Apple is literally in the top 10 largest companies in the world for several different measures. If they're achieving those numbers by giving the ole F'you to developers, that is a problem. Getting locked out of a distribution platform for 1~3 months, in today's world can cost thousands or even tens of thousands in sales even for small developers.
There are no other options for Apple. You can't install untrusted apps like you can on Android (which is still a huge pain and which no one does).
I almost feel like someone like the EU or California needs to mandate that both Apple and Google allow individual users to add 3rd party repositories in the same way you can on most Linux package managers. They can throw up a big warning about device security if they want, but unless there's regulations around it, there's no way for the average use to actually have control over his or her device.
I feel like comments like this always assume that it's a given that the average user having full control over their devices is a goal that the majority of people agree with and are interested in pursuing.
Unless it can be demonstrated that the lack of control over their smartphones is seriously, tangibly affecting their lives in ways that aren't just ideological, the public at large (and lawmakers by extension) are going to keep right on not really giving a shit if they have Linux-like package management or not.
If you're running a business, that is very much trivial. I just paid my bank $40 to send a wire transfer to a vendor. It costs $39.99 per month to be able to make apps for Amazon sellers. Out here in the real world stuff and services cost money.
... which means the amount of money spent is _not_ trivial. If you are not policing your costs, regardless of how "trivial," then how are you optimizing your profit? A "cost of doing business" is still a cost on your books. $100 is trivial for a larger business but if you're talking someone small or a side hustle, $100 is something that is not trivial.
It's hard to get permits, so sellers are depending on that one permit for at least 20% of their revenue, even more if they deal with the same municipality in different villages. In theory they could go to other markets, but in practice it can take years to get a good position elsewhere. Too long to survive.
If the local municipality decided to ban a seller, for reasons unknown, the seller can get a judge involved who will quickly say if the seller was legitimately banned.
Justice prevails.
With the App store? Not so much. The arrogance of the tech giants knows no bounds, their legal budgets are endless and judges will never fully grasp the similiarities between the online and offline world.
App developers are no different from market sellers, they are just dealing with the worst marketplace model ever.
I am not even an App developer, but I really think this should change. It's just not healthy for an economy to have a gatekeeper that has the power to just bankrupt a developer, be it accidentally or on purpose.
Banning accounts without detailed reasoning while "investigating" for a long period of time should be seen as criminal behavior.
C'mon. A local municipality is a government, which is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents. Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
Governments are usually not legally bound to act for the betterment of their constituents, and even if they were that would usually be meaningless as they usually are the entity that interprets the collective interest of their constituents.
> Apple is a private company and, thus, not bound by any such obligation.
Corporations, unlike governments, are actually legally bound, to an extent, to serve the interests of their constituents (but their constituents are the stockholders, not the public.)
In the US, sure, you could sue them because the manner they did that:
(1) discriminated on a basis prohibited to government under the Constitution,
(2) violated some binding regulation of a superior level of government,
(3) violated a promise made by that government that you reasonably relied on to your disadvantage.
Similarly, for a private entity doling out market stalls, you could sue for the same reasons, except #1 becomes “...on a basis prohibited to businesses open to the public”. And with a private entity, there's no issue of whether governmental immunity applies to your suit.
You said it yourself: "A government is supposed to (and usually legally obligated to) act for the betterment of its constituents"
So, government: Make new rules for the unicorn tech giants. Setting new rules for these behemoths helps small businesses and therefore your constituents. You make the rules. We need them.