Sure you have some bad examples with some of EA games or other exclusives but only a retard would say "I wish only Steam existed because I love Valve screwing me so everyone should learn to love it")
I don't blame Epic or EA either, why should they pay Valve a 30% tax when they can build a store and not throw money away. But I am against exclusives, EA or Epic should put their shit in all stores but on their own stores they could make things cheaper or offer other benefits.
Which has resulted in some much needed competition for Steam, particularly around dev cuts.
Also just look at macOS, would anyone really prefer to only be able to install mac apps from the Mac App Store?
Would the benefits of forcing users and devs through the Mac App Store outweigh the benefits of users being able to install whichever software they wished?
As for Steam, you don't have to use it as a game publisher, as in you could always sell physical media (up until the past few years) or a download. As a consumer I'll pretty much always prefer buying a game through Steam. I hate all these other launchers that you have to now use for like one title because they suck.
This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content distribution where once Netflix was so good. Just look at the difficulty in finding out if a given movie or TV show is on any of your services. There's really no good way to do that. I've seen websites that try but they also include Amazon, Google Play and iTunes where you can buy that content when all I'm interested in is where it streams for free. It just sucks.
More is not always better.
Apple can handle it. They could just put enough stringent protections at the OS layer against malicious apps. Not to mention, any sideloading feature would be well guarded from within the interface so that no one other than power users would actually find it and enable it.
> This same "me too" philosophy is ruining online content distribution where once Netflix was so good.
Ease of service does not justify monopoly.
> Just look at the difficulty in finding out if a given movie or TV show is on any of your services.
It is indeed annoying, but that's not so much an issue directly caused by competition between different streaming services, so much as the studios/networks hoarding their IP. Even if Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. never existed, you'd still see efforts like HBO Max, Peacock from NBC, Paramount Plus from CBS, etc. to try to monopolize their own IP by keeping it off of Netflix.
Says you. Piracy and sanctions alone will make millions use these, not to mention any other uses.
For example, if you search for "mortgage calculator" you get a widget you can use directly. If you click on any of the links it takes forever to load (because it's loading 137 different tracking cookies), you're prompted to sign up to their newsletter, there are ads, the calculator is spread across multiple pages (because, hey, that's more impressions) and so on.
It's a terrible user experience.
So my point is a blanket ban of "competing" is likely to be worse for the consumer.
For this example, Apple has a lot of experience with music, a lot of deals in place and developed the iTunes ecosystem. I don't have an issue with them trying to sell a subscription music service. A blanket ban on this seems like an overreaction.
From the POV of users I would like to see soemthing to make it easy to escape the lockin, like to be able to keep your movies and apps.
In no way are Apple devices and electricity access comparable. Phone ecosystems come and go - energy access is forever.
If I want to deliver food can I ask my customers to use a Linux PC because I only have a Linux app? Can you tell your customers that your website only works on Safari?
As a company you have to implement what the customers want, not what you want. Apple controlling the market means you have to (even if you are not forced by a law of nature) make sure your webiste works on Apple devices and if customers want/need mobile apps (maybe because it needs access to native APIs or other shit that you can't do from a web page) you need to have an iOS and an Android app.
Apple is not forced to sell in EU either, they will fight this but they are doomed to fail and I think the US is also locking into this, and you also have the right to repair movement that would hopefully also force Apple to do the right thing,
Sure why not?
Businesses don’t have to do anything. They can and do support things arbitrarily and customers choose which business to engage with based off those decisions.
Apple and Google are following the same rules. Hopefully those rules change, but I doubt it.
Are you trolling? or do not understand business?
False. Not when there is a monopoly or the cost is too big(do you need examples? or definitions?)
>There are business's today whose websites only work on certain browsers
Sure, show me more then one excpetion of a company that made a web product from scratch in the latest 10 years and their product supports ONLY a browser with less then 50% market share.
But if you REALLY think(and not trolling) that a real business like restaurant/gym/parking place/shop can support only Linux phones then stop replying , just buy a iPhone from US when the EU version will be unlock-able.
See my earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26966785
1. it gatekeeps what's in the App Store. This is of course controversial but is a net positive for consumers (IMHO); and
2. It provides a convenient payments infrastructure.
I certainly hope no government forces Apple to allow third-party App stores. Just look at what a mess this is on the PC where there are a million launchers (eg Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Rockstar) and nearly all of them are terrible.
(2) also has value, even for big companies. There are definitely people who buy things (including subscriptions) on Apple devices because of the ease of doing so. Remember that cut also does include credit card processing fees so that sets the floor at 1-2% not 0%. That's still a lot less than 30% of course. And I think this is particularly egregious for recurring charges like Spotify in this case.
This is why I was utterly confused by Apple's move last year to lower the cut for small developers only. This is the complete reverse of what they should do. It's clear that the winds are blowing towards government intervention here so Apple should be looking to control the narrative and deciding what compromise looks like.
If Apple had come out and said that if you process more than $10m/year then their cut was 10% of initial purchases and 5% of recurring charges do you honestly think that Spotify or Epic or anyone else would be suing them or seeking government intervention to anywhere the same degree?
Apple (and Google) are just holding on too tight to the 30% cut and they're not reading the (antitrust) room.