[dontblink]

I don't understand why the disgruntled companies don't simply band together and remove their apps from Apple until Apple complies? Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse.

[lotsofpulp]

> Apple is as reliant on their third party apps for their ecosystems as much as the inverse.

I would take the other side of this bet. Barrier to entry for software to make a new chat app, social network, streaming app, crypto app, etc is much lower than barrier to entry to make hardware.

Another company willing to play by Apple’s rules will swoop in in relatively little time, while an alternative to iPhone/Apple Watch/AirPods/iPads/M processor computers will not.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Someone will just make a Roblox or Fortnite competitor and everyone will switch to it overnight? I doubt it

[zopa]

It's not a bad idea but there's no "simply" about it: organizing is hard. And if you're one of the disgruntled companies, you have to balance the chances a campaign like this succeeds against the odds that Apple retaliates against the first companies to sign on.

[hoherd]

Doing this would piss off the entire Apple user base of those companies, with no certain gain. Those companies would lose lots of customers as collateral damage in a war that they could potentially lose. Sounds like a bad strategy to me.

[mensetmanusman]

Meh, Apple would be the one pulling the plug.

[makeitdouble]

You could look at the Epic trial for hints.

- Epic ended up mostly in the same situation against Apple and Google. So you’re basically advocating for leaving the whole mobile market in protest. Few game producers can survive that.

- Apple’s core revenue source is games, and there will always be scummier games pouring money into the platform (think gambling. They’ll never join your union, they can thrive under any condition). That makes boycotts way less effective.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Epic is appealing right now and there was a hearing last month. DoJ even showed up to say they think the case was mishandled.

[threeseed]

Because the most important apps to users right now are advertising-driven.

And the App Store has been around for nearly a decade now and we already know that users care far more about Apple than they do any one particular app.

[HDThoreaun]

People have already invested $1000 into their phones. It will take a long time to get them to switch (probably years tbh) and apple thinks they can wait longer than app developers.

[snowwrestler]

Many of the apps in the Apple App Store—including Coinbase—also offer a web interface which would work fine in Safari. People would not even have to switch phones.

[jacamera]

This is an interesting question. It reminds me of the contract disputes that content producers sometimes have with cable companies that might result in one or more channels suddenly becoming unavailable for cable customers. Content producers need distribution (or at least did, back in the day) but the cable companies needed them as well and I would imagine must have taken the brunt of customer outrage when a channel became unavailable.

[ilyt]

Usually it has something to do with "not going bankrupt". Apple's sheeps spend more than on other platforms too.

[drexlspivey]

Where are they going to go? Google has the exact same fees (but gets none of the outcry for some reason)

[laweijfmvo]

Apple probably has a loaded PR statement ready for a situation like this. Coinbase? The public perception of crypto is already a joke at this point on its own. Facebook? Something about “privacy”. And so on.

[satvikpendem]

And do what? When in an oligopoly, there aren't many places to go to.

[gryf]

Investors would fire the board for doing that.

[mberning]

Apple us so flush with cash I doubt they care.