3 ms·
> The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"? Because flagship Android phones comparable to iPhone are not chea
by summerlight 6y ago
> The court will (correctly) point at Android and ask, "why isn't that a viable alternative"?
Because flagship Android phones comparable to iPhone are not cheap enough to switch solely due to apps. This is a textbook monopolist argument: "if you don't like me, then you can always move out!"
- scarface74 6y agoWhat apps did most iPhone users actually pay for? Most of the money from the App Store come from in app purchases from play to win games. The other come from subscriptions that are cross platform.
- summerlight 6y agoThat actually supports my point. Most of the apps are under $1 ~ $5, so the cost ratio between a phone and an app is extremely high. Why would I invest >$1000 into Android just to avoid paying $0.3 to Apple? You don't move your home because you don't like your local hospital. The exact same logic applies here.
- scarface74 6y agoIf you agree that most money made on apps from within the App Store are from pay to win games, are you really shedding a tear over the lost revenue on loot boxes and coins to get past a level in Candy Crush?
- nodamage 6y agoAs I quoted above, a key factor the court will consider is whether the customer knew of the restriction at the time of purchase, could have made an alternative purchase without the restriction, and went ahead and purchased anyway.