He takes 30% for his platform, what's the issue with Apple taking 30% for their own platform? Quit the platform if you want. If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)
Apple can ask 30% all they want IMO, as long as they allow side loading.
Don't use their app distribution platform? Don't pay their fee. That is how it should work, which is how it does work on android (and yes most companies still use the play store, because it is hard to convince consumers to use another store, but at least the option is there. Also you can not auto update apps installed from outside the play store which also sucks).
My device so I and I alone should determine which software I want to run
Apple’s non-hardware expenses aren’t limited to the distribution platform… They make the OS, the libraries, the APIs, the development tools and continue to maintain those even after the hardware is sold… Why should third parties get to free ride on that? I don’t see why we should compel software authors to add hooks and features and provide tools for non-paying third parties.
Before iOS (and for the early years of iOS) people paid out of pocket for software updates. Now it’s an ongoing cost instead, imposed as a tax on software transactions. This is not an unusual arrangement - people rent things in perpetuity all the time, like EC2 instances and water heaters.
The fact that it's a tax on software transactions and not simply something rented/charged monthly is kind of the point.
And, no, not all software updates were uncommon or charged for before iOS. Windows Update predates iOS by many years. People did pay for development tools but then so do iOS developers for $100 a year. I've personally only paid for dev tools a few times in my life. Developers add value to an ecosystem.
Imagine all Windows computers required you to use the Microsoft Store to download any piece of software, and you had to pay 30% for that privilege. Oh, and if every browser on the store was just another version of Internet Explorer (which Microsoft already got in trouble for around 20 years ago for just this one issue, much less all the others).
And on the Unix side it's slightly better where you can download apps outside of the Unix Store but they don't autoupdate while easily having the ability to, and that any OEM that doesn't install Unix Store Services gets their Android license removed or severely limited.
If state governments and agencies offer essential software for only two platforms and the most "open" one is restricted of most useful stuff because Google doesn't like it, no, there isn't enough competition.
It's a really basic point and I have no idea what's so hard to understand.
There is no single human being that can use AOSP as a daily driver given that even government apps use Play Services.
An academic exercise of open source isn't an excuse for an actually functional and useful daily driver. We've come as a society to the point where the absence of a cell phone makes you a second-class citizen.
If every single windows computer required you to pay them 30% for every transaction from those computers, yeah that would be an anti trust violation as well.
Microsoft got in trouble for the much less bad act of merely bundling a browser with the OS.
Imagine how much worse it would be if they took 30% of every transaction on every computer in the world.
And if you don't want to partake in the walled garden distribution then your side-loaded apps will be walled off from latest iOS API and capabilities, and they will be unable to impact the core UX. Sounds fine to me.
> If consumers value Spotify enough they will leave Apple for it (spoiler: They won't)
That's not how reality works at all and you are very aware of it. You are trying to force an equivalence between a device ecosystem which has massive network effects once you are in it, a device most people use everyday in 2022 for most of their lives needs: maps, communication, banking, government interactions, entertainment and so on, and pitting it against a simple music/audio service.
What makes Apple behaviour even more egregious isn't only the 30% cut, it's that they provide a competitor that doesn't have to care about this overhead cost, it's undercutting the competition because they control the whole platform. If this doesn't sound anti-competitive to you then I believe you are deep into a hole.
