The problem is there is no alternative to the App Store on iPhones. Epic Games couldn't open their own Epic Games App Store and sell their games there because Apple has a complete control over how apps can be used and sold on iPhones.

There doesn’t need to be an alternative App Store in iOS. There just need to be alternatives to iOS.

This whole “Apple have a monopoly inside their own product” is an absurd line of questioning when their product has anything but a monopoly. This argument is akin to saying that Disney has a monopoly on hotdog sales inside Disneyland and should be forced to allow competitors to open hotdog stands inside Disneyland.

> Apple have a monopoly inside their own product” is an absurd line of questioning

Didn't MS get into trouble for the exact same reasons, they were using their monopoly in the OS market to force Netscape out of business.

MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.

> whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.

I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)

Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs

> I dont think that is the point, Apple has 100% market share on its devices and its using its dominant position in that market to make that market anticompetitive (as per Epic)

No, it's exactly the point and was the catalyst for my comment. Apple sells a product. If you don't like it, buy something else. The only time that doesn't hold up is when there are not any practical alternatives (a la Windows) and thus the product (perhaps) satisfies the conditions for a monopoly.

> Apple also has secret deals with other big companies where they can negotiate the commission Apple gets, apparently they did not give such treatment to Epic and other devs

And? They're completely free to do this.

> No, it's exactly the point

I guess its upto the judge to decide that now whether they are abusing their dominant position or not.

> And? They're completely free to do this.

But then why lie about it, Cook said they have the same rules for everyone but then its revealed that they have secret deals with some others.

Microsoft got slapped for the anti-competitive behavior in the userland of their OS and they didn't even prevent installing the alternatives.

See my above comment:

> MSFT had a monopoly outside of their own product. This is my point. Windows had essentially 100% market share, whereas iOS has somewhere around 25% market share.

This is not a valid analogy.

I am not renting my phone from Apple, I own it. So when I am buying an instance of Disneyland, being able to install my own hotdog stands is a perfectly reasonable expectation.

True, but it doesn't make a situation unfair. It's just how it is.

The court shouldn't be able to change business models that you don't like.

You don't see the real problem: the device that you buy (paying a lot of money in case of an iPhone) is not really yours. You can install the apps that Apple approves. To me that is unacceptable and should be made illegal. When the user buys a phone he expect it to be able to use it with all the software that he wants, and not to be limited of what Apple approves. If not let's write it with a big red font on the box and see how many people buy iPhones anymore...

The problem is not the fee that the App Store imposes to you. The problem is that you don't have an alternative, either you accept the fee that Apple imposes to you or iPhone users have no way to use your software (beside jailbreak). And since cutting out iPhone users is unacceptable for all companies you either have to accept the Apple policy or respond to thusands of angry customers that asks why the app is only available for Android or the iPhone version of the app has not all the feature of the Android one (since the final user usually don't know that there are these restriction in place).

On Android if you don't agree with the Google Play policy you can simply let the user download the apk from your website and install it manually on your phone. Granted, you loose the visibility that you have on the Play Store and you have to implement updates and push notifications manually without relying on the Play Service.

Or you can choose of distribuiting your software trough an alternative App Store, that the user can install on its phone like any other application.

No. Most retailers get a few percent at best.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/071615/what-profit-...

What I meant was when you make a product and want Walmart to sell it on its shelves - it won't be few percents. It will be way more.

Just like selling on Apple marketplace.

How will it be way more? Honest question. I can’t imagine that it’ll be close to 30% because there’s actual competition in the retailer space.