Argument for why is that happening: So Apple can make more money.
(Disclosure: I am an Apple shareholder.)
You’re also framing the market in an arbitrary way to support your conclusions. Every company could be said to have a monopoly over their own customers. Any argument that Apple monopolizes Apple customer, or that Google monopolizes Play Store customers could also be used to say Valve monopolizes Valve customers, or Sony monopolizes PlayStation customers, or that Samsung monopolizes the market of Samsung smart fridge customers.
You need a lot more than just that to make a compelling argument that the behaviour is illegally anti-competitive.
Amazon and other vendors have forked Android so that they can put there own store on it. Google does not open up its API enough that you can have the same functionality as the Google Play Store. I think you understand what I am saying, but just in case, it's really different than what you can do on Windows, Linux, MacOS.
I agree you can't have a monopoly by "customers". That's why I don't think Valve has a monopoly. PC users can can and do install games other ways. On the other hand, by my logic, Nintendo does have a monopoly on Switch users and PlayStation does have a monopoly on PlayStation owners. I think it matters a lot less in those cases because they aren't as ubiquitous as phones. In the US, Apple is 60% of the market, which is way past what the US used to define as a monopoly.
I am guessing you don't agree and don't think that is a problem. But I think I understand your point and respect the different point of view.
I think this reframes the issue even further. This changes the claim to being that they're anti-competitive by simply not distributing the competing software themselves. The typical workflow for downloading software on a PC is go to website > download software > install software. The typical workflow for "sideloading" an app is go to website > download software > install software.
I would suggest the reason consumers are inhibited from downloading alternative app stores is because they don't trust apps they've downloaded from alternative locations (you could say the security warnings are anti-competitive, but MacOS and Windows have similar warnings when installing software downloaded from the internet, and they don't seem to generate the same accusations). But in any case, the complaint "consumers trust Google, but they don't trust me, and that's not fair" is not a reasonable basis for a lawsuit.
So, really what this is about is choice for the big app-manufacturers, including games. It has nothing to do with user choice at all, and the cost is borne by the user (who has a far shittier user-experience than they do now).
They want in on the platform, without paying the fees that being on the platform requires.
The fact is the App Store helps everyone. It curates apps for most people, it helps developers make more money (as you said, double the revenue, well worth the 1/3 cut, that no longer applies to small apps), and it helps Apple innovate on their hardware product.
Is that why I found a dozen Chinese knockoff BonziBuddy[1] clones on Apple's App Store?
App Store does help developers make more money than if they were not on it, but being on it is the only practical way for them to gain access to iPhone users (they could ask users to jailbreak their phones instead but that is impractical for most). If the courts order Apple to allow competing app stores, users would still benefit from Apple's curation, and developers would still benefit from the distribution by using Apple App Store, but they would have a viable choice of picking another app store without having to change to another OS (for users) or abandoning the largest market (for developers).
> In this case, opening up the market to competition might be beneficial to existing App Store developers.
Only true if the 50% revenue increase disappears (Which is likely with a flood of free apps). Not only that, but more free apps = more privacy violations.
> App Store does help.....
So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem? There is no demonstrable harm. The small apps got a cut on the fee earlier this year. Now it's just megacorps trying to get as much of the pie as they can, in a way that hurts consumers.
Also allowing 3rd party applications to control critical features is a privacy/security issue I haven't seen addressed.
That is not a sure thing. Having a wealthier customer base could be as much or even bigger a reason for the higher revenue. And curated apps still have to compete with each other.
> If there are free alternatives available everywhere, people will be less likely to pay.
If this were really the case, it would actually be an argument for increased competition because it would be better for the consumers. However, I do not think that it is true because almost 93% of apps in the App Store are already free.[1] So the 100% revenue difference probably would not disappear. And free apps would have to follow Apple's privacy rules, as they do now.
> So the App Store is a net benefit - what, exactly, is the problem?
Of course it is a net benefit. Even if overall fees were 99%, it would still be a net benefit to both consumers and developers because retaining 1% is still better than nothing for developers, and having a software repository is very valuable for users. No-one is suggesting shutting down the App Store. What is being suggested is for Apple to allow other firms to compete against it, because they control almost two-thirds of the market by revenue and can dictate the terms to the participants.
> There is no demonstrable harm.
That is for Epic to prove. They would try to demonstrate that they suffered harm after violating App Store terms by offering a competing payment method, and that it is anti-competitive for Apple to eject Epic's app, given its market position. Regulators would also have their own methods of determining whether harm occurred.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1020996/distribution-of-...
I understand what you wrote about the two companies' motivations but what do you mean when you write that Apple takes paid apps more seriously? What app store policy differences are you thinking of, for example, between Apple and Google, that suggest a more serious attitude?
There are a few reasons for the discrepancy though. Someone else already mentioned the higher average quality of apps on the App Store.
One facet is the difficulty involved in pirating iOS apps compared to Android, likely because Apple makes sideloading so difficult. Pretty much any kid can spend 20 minutes searching around on Google and figure out how to get paid games for free on their phone.
Another variable is average user affluence. Apple is popular in developed countries with sizable middle class populations, and they position themselves as more of a luxury brand. Android devices run the gamut from ultra premium to ultra budget, catering to user in every socioeconomic class. Apple users on average probably have more spare cash to spend on apps.
On an iOS device, the entity that makes the app has no choice of what store to be in, they must be in Apple's. That is a monopoly.
As many have pointed out, if you only want to get your apps from one store-- like Apple's-- you could chose that. But currently you can't choose to use another app vendor.