I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores and obey the policies of a particular store for users who obtain the app through that store.
Why is that? If an App Store is cruel to the app developers, either through terms or actions, why should developers be forced to support them?
This is particularly important for stores like Amazon which dictate things you're allowed to do with your app outside of the Amazon store. (i.e., you can't charge a lower fee outside of Amazon regardless of what Amazon is charging you.)
Because the App Store acts as the user's agent. I have no ability to force Facebook not to track me, but Apple can. In the GP's comment, think of the App Stores as a jurisdiction and set of rules that the app maker and user agree on. Maybe Facebook doesn't want to follow Apple's rules, but I don't want to use Facebook on Android's terms.
That's why the grandparent comment said "I'd support this if app developers were also required to release their apps on all the available stores".
Without that clause, your approach wouldn't work, because what incentive would Facebook even have to release it on the Apple App Store and follow Apple's tighter privacy/anti-tracking rules, when they can just release it on the Facebook App Store for iOS (or whatever else they decide to call it or, alternatively, another third-party app store)?
Sure, having third-party app stores helps smaller devs. But it also unchains all the anti-tracking and privacy shackles from the tech giants like FB who don't care which app store they are on (as long as they can set their own rules), because FB/Instagram/etc. users will follow to whatever app store their app is on (no matter how much or how little privacy protection that specific app store is willing to enforce on FB).
Facebook might not be the best example of course, but I shudder when thinking about apps I truly need… WhatsApp in Europe is 90% of friend communication. Banking apps and other 2fa apps are required to do any banking.
Why ought a developer be forced to accept all terms on offer?
If I released an app store that forced you to offer the app for the lowest price it's available elsewhere while charging the dev 1/2 of the profit and inspired users to use it by giving them a rebate equal to 30% of the cost I presume I could get some takers.
After all if it's 10 bucks on the apple store it's 7 on mine.
3rd party stores aren't a check on unreasonable terms if developers are legally forced to do business on the oems terms no matter how unreasonable.
The App Store is an important part of the platform - what 3rd party dev can and can't do, and how I as a user interact with them. My experience as a user it better because of the rules Apple forces app developers to follow.
Yeah, but that’s just laziness on Apple’s part. They could easily move those restrictions to the OS itself, rather than the App Store. Then, it would be consistently applied, since it wouldn’t be done by human review.
because most pc steam competitors are 1 step removed from malware and yet I am virtually required to install them. Or take the moral high ground, but that sucks.
I agree with you up to a point, namely that developers should be prevented from making their apps exclusive to any specific app store, but they shouldn't have to spend any resources making their app acceptable to any other app store.
So if Epic Games want to create their own app store, they can, but Apple should be allowed to list their games on its own app store too (and pay Epic whatever the relevant price is for each download of a game, out of the amount that Apple bills the user for it).
Why should Epic be made to do business with Apple if you can't get a game via the app store of your choosing and it's that important play something else.
The point or the justification for this sort of legislation is that monopolies and bundling are bad for consumers, so enabling companies to force users to use their app stores in order to download their games doesn't seem like a very consistent approach.
There is no monopoly if there is competition between the stores. Users are not forced to download anything if there is competition. If this practice is as bad as you think, it will be driven out by competition (spoiler alert: it's not bad at all and will remain in vogue).
You could equally say that Apple don't have a monopoly on phones, which is true, but they do have monopoly-like control over the apps which iOS users can install, which this legislation is trying to remedy.
Similarly, if the Epic Store is the only place you can download Fortnite, and you really like Fortnite, but hate the advertising and data harvesting and battery use of the Epic Store, then you are being denied the ability to participate freely in the market for app stores.
Saying "just play a different game" is as unhelpful as saying "just buy a different phone", and doesn't address the underlying complaint that product tying is an anti-competitive practice that consumers should be protected against:
There is no precedent for choosing the distribution of your product in an open market as being "anti-competitive". Direct-to-consumer is in no way anti-competitive and is in fact the opposite. Simply put, if businesses opt to distribute their product via their own channels (or others) instead of yours that means your offering is not good enough, full stop. You will need to improve your product if you want to survive in the market. This is the definition of competition.
Let's be frank here: people here are afraid because they know Apple's App Store and its policies are in no way actually compelling in the open market and, if they are subjected to real competition, they will fail just like most other 1st party stores that are subjected to competition.
Instead of allowing Apple to be the governing body of what is acceptable software policy simply because they are a for-profit company that makes a lot of money, maybe you should focus this attention on actual legislation from your elected governing body that would give you such protections.
Sidenote: Fortnite doesn't have a monopoly on gamers and most gamers do not play Fornite. People need to stop using Fornite as if it is the new Standard Oil of gaming. There is no such thing in gaming and it makes for silly arguments.
> Saying "just play a different game" is as unhelpful as saying "just buy a different phone"
No. This is a false comparision.
The smartphone market is a duopoly that is worth trillions of dollars.
Battle royale videos games are not that.
If fortnite eventually is worth trillions of dollars, and literally almost every single person in the world has to use it, on the same level that they use freaking smart phones, `then` we can use anti-trust law, or pro-competition laws on this now vital service.
There is no universe where you have a right to purchase a particular product via a particular market. For example if Fred Meyers doesn't carry every product that Walmart does you cannot say that the merchant infringed your rights by not offering it for sale in the market you would prefer.
Apple is using its position to insert itself between vendor and customer while the customer sits snug in their own home whereas your position would require positive action on the part of someone who has no particular obligation nor relationship to you. You have not hired them and they aren't obligated to work for you.
This is particularly important for stores like Amazon which dictate things you're allowed to do with your app outside of the Amazon store. (i.e., you can't charge a lower fee outside of Amazon regardless of what Amazon is charging you.)