Without the app store the iPhone is literally just a piece of hardware. The idea that the App Store isn't a product in and of itself is a falsehood.
> A service implies app developers have options. They do not.
They do - it's called Android.
Internet Explorer is as much the product as Windows.
Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
They have options - it's called a Mac
What did Internet Explorer have? DOMINANT MARKETSHARE. That was the problem - not that a program came bundled with software. Such a basic fact conveniently ignored because Apple Bad.
> Without Internet Explorer Windows is literally just a piece of software.
A piece of software that can do many things - an iPhone without apps just doesn't work. Apps run everything - from making phone calls to keeping notes. Windows without internet can still be used. Bad analogy.
> An iPhone without apps just doesn't work.
Sure, but an iPhone without an App Store works fine -- that was literally the way the first iPhone shipped, remember? -- so I'm not quite sure your analogy is a slam dunk here. :)
Remember - they originally said - just use web apps, but developers demanded a way to install software, and Apple developed the App Store in response to that demand.
Nobody is forcing developers to develop for iOS.
If Apple raised their rate to 70%, I’d build for the web or Android in a heartbeat.
It can be both a service and a requirement for iOS developers without being a shakedown.
And it's absolutely a shakedown. It's not a service, it's a requirement. A service implies app developers have options. They do not. Apple could raise the price to 70% of the revenue and app developers would have no choice but to pay. It's not much different than the mob saying "it'd be a shame if this business went away for a while, wouldn't it" and demanded protection money.