[Aerbil313]

Looking from the perspective of Apple, the whole situation is really annoying. Let me play the devil's advocate here. They built the iPhone, iOS and all its frameworks and the App Store. Now they are forced to act as essentially a public service provider. Philosophically, the amount of users they have shouldn't necessiate them to be treated as one. But you know, everyone wants a piece of the cake Apple thought they baked under their own terms. It's quite telling that this regulation comes from EU which are not getting nearly the tax and revenue US gets from Apple.

[hu3]

> They built the iPhone, iOS and all its frameworks and the App Store.

Well they don't give iPhones and App Store away for free.

Cheapest iPhones in Germany cost ~$530 for a 64GB model which Apple will nag you to subscribe to their iCloud to offload data.

Meanwhile developers need a $1k macbook (with measly 8GB RAM and 256GB storage btw) and $100/year.

And you get no choice to install from other app stores. So generous!

[zaptheimpaler]

You get the choice to not buy it. They made it, they should be able to decide how it’s used.

[jijijijij]

Yeah, and if they don't like Android either, they still have the choice of not having a phone at all, therefore not having a job, medical care, a house, ... Maybe, you should consider the context of antitrust legislation and what that entails for your argument.

And maybe baby, you should also explore, if you may be affected by a cultural economic dogma founded in times of red scare propaganda. Because these naive free market takes tend to come up a bit reflexively in some people, but are actually very rare for economic scientists.

[zaptheimpaler]

I'm not a crazy free market maximalist or antitrust hater.. its very important in many markets.

I just don't think its really necessary or high priority for iPhones. Android is one OS like Linux is one OS, there are 5-6 big time manufacturers with their own OSes, 100s of phones at all price points. I was replying to someone complaining about the price point but there are so many great phones at lower price points. Not to mention discounted rates on plans or second hand phones.

This particular case was about Apple not allowing third party payment options. The payment market is cornered by Visa/MasterCard that charges 1% on every single transaction. They charge a huge percent rate on a constant amount of work. There are countries that operate their own payment systems that have 0 or close to 0 fees on transactions. But no one is going to go after Visa/MC in a 2-player market just like phones that hasn't reduced prices in decades? So now Spotify can stop paying fees to one monopolist and pay them to the next one down the line? These don't look like rational, considered decisions by antitrust agencies to focus on the markets that have the worst behaviour, more just piling on the current thing.

[jijijijij]

> I was replying to someone complaining about the price point

No, you were replying to someone pointing out how much Apple already got paid for their product, the infrastructure and ecosystem entry, before rent seeking from Spotify.

> So now Spotify can stop paying fees to one monopolist and pay them to the next one down the line?

Are you serious? First off, the fees differ substantially, Visa/MC is likely involved in any case, and most importantly: That's not what this lawsuit is about at all. The antitrust dynamic comes with the fact that Apple has it's own competitive service going. Spotify can't even inform its customers about alternative payment options within the app.

Not to mention, mixing the end consumer choices with Spotify's choices now does not make a lot of sense as an argument to begin with.

[hu3]

Oh I do exercise that right but it's not that simple. There's only so much the average citizen can do against the marketing and the network effects that a trillion+ dollar company can buy.

Luckily there's such thing as consumer protection laws in EU.

So my family can enjoy at least some protection from idiotic things such as not using industry standard charging cables (USB-C) while still marketing their product as green. And abusing their power against other companies and customers.

We're still left with jokes like a thousand dollar 8GB/256GB laptop sporting glued parts and an outdated 60hz screen (my friends 6year old phone has better screen refresh rate).

Not to mention they compare M3 performance against M1 instead of M2. There's only so much laws can do against deceiving marketing.

[fennecfoxy]

Ah yes, and people also have the choice not to buy cigarettes, too. Let's remove all the warnings on the boxes and cancel any law changes around trying to reduce smoking.

[octacat]

Devil advocate is that people cannot have more that one phone per person realistically. If every app would need a separate phone, that would be stupid. It is totally fine for a country to ask that if a company wants to sell their devices in the country, they have to follow some rules.

[jijijijij]

> They built the iPhone, iOS and all its frameworks

That's what their customers payed for when they bought very expensive iDevices. Honestly, what a weird take, considering Apple really invented this argument. iOS app devs and service providers are just as much a necessity for Apple's popularity and success. You know, the default iOS calculator app used to be a meme not that long ago...

> Appstore

Yeah really, unhappy devs should totally roll their own distribution like on every other platform since the beginning of software development. Oh, wait...

> But you know, everyone wants a piece of the cake Apple thought they baked under their own terms.

Or maybe, Apple wanting a piece of the second largest consumer market should play by its rules, considering all the commerce infrastructure they are using... Not to mention the education system they are free-riding for their engineers, courts protecting their brand and IP, police enforcing property rights, ...

Do you pay taxes in Jonestown?