[nicoburns]

It seems to me that you're thinking of "market abuse" in terms of intent. But it's not really about, it's about what the practical impact is. The test is "is this significantly impacting users in a negative way". If that sounds like a subjective judgement call, then that's because it is. Anti-competition laws are basically an escape hatch that allow governments to intervene at their discretion when markets fail.

So to answer your question: it potentially crosses over into abusive as soon as you are restricting customers from doing anything. And it gets less likely that you'll get away with it the more dominant your market position (as a scale), and the greater the importance of your product or service to society (which is why game console currently get away with these practices but utilities don't).

[lolsal]

As an apple customer, what you call abuse, I call a feature in this context.

[rscoots]

How is not allowing any 3rd party payment processors a feature may I ask?

[dexterjs]

Safety and trust. I know in app purchases are handled through apple and if I start a subscription, I know how to easily cancel it. I don't need to worry about my payment information being stolen or held hostage behind a convoluted cancellation process.

[bryceacc]

> convoluted cancellation process

probably the most important thing here. One press in the settings app vs calling some retention person that tries to keep you paying or something that can only be cancelled via fax or carrier pidgeon

[__warlord__]

But having choices doesn't mean that the "Safety and trust" of the app store will go away it simply means that I can choose another option as well.

[rscoots]

Couldnt Apple just say apple pay is required but other processors are allowed? Think you're being a bit obtuse here.

[lolsal]

How is allowing many 3P payment processors a feature? It's a complication and an added risk with no upside for me as the consumer. No thanks.