[slownews45]

Most of their policies are ones CONSUMERS have liked but BUSINESSES have hated.

The litigation / cases / govt intervention has been on behalf of businesses not consumers. A lot of folks in the "alliance for app fairness" have just horrible billing practices. Understandably, if they can get out of the app store, they can stop you from being able to do things like delete your account or unsubscribe with a few clicks.

A lot of the newspapers make it easy to sign up, but then you have to call to cancel, the same papers that go on and on about how terrible the app store is. There is a REASON people spend fortunes, particularly in the apple app store - it's damn safe to do so in most cases.

[Hammershaft]

Apple killed valve's steam link app because they couldn't get a cut of games consumers had purchased on a different platform. Hardly pro consumer behavior.

[dwaite]

They _temporarily removed_ steam link because the app allowed you to enter credit card information and purchase directly within the app.

Once that was removed, Steam Link went right back up

[Tepix]

The reason why they removed it is still anti-consumer.

[skunkworker]

Steam Link? It’s on the App Store right now. Same with Xbox and PS remote play.

They don’t allow a native app for GeForce now, but it works with a browser.

[zamadatix]

> Most of their policies are ones CONSUMERS have liked but BUSINESSES have hated.

I'd agree here, the majority of the policies are likable by consumers.

> The litigation / cases / govt intervention has been on behalf of businesses not consumers.

Consumers don't have millions to throw around on litigation against Apple so it's no surprise the litigation is focused around business cases. On the government intervention side I disagree though, of the very little intervention there has been it has been consumer focused IMO.

In either case there is also some overlap of "business interest" and "consumer interest" even if the vast majority of the time there isn't so blanketing that all litigation has been on behalf of businesses does not imply all litigation is about policies not in consumer interest. And I think the courts have been very conservative on which points are actually acted upon even if there is a bit of a "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" approach to many of the cases.

> A lot of the newspapers make it easy to sign up, but then you have to call to cancel, the same papers that go on and on about how terrible the app store is. There is a REASON people spend fortunes, particularly in the apple app store - it's damn safe to do so in most cases.

If people are truly buying Apple devices because they only want to purchase things from the controlled app store then the availability of alternative app stores wouldn't be a concern, they would simply go unused. The truth is most people don't actually buy the devices for this reason which is why Apple is so afraid to give that singular point of control up.

[harles]

So the case for this practice is that Apple is the only corporation that can be trusted with billing - consumers are just being protected from all those evil corporations that aren’t Apple. Seems like a straw man.

[blendergeek]

> The litigation / cases / govt intervention has been on behalf of businesses not consumers.

There is actually a class action suit against Apple regarding anti-trust brought by consumers. Unfortunately, while the suit was filed in 2011, it wasn't until 2019 that the Supreme Court ruled that consumers even do business with Apple in the App Store [0]. So, a lawsuit filed in 2011 was allowed to go forward in 2019. I don't know what methods Apple had used to hold up the case since then.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper

[MrStonedOne]

Don't you think that is something apple should have thought of before doing what they did to cause outcry?

Apple wanted to be the gatekeeper blocking out harmful apps, fine by me.

Apple then wanting to use that gatekeeper status to steal money from app developers, block apps that compete with apple internal apps, and enforce moral choices on what kinds of apps you can install on your phone, evil by me.

They could have done the former without doing the latter, but they fucked it up, and have to pay the piper.

[forty]

Honestly I'm more on the business side, but I fail to see how the fact that we cannot refund our customers is a benefit for them.

[bogwog]

Bad billing practices like the NYT's impossible-to-unsubscribe bullshit is not Apple's responsibility to fix: it's the market's first, the government's second. A corporation having the power to control/regulate society to such an extent is like textbook dystopian hell-hole stuff.

[syshum]

I am a consumer... I hate their policies which is why I do not consume their products