[Drew_]

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).

[dane-pgp]

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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_%28commerce%29

[Drew_]

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.

[stale2002]

> 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.

But until then, it is a false comparison.

[michaelmrose]

Any particular game is merely a singular and temporary amusement no matter how temporarily pervasive the smartphone is the single most pervasive platform for communication, culture, work, and computation in the world. There can be no comparison.

[michaelmrose]

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.

[dane-pgp]

There is a universe where consumers have a right to purchase products without the market interference of exclusivity agreements, and that universe contains the EU:

> (151) In an exclusive distribution agreement the supplier agrees to sell his products only to one distributor for resale in a particular territory.

The rules are complicated and depend on the supplier's and buyer's market share, but you can read the details on page 46 of their "Guidelines on Vertical Restraints".[0]

I'm not suggesting that a company should be required to take a positive action to fulfil Apple's requirements, but if a company is producing a file which can be installed via an app store, they should not try using copyright or contract law to prevent other app stores from also selling/distributing their app.

(Admittedly there would have to be some amount of paperwork for allowing the various app stores to pay money into the app developer's account, but that could be done on Apple's side so that the developer continues to get a payment each month, with some stats on a dashboard somewhere showing which app stores the app was sold through).

[0] https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/legislation/guide...

[michaelmrose]

Exclusivity is something the market maker buys from the vendor. Making such a transaction illegal does not in any fashion require the vendor to actually sell their goods on multiple markets it just requires them not to exchange money for exclusivity.

In particular I don't think it says anything at all about a situation where the vendor and market are not engaged in a relationship but rather are literally the same company. Nothing forbids a donut shop from actually baking AND selling the donuts.

I don't think a 3rd party Epic store is an example of tying either. It's not something you are being asked to purchase in order to realize the other purchase it is rather a means to actually receive the product you have purchased. You might as well say that <insert app> is tied to the purchase of an executable or disk.

Not only that but if Apple allowed sideloading they would arguably be able to trivially able to avoid even a misguided accusation of tying by providing a manually installable package file with the app store merely providing a free means to receive updates.