It's not an "undeniable right" but it's also not like there are a lot of other options. You can say "just move to another platform" or "then make your own platform" but you also have to be a realist.

This is why antitrust laws exist - sometimes the market realities make this nearly impossible.

But where is the line of lots of options vs not a lot of options? iOS isn't even the most popular mobile operating system.

For some market it is. Our users were 80%+ on ios

Seems to me the biggest hurdle to moving/finding customers via the Google/Android platform is that they won't spend money over there.

The feature/capability parity between the platforms means they are, in fact, both capable of serving these markets. But people want to vote with their dollars in the iOS ecosystem, and now the players want to change that ecosystem.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is Apple's problem, in as much as it is Google's fault for not fostering a properly competitive revenue delivery platform, even though it has the maturity and standing to do so.

But does that matter when they have milions of people in that marked. Isn't that a size where it really shouldn't matter anymore if there is another similar bigger marked?

Also for some serivces iOs users are the large majority, like more or less any "real premium" service (Like apps you have to pay 10 or so+$ a month or 100+$ when buying them).

It's handled case-by-case, that's the point of the legislative oversight system.

It’s no more realistic to say “if you don’t like the licensing terms of your game engine then just rewrite your game.”

End-customers are not locked into a specific game engine in any way, whereas mobile ecosystems have lock-in through devices and already-bought apps. That's a major difference for a software maker.

It's a LOT more realistic to rewrite your game than it is to tell all of your iOS customers that they have to jailbreak or switch platforms.

> This is why antitrust laws exist

Anti trust laws (or competition laws) tend to apply to players with an clear control over the market, monopolies that stifle competition. Apple has ~14% of the mobile market, compared to Android's ~86%. I'm curious about how this will play out as it might have an impact in other sectors where smaller players by market share exercise a bit too tight control.

Is that the global figure? It's much more than that for US, almost 60% actually: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta... , for example.

Don't know about tablets, but I feel it's not different.

Google Search should be free to only show location results from Google Maps, and ban Yelp, etc.. entirely from Google Search. After all, there's other search engines, right?

There is a history here where using your market position in one area to force your product in another as being illegal (see the recent EU fine against Google for "abusing their Android monopoly" for example: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_... ). Apple seems to be crossing that line rather brazenly.

Isn’t it the other way around that iOS users should be able to shop in competing stores for their apps?

It’s just very few users have any real ability to affect that sort of change.

I wouldn’t be opposed to this but Apple could make a case that using a competing app store voids warranty or care because they can no longer guarantee the software is ‘safe’ for iOS.

General computing platforms, in which you can run arbitrary unsigned code without violating the warranty, exist. In fact, Apple has a major business in manufacturing them (MacBook, etc.)

This could fly for iPad, the iPhone they can make a case it jeopardizes the reliability in contacting emergency services.

Overall this will go over most law makers heads because they are technically incompetent.

To a degree they could (although it'd be quite embarrassing for Apple to claim that their OS can't prevent apps from damaging phones), it could be somewhat similar to how Android manufacturers sometimes handle custom ROMs by having the unlock set a permanent flag somewhere. Doesn't necessarily give them an out of legally required warranties.

Yes, which is why they should be mandated by law to include them anyway. Maybe that will force them to figure out a better security strategy.

I don’t think our current law makers are technically competent enough to understand this.

In a theoretical anti-trust investigation wouldn’t that been seen as extremely anti-competitive?

It's about monopolization. Should a company be able to vertically integrate and install a toll booth to profit off of all developers on their platform? Or does that hurt consumers more than it would hurt businesses to separate that power?

It's not perfect but what else can we do?

- Yes, every shmuck who buys only iOS cause Apple is the status symbol undermines everyone's ability to choose. But we'd need a consumer union to go after these monopoly-aiders as scabs. Ha ha ha not going to happen.

- All the other hardware manufactures are so shitty and quality control and integration that they are also responsible. Do we wait for Moon's party to break up Samsung so Apple gets more competition? Tell Taiwan to break up TMSC or do more direct-to-consumer?

Fundamentally we have the perfect storm of outsourcing and low quality, precarious Americans looking for status, and nationally-tinged monpolies. The idea solutions are just out of reach in the short term, so I support putting iOS on a stupid pedestal to break up Apple's exclusionary vertical integration.

Because for many applications it's not viable to not provide service for iOs users, which is sad but true.

Consider you not being able to:

- buy train tickets under iOs

- check-in into a hotel under iOs

- do video conferences

- chat with your friend

- cross play with your friends

- open your apartment doors

- check your health data

- do online banking

- securely check your email

- do Ueber, Rbnb, etc.

- buy at Amazone

- etc.

Sure many (but not all) things might be doable over web interface but this crates often much more frictions and due to constraints put onto web interfaces and PWS also has often much worse UX, not providing service for millions of iOs users is often deadly and providing competitively shitty service isn't anygood either, even worse if you have to compete with Apple itself which gives there apps unfair advantages beyond not needing to pay the 30% cut.

Let's be honest any marked which covers millions of people should be handled as a standalone marked even if you could argue it's just part of a bigger marked by any government or you fail your people (and the free marked idea IMHO, but reasoning about this is tricky as it involves considering how the marked dynamics have fundamentally changed and how thinks which would have worked in benefit for the population don't work anymore in the current times and therefore how the marked (laws) has to adapt to it).

It should be an undeniable right that I can use other app stores with my iOS device.

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

If Apple is using its market power to increase profit at the expense of reducing selection and/or increasing prices for consumers, then that's a very serious problem. It's exactly the reason antitrust laws exist.

> But there are other Smartphone platforms with their own store, correct?

But are they competing or parallel markets? Does Apple changing pricing or terms on the App Store drive business to other app stores, as replacements, or do software vendors choose which app stores to distribute with based on whether each provides a benefit worth the price, but not whether it is a better deal than some other store?

I think that under market/pricing power tests, Apple’s software distribution business in the App Store is not that unlikely to be a monopoly.

Now, establishing consumer harms from the way the leverage that monopoly to extract rents and dictate terms to software vendors might be less straightforward than it would be for a B2C monopoly, and in the US, at least, consumer harm is the key adverse impact from monopoly abuse that justifies legal consequences.

> I don’t know why people feel it’s their undeniable right to be able to provide an app to iOS users.

Rephrased:

> I don't know why people feel it's their undeniable right to install the apps they want on iOS.

iOS is the market leader by profit share and by amount of money spent on app stores, as Apple fans like to talk about all the time. In a sane world, being a market leader would mean that shareholder and corporate interests are kept in check by society.