alternative devices those people might otherwise have bought.
Like an essential utility, a smartphone has become a practical necessity for many people to be able to live a normal life. When you have attracted so much influence, you are no longer just another business, and again like an essential utility, regulation is appropriate for the protection of the little guy.
Apple as a company does not owe anything to anyone. Can they discontinue the app store tomorrow if they wanted? Sure they can, it is their store and platform.
Sure, but if they did that, Apple's influence would rapidly diminish and the problem I described would solve itself as well.
If the value proposition isn't there, it will fail on its own.
Well, that's really the big question here, isn't it? Does Apple's App Store actually provide good value for what it costs, or is it being artificially supported through other means? One of those is just good business. The other is a potential violation of competition law in many places.
>Well, that's really the big question here, isn't it? Does Apple's App Store actually provide good value for what it costs, or is it being artificially supported through other means?
Netflix for instance can choose to refuse being on the platform under Apple's terms. It must be worth it so they stay. If Apple wanted 99% cut, would they stay? No. So the current cut must be somewhat appropriate.
Yes, that is my point. Netflix cannot even say where and how to sign up inside the app as per Apple's policies. Apple would like them to sell subscriptions from App Store, but they are refusing because Apple wants a cut for the privilege of being on their platform. Netflix doesn't want to, so their only option is to not provide the option.
If this was a bad deal for Netflix, they'd remove their app from the platform. But they feel they'd be harmed by doing so. That means Apple is providing a "valuable enough" service to them under current terms.
>In the end, this all boils down to ideological differences. One camp says "it is their store, take it or leave it, they already have competitors
American law abandoned this outlook at the early 20th century. Also, what Apple is doing is making it harder for customers to switch from Apple if they want to. It's ridiculous to invoke competition as a defence when Apple is trying to prevent competition.
Really? If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch since your purchases do not carry over and sometimes they are not even available on other platforms.
And competition involves getting ahead, and it will feel like you are trying to prevent it from happening because if you are a lot more successful than others, it doesn't feel like competition anymore - even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform. It is important to discern the difference between "competition is being made irrelevant" and "competition is being prevented".
>Really? If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
There are limits. From safety to counterfeiting prevention to marketpower/monopoly considerations to various legal duties. In this case, Apple is using its position in the app store to force companies to use Apple's payment processor, and that's classic antitrust.
>"Making it harder to switch" is moot, once you start purchasing stuff in X platform it is already hard to switch
If the relationship was with the vendor directly, one could simply switch the subscription to the vendor's Android app. Because the vendor doesn't necessarily know even who the customer is (since Apple even takes other the email address), it's much more difficult to do. It's true that there can be other obstacles, but this one is an artificially made by Apple just to prevent competition.
> even though others are absolutely free to get their shit together and outperform.
The point is that others aren't allowed to. They can't run with iOS apps, and the user can't switch away from Apple unless the user cancels all subscriptions.
>If I set up a shop in the USA, can I not dictate what I sell there and under what terms?
You can if I can easily set up a store next to you. Selling more of less the same stuff.
By your analogy USA currently only has two store, App Store and Google Play. And there are no third store allowed. Setting up a third platform is literally creating another State to join the US federation.