If this story sounds familiar, it’s because it is. In defense of its App Store business model, Apple is defending, losing, appealing, and usually losing again in courts around the globe. It has failed to secure victory in Europe, and seems set on the same journey world-wide; so far, no court has ultimately chosen to support the company in its arguments.
Failure and success
Critics are quick to claim that Apple’s consistent pattern of failure shows the weaknesses of its argument. They may have a point, but as these battles intensify, it’s too easy to lose sight of the fact that at least some of Apple’s defenses have substance. Opening the platform to side-loading will make the platform less private and less secure, as not every app store or developer will be able to devote the same investment in security and privacy protection. That matters to people and to businesses, so it makes sense to ensure there is still a choice that lets customers opt for the fundamentally more secure walled garden Apple provides.
Apple even has a justifiable right to generate income from sales made using the ecosystem it has built, and the only question that really matters there is how substantial that fee should be. Is it 30%, which some App Store developers pay, or 15%, which most paid app developers provide? Or nothing, which is what free apps pay for distribution? Should the fee be the equivalent to that set by Epic, or similar to the slotting fees charged by major supermarkets for shelf space?