"Dishonest", "steal", "anti competitive" - these are some heavy accusations. In the context of Apple's relationship with developers, dishonest would mean deliberately lying, cheating, or signing a contract and then reneging on it (in which case the developer has legal recourse). "Steal" is quite irrelevant here - if Apple stole anything from anyone, it would have been sued. "Anti-competitive" - if your definition of non-anti-competitive is letting anyone (especially small players) do whatever they want with your product for free (just because you are big and they are small), you would be right, but that would be a wrong definition.
The reality is that Apple is offering a product, a service, and clear terms of how it wants these to be used as a precondition for doing business. Developers can take it or leave it. I don't think dishonesty, theft, or the super-vague term of anti-competition can be applied here.
Sure. These are 'heavy' accusations. I feel pretty strongly about seeing a company I like go down this road. They are attempting to steal, and their behavior is dishonest and anti-competitive.
If they want to make money selling books or subscription services let them try on equal footing with other companies. They are actively attempting to grow their own ebook store and at the same time charging competitors an unavoidable 30% tax to sell on their platform.
Providing a store infrastructure on the phone is fine. Forcing application developers to use your api for in-app purchases is borderline. Disallowing any subscription based content to be viewed on the phone unless you get a shot at taking 30% is crooked, especially given the fact that they are in direct competition with some of those providers.
I understand big business. Apple desires to take a piece of every cash flow associated with a iphone from cradle to grave - whether they had anything to do with creating it or not. And why not? We're talking about a lot of money and the ability to diversify into the cashflows of businesses (journalism etc) they have nothing to do with. They are actively attempting to set up a toll bridge for all content consumed on mobile devices running their OS. They will probably succeed.
This may or may not end up being seen as legal. (I believe they are in a grey zone) I'm saying I don't believe it is moral. Apple didn't do anything to earn this money; they are simply trying to take it because it is there, and they can.
Apple is one of my favorite companies, it bugs me to see them acting this way. If MSFT were doing this sort of thing you'd have grabbed your torch and pitchfork long ago.
I understand your reasoning and completely disagree with it. The only way I can answer is to urge you to check your premises. That would mean thinking about the meaning of "equal footing" and answering why, in your view, Apple has the obligation to provide developers with any kind of footing.
You also use terms such as "unavoidable 30% tax" and "forcing application developers". Do you really think Apple has the status of a government (i.e. the ability to charge mandatory tax) and do you really think Apple is actually physically forcing anyone to do anything? And finally, since you believe their platform policy of taking 30% is "crooked", why do you think that charging for the use of your property is immoral? Or do you think that there are some "moral" boundaries that should be acceptable? What prevents the other parties from walking away if they don't like these terms?
I'm not sure I follow. A lot of your thinking seems to be predicated on the fact that Apple somehow owns your phone after you purchase it. They don't - you do. That's why you give them money for it.
Apple has tried to argue that it needs to retain strict control over what software you can and can't install for your protection. The fact of the matter (now apparent) is that they want to insert themselves into a transaction between two willing parties, without creating any marginal value.
What if your TV maker tried to charge a fee to your cable company because you were watching on 'their' TV?
What if Microsoft charged amazon a 30% fee because you purchased a book through 'their' browser.
What if Kitchenaid charged your bakery a fee per cupcake as you were using 'their' mixers.
The list is endless. At some point you need to assert your rights.
Again: if apple wants to make money selling me books, let them sell me books. Don't let them get away with selling something they don't own.
"... why do you think charging for the use of your property is immoral?"
This is the fundamental problem. Apple doesn't own my phone nor do they pay for my data connection. They are charging for my property.
When framing arguments about Apple, I find it helpful to ask, "Would this defense apply just as well to Microsoft in the '90s?" And as far as I can see, your arguments apply better to Microsoft in the '90s than they do to Apple today. All Microsoft did was create a Web browser, create terms favorable to their interests and ensure that their Web browsing experience was the default. Unlike Apple, they didn't require competitors on their platform to pay them money or GTFO, they didn't require competing Web browsers to use a restricted subset of Explorer's engine, and they certainly didn't demand a cut of any revenue from transactions done through Netscape.
And yet Microsoft was convicted of anticompetitive behavior by pretty much every court in the world. So even if Apple really is on the up-and-up, your reasoning doesn't come close to showing it.
