alt Hacker NewsI believe it was the Apple fee monopoly that was the central thrust of the anti-trust case, not open distribution of apps themselves. The goal was to allow storefronts to compete on fees.
If Apple was banning apps from alt stores but keeping them listed in their own store, then it would be a legal issue.
I personally I think it defeats the purpose as well, but I'm more concerned with the right for people to do what they wish with their own device. These antitrust court cases can get pretty specific with what they are addressing.
Replies
Aren't they both anti-trust problems? Suppose Apple bans apps that compete with some service they offer themselves. Allowing them to be banned in alternate stores as long as Apple also bans them in their own store is clearly not going to make that better, right?
> I believe it was the Apple fee monopoly that was the central thrust of the anti-trust case, not open distribution of apps themselves.
This was not just subject of the anti-trust case, it's Apple being expected to comply with the EU Digital Markets Act.
(The DMA defined objective criteria to identify a scaled market of digital goods with an uneven playing field for all players. Apple was found to have created such a market and was ordered to rectify this)
You're talking about the US case I believe. Alternative app stores were born out of the EU Digital Markets Act which Apple has been brazenly violating since day 1.
The purpose of the DMA is to eliminate gatekeepers' stranglehold over the market and promote competition by forcing them to compete on equal footing. Apple's compliance strategy thus far has been to create an appearance of compliance (alternative app stores, what more do you want??) while fully retaining their chokehold in strategic areas like notarization and core technology fees which completely undermine the goals of the DMA. They remain a gatekeeper who imposes taxes on competition and retains the ability to kill your project (or business) without a due process.