The business model apple is proposing should be ruled anticompetitive. The cost of maintaining the iOS platform should be covered by the cost of selling the hardware. Apple trying to lock out side-loading and third party app stores and payments is just an abuse of dominant market position. Phones are general purpose computers the users have a right to run whatever software we want on.
Calling it anti-competitive ignores the reality: Apple built and maintains the entire iOS ecosystem (hardware, software, security, developer tools, everything). The new EU-compliant model does allow sideloading and external payments, but with reasonable fees to help support that infrastructure. That’s not abuse; it’s Apple defending the integrity of its platform while still giving developers and users more choice. No one is forced to use iOS, but if you do, it’s fair that Apple sets the terms for its own system.
Apple gets payment when people buy their phones, are you suggesting that the cost of those things are not built into that cost? Especially considering how much they make on certain things such as storage increases?
People keep their phones for multiple years and Apple supports the phone with iOS operating system and security patches for 7+ years.
That can be true and also be paid for by the cost of the phone.
Would you write software, sell it to someone and promise support for 7 years?
If the ongoing costs are a problem, they should charge a subscription to have continued access to the app store. Or a subscription fee for their operating system updates.
They did that for iPod Touches because of financial reporting requirements from 2007-2009.
So it would be better if prople didn’t get security updates and app makers had to support more operating systems like Android?
Are you suggesting the cost of an iPhone is not able to cover the minimal updates made to the phone over the lifetime of it? How do the justify the cost of the Mac App Store fees? When they put zero effort in to it?
Seeing that no one is forced to use the Mac App Store, yet some people still chose to, telld you they they get value out of using it
Again, would you write software and support it for seven years without any compensation?
I did used to write software professionally and no, we traditionally charged per update but each update was significant and worthwhile. Any bugs or safety issues were of course fixed for free. We never moved to the subscription model which has in my view instigated these methods. I am not of the view each iOS update is significant. Now I occasionally have to write software for my current role but it isn't the main job and I release it for free as it is quite niche and I would prefer it is out there.
The hardware purchase is a one time purchase, the App Store infrastructure expenses are ongoing.
> cost of maintaining the iOS platform should be covered by the cost of selling the hardware
Let's get right to the crux of the issue here. Who are you to decide how apple should run their business and how they should recoup their R&D investments? A business is free to charge what it wants for what it makes. You are free to buy or not.
Should razors also be priced higher to be self-funding so that blades can be cheaper? Should airlines change their pricing structure? Who gave you a right to dictate how a business you do not own is run?
I'm having trouble viewing this as a serious continuation of discussion.
If the razor company wanted me to only use their razor blades and went to the effort of installing an electronic verification system to ensure that I don't slot other razors in (despite them fitting) then it would be a much more apt comparison.
Who gave us the right? We're the humans here, not the corporations. We don't need to be given the right. Who gave them the right to "sell" us a device that they control to this level? We did. We can take it away, too, particularly when it causes more harm than benefit.
The comparison is more like, if you buy Gillette Fusion handle you need to buy Fusion blades not Mach3 blades and certainly not generic/universal blades unless you plan on not using the handle or jailbreaking it by duct taping it on to the handle somehow.
If you don't like that setup, then you are probably better off getting a safety razor that uses what ever generic standard blade you wish to throw at it -- but you won't be getting reliability of buying into the proprietary Gillette system.
Ok but not do one where there are only two razor manufacturers you can use.
The comparison was with 2 razors. Proprietary Razor System and generic other razor systems that you are free to install questionable blades into as you see fit.
As far as phones, there are more than 2 manufacturers, and more than 2 operation systems and ecosystems.
i can cut myself with the razor blades after i purchase them and nobody can stop me. who gave apple the right to dictate how i use their product after they sold it to me (and is not something they own anymore)?
If you can’t compete, shakedown.
They are competing pretty well. The #1 response to "why you do not have an iPhone?" in the world is "i cannot afford it, else I would." They built a platform so desirable that that is how they are seen. Sounds like they are competing just fine.
They're referring to the EU not being able to compete.
The Digital Markets Act is enforced against US companies exclusively and is a trade weapon. If it were not, they'd aim DMA at Euro tech giants like Booking.com. They won't because it's a way to level arbitrary fines on US tech.