It's not just Apple, I think the fight shouldn't be about just fee but allowing 3rd party stores and applications that don't have an approval stamp from Apple.
Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
> Imagine, if your Tesla refused to move if you didn't use Tesla approved tires which cost 30% more because Tesla charges the tire manufacturer 30% for approving them?
Fine by me. Their business what they charge and how their product is designed, not mine.
Not for iOS realistically speaking. You have to switch to Android, your only other choice, and suddenly all your other Apple devices don't really work that well.
Yes realistically speaking. Of course if you switch to a competitor things aren’t going to integrate as well. Perhaps you can immerse yourself in that ecosystem.
My argument is for interoperability and better 3rd party access to APIs within the OS.
My argument is not that Android doesn't function as well, I quite liked it infact but all my other apple devices basically lost half their functionality without an iPhone and Apple won't give access to 3rd party developers or itself make those apps for Android.
Apple won't even let 3rd party apps integrate with the system like their own do - which is why I wanted to shift away from an iPhone in the first place. Not because I hate or like Android, but because I can replace whatever parts of Google I don't like
It's actually a completely justified intrusion into the market.
To answer questions posed by others since I'm apparently posting too fast:
The reasons governments should intervene are well-elaborated in the blog post under discussion.
Governments worldwide already have plenty of control over what terms corporations can sell their wares to people on. For example, in Europe you must offer at least two years of warranty.
Corporations are government-granted legal fictions, so a government is free to impose whatever constraints it wants on corporations. In return, corporations get plenty of benefits like the ability to declare bankruptcy and not have it hit the pocketbooks of its executives. I would be fine with a regime where if a corporation doesn't abide by the rules, its executives become personally liable for debts, for example.
It's the truth. Unilateral control is the reality, and I'm interested in exploring how to harness it to improve the lot of humanity.
For example, I think Stripe should be able to compete with Apple to be a payment provider on Apple's platform.
As I said, I would be a fine with a world where if Tim Cook doesn't want to play by the government's rules, he is jointly and severally liable for Apple's debts. There are real benefits that come with being a corporation. There need to be responbilities to society as well.
I realize that the federal government /can/ do things, it's whether they/it /should/ do them.
"I want them to" and "It's been done before" don't fly. These are contracts between willing participants, none of which have been broken. The federal government would be overstepping proper bounds to interfere.
> Unilateral control is the reality
Yes. Which is why we should minimize the regulation coming out at the federal level.
> There need to be responbilities to society as well.
They owe you nothing. They provide a product, you either buy it or you don't.
