In my opinion, Apple have a choice. They go down the "just works", tight integration and lower the fees for other developers OR they open up for competition and keep the fees.

At the moment they're double dipping. They're saying they have to be the only app store for security and UX AND then charging high fees. If they're really providing a service for end users, they shouldn't be taking such a large cut from developers.

> If they're really providing a service for end users, they shouldn't be taking such a large cut from developers.

Bingo. If they're making an argument that they have to retain so much control because it's good for the users, then why are their margins so big?

I'm not saying companies shouldn't be able to run successful, highly-profitable businesses.

I'm saying they shouldn't be able to (a) have significant market share, (b) have significant size / market cap, (c) have high margins, AND (d) claim "but we're so efficient for our users!" as a defense against anti-trust.

One of those things is bullshit, and 3 out of 4 are facts...

If I'm Apple, I just open the gates. I would be very surprised if they lose much "business" as a result, at least not for a very long time.

I'd suspect most users aren't going to venture outside the garden.

No but their margin will reduce, their market cap too and a lot of money will start to flow to people really innovating.

But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out? Sure, it's a nice profitable margin-padding fee but how else do they keep out the bottom feeders? Do Apple users what to pay a premium to get more useless noise?

Note: I'm not defending Apple. But the higher dev fees do serve a purpose other than revenue.

> But doesn't the higher fees on dev help to keep the riff raff out?

It doesn't keep malware from getting in. If it's hurting people by limiting their choices and it isn't keeping people safe then what good is it?

If high fees (with high margins) are there to ensure the integrity of the store, then Apple could invest more of that margin into ensuring the integrity of the store.

Back in the day you used to have to pay a bunch of money upfront to buy the software that allows you to develop software for a particular platform, then you were free to distribute your software as you wish.

If Apple is really concerned about keeping out the riff raff they could raise the annual flat developer fees.

But we all know that's not what they're actually concerned about - the app store is estimated to have 80% margins right now. They're just charging what the market will bear, and the market will bear quite a lot right now as they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

> they're part of a duopoly on smartphones.

Well, that's another conversation then isn't it? If that's the case, then Apple and Google (Play) should be named then, yes?

Only if the justice department believes Google has been using its dominant market position to harm consumers.

Which it hasn’t been because there are alternative app stores, payment processors and sideloading.

I’m an Apple user (own iPad, iPhone, Mac Studio, among other devices) since the 90:s and I buy into that. But I _also_ think Apple has grown way too much into a bully and way too much into disallowing third party developers to do things Apple allows themselves to do with competing apps.

The “it just works” should be allowed to extend into the entire ecosystem.

Same, I like Apple hardware and while the OS experience has suffered recently, it’s great as a tool to get things done. But making Music.app and other services part of the ecosystem has not been a great move. Some things should allow for interoperability so that the user can make his choices. I think Apple has been too heavily handed in imposing its services to users.

"It just works" except I have to remember to not pay inside the app to get the cheapest price because the app price is 30% higher to pay the Apple tax. I need to open my laptop to buy a Kindle book instead of continuing to use my phone.

Small, minor, annoying issues as a customer that make me think slightly less of Apple while continuing to be in awe of their hardware.

I imagine that will be the crux of the case - they need to prove consumer harm, and it’s quite clear Apple’s policies result in consumers paying more.

>I need to open my laptop to buy a Kindle book instead of continuing to use my phone

You can buy in iOS Safari and not have to open your laptop.

But how would you know to do this if they're gagged developers from informing users about Apple's cut, cheaper prices elsewhere, or from giving them a link.

I'm sure people will pay a bit more to use Apple pay and not get kicked out to a browser and possibly fiddle with re-logging in and re-typing in their payment info to a sketchy site.

Very few will pay 30% more though, because even the people that love Apple pay will be forced to acknowledge it's an obvious ripoff, in no way commensurate to the value provided.

I know because I compare the price on the vendors website versus the app. And I know that because I am up and up on how these things work, and I do not expect everyone else to be.

However, I was just making a factual statement that anyone can pay using their browser on iPhone or iPad on the vendor’s website, just the same as they can using their laptop.

It _used_ to just work. Now each release is full of features no one asked for, and there are more and more issues because of this feature bloat.

My M1 MacBook Pro is probably the second worst computer I've ever bought, and might have been the most expensive I've ever purchased.

I'd be happy to trade you something you consider better.

I bought an Air (M1) at the same time and felt like the air was the better value. For one, the fact that you can't hit a button to volume up/down, but instead have to activate the Touchbar, click the sound icon, try to move the volume left or right to desired location is too many steps, not precise and a pain.

I bought another Air this year (M2), and again, it's a far better value.

That hasn't been the case with Safari in a long time, has it? And of course, users can't switch to a browser they believe works better.

I doubt that a regular user has any opinion on whether Safari "just works". Some developers care about Safari vs Chrome vs Firefox browser engine features, but the average end user at most is just going to think some website sucks if it doesn't work. (And, personally, I don't see any problems in day to day usage, so I doubt it comes up much to those less technical than myself.)

To the extent that they care, they seem satisfied by being able to switch to other iOS browsers that under the hood use the WebKit engine, but give them the ecosystem-integration with their desktop browser that they want. Shared Chrome bookmarks and tabs matter 1000x more to a random user than details of browser engines.