> It's still very easy to go with an Android variant
It's still not very common knowledge. Most people wouldn't even know this is happening; keep in mind that Apple's rules also prohibit you from mentioning that alternate payment options exist (even if those are on other platforms).
Also, most people don't have the disposable cash to just throw away their iPhone and go buy an Android when encountering this issue. Frankly, it's still probably more rational to just pay the 30% tax than forego a significant chunk of value off the phone by buying a new Android replacement.
Android also has its own problems (including with privacy, etc) which hopefully will be addressed at some point, but for now it's not a silver bullet, simply a different set of tradeoffs.
I believe the role of a competition watchdog is to prevent anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers as a whole. I don't think it's far-fetched to strike down stupid rules that don't provide any value beyond allowing assholes to seek rent.
> Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general.
IMO, the US model allows a minority to legally screw the rest of the population and get rich off it, offloading the negative externalities onto society. This Apple rule is an example, albeit very small in the grand scheme of things when you consider what is possible and routinely done in the US.
> Help foster strong competitive companies
To a certain extent that's what the EU is doing here. Keep in mind that in the last couple decades a lot of business ideas & markets have been monopolized by US-based companies who are now using anti-competitive practices to prevent viable competition from emerging. The problem with the EU isn't primarily regulation (though it makes a lot of user-hostile business models impossible - a good thing in my book), it's the lack thereof that allowed US-based companies to monopolize many markets even in Europe.
It's still not very common knowledge. Most people wouldn't even know this is happening; keep in mind that Apple's rules also prohibit you from mentioning that alternate payment options exist (even if those are on other platforms).
Also, most people don't have the disposable cash to just throw away their iPhone and go buy an Android when encountering this issue. Frankly, it's still probably more rational to just pay the 30% tax than forego a significant chunk of value off the phone by buying a new Android replacement.
Android also has its own problems (including with privacy, etc) which hopefully will be addressed at some point, but for now it's not a silver bullet, simply a different set of tradeoffs.
I believe the role of a competition watchdog is to prevent anticompetitive practices that hurt consumers as a whole. I don't think it's far-fetched to strike down stupid rules that don't provide any value beyond allowing assholes to seek rent.
> Personally I believe it's because Europe is way too stifling in its rules and regulations. In comparison the United States is just a far superior environment for innovation and starting tech companies in general.
IMO, the US model allows a minority to legally screw the rest of the population and get rich off it, offloading the negative externalities onto society. This Apple rule is an example, albeit very small in the grand scheme of things when you consider what is possible and routinely done in the US.
> Help foster strong competitive companies
To a certain extent that's what the EU is doing here. Keep in mind that in the last couple decades a lot of business ideas & markets have been monopolized by US-based companies who are now using anti-competitive practices to prevent viable competition from emerging. The problem with the EU isn't primarily regulation (though it makes a lot of user-hostile business models impossible - a good thing in my book), it's the lack thereof that allowed US-based companies to monopolize many markets even in Europe.