Setapp Mobile To Close in February as Alternative iOS App Store Economics Prove Untenable (macrumors.com) 23
MacPaw, the Ukraine-based developer, has announced that Setapp Mobile -- its alternative iOS app store for European Union users that launched in open beta in September 2024 -- will shut down on February 16, 2026, citing "still-evolving and complex business terms" for alternative marketplaces that don't fit its current business model.
Alternative iOS stores became possible under the Digital Markets Act but face challenges including Apple's controversial Core Technology Fee, which Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has called "ruinous for any hopes of a competing store getting a foothold."
Alternative iOS stores became possible under the Digital Markets Act but face challenges including Apple's controversial Core Technology Fee, which Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has called "ruinous for any hopes of a competing store getting a foothold."
By design. (Score:4, Insightful)
Alternative iOS stores became possible under the Digital Markets Act but face challenges including Apple's controversial Core Technology Fee, which Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has called "ruinous for any hopes of a competing store getting a foothold."
Yeah, of course. You didn't actually expect a multiply convicted monopolist to compete, did you?
Of course the terms are skewed so hard that nobody else can compete. This is by design. Apple wants to control the phone and everything on it. They always have, all the way back to when they wanted to only have web apps plus a few native apps by invitation only. And they're apparently not above wiping their backsides with the Digital Markets Act or the Sherman Act to achieve that; they've demonstrated this enough times that this outcome should be of no surprise to anyone.
If anyone expects Apple to behave itself, they're in for disappointment, as they have repeatedly shown themselves to maliciously comply with any court order that is not in their favor. The finance folks run the show and have for a while. It's why the flagrant antitrust violations have gone up. It's also probably why the quality of engineering has gone down so much.
Remember when Microsoft was forced to prop up Apple to keep from suffering more antitrust scrutiny? This is Apple's moment as the Microsoft side of that, and how Apple responds will likely determine Apple's fate.
As for myself, at this point, speaking as a shareholder, IMO, the best thing to do would be for the courts to force Apple to divest itself of the entire App Store ecosystem so that their leadership can't continue to shoot the company in the foot. Make Phil the CEO of App Stores, Inc. or whatever you want to call it, but separate it from Apple entirely, with a permanent injunction against Apple ever holding more than 5% of the new company and vice versa.
I respected Phil before, but I respect him a lot more now for trying to push Apple to do the right thing. And I respect Tim a lot less for not listening to him. And I respect Apple Legal even less for not jerking a knot in them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and Sears was never sued for being the only place to buy parts or attachments for Craftsman tools.
1. Sears wasn't the only place to buy parts or attachments for Craftsman tools.
2. Because someone else gets away with something doesn't mean it's ok for everyone to get away with it. (If Bob gets away with murder, it doesn't mean you can justify murdering someone because Bob didn't get in any trouble for it)
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it looks like someone coming in and demanding to make money off of someone else's product by forcing them to make it work differently. That just seems wrong to me.
Re: (Score:1)
"We have never filed anti-trust suits against... "
Really? FTC v John Deere January 2025. Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona too. Some farmers have started class action suits.
No, your point does not stand. It is likely illegal to force people to buy only your official replacement parts, it's just a new enough thing that it's still working through the courts.
And again, "they got away with it" is not an excuse for monopolistic conduct. There are many things that only become illegal if you've got
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see how there is an anti-trust violation inside a particular brand of a common device. They don't have a monopoly on cell phones, and Sears was never sued for being the only place to buy parts or attachments for Craftsman tools.
First, in the U.S., Apple has almost a supermajority share of all cell phones sold (as high as 65% in one quarter of last year, and rarely falling below 50%). So they have a remarkable level of market control compared with the next largest player (Samsung at 18% in that same quarter). When your market share is almost 4x that of your nearest competitor and 2x all of your competitors put together, you're basically a monopoly when it comes to your power over the market.
Second, Sears was never the only place
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What was Microsoft's market share when they came under anti-trust scrutiny?
I'm not sure why you think that's relevant. The reason they got in trouble was because they used their market power in one market (operating systems) to control another market (browsers) in much the same way that Apple is using their power in one market (phones) to control another market (mobile payments).
In that particular case, Microsoft's market share was over 90%. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Apple got antitrust scrutiny over their book store deals even though I'm pretty sure they have never e
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don't see this as trying to control the mobile payment market. They don't and can't control that, it's still ultimately the Visa/Mastercard duopoly. I see it as them deciding to only allow one package manager. Now, you might be annoyed if you were forced to use RPM instead of APT, but would you want the courts involved, or would you just
Re: (Score:2)
Because their market share was much larger than Apple's share of the cell market and you can't meaningfully engage in monopolistic practices if you aren't one?
Except as I pointed out before, this is not true. That 30% limit is because attempting to monopolize is itself a violation, regardless of whether you successfully monopolize a market. Tying is pretty much per se illegal, for example, regardless of your size.
Also, I don't see this as trying to control the mobile payment market. They don't and can't control that, it's still ultimately the Visa/Mastercard duopoly.
To clarify, that's not really what I meant by mobile payments. Apple has monopolized the use of mobile devices to buy lots of things. You can't buy mobile apps for iOS except through Apple. And before Epic, you couldn't easily buy mobile app content
Re: (Score:2)
And it doesn't look like Apple's customers care. People who want to sell them things care, but I'm not as
Re: (Score:1)
"Are the anti-trust laws for consumer protection or profit protection?"
Yes, it is in fact both of those. Profit protection (for a competitor trying to have even a slim chance to succeed), and consumer protection (from too much lock-in to a particular company's business model).
I want to see a law passed... (Score:2, Interesting)
I want to see a law passed (in a jurisdiction that Apple can't ignore or stop.doung business in) that requires Apple to allow true sideloading. That is, apps installed on the iPhone without any requirement for Apple to even know the app exists (let alone have any approval or veto over it) or collect any money from that app (regardless of whether the app charges up front fees, in-app purchases or whatever).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Especially when a product has hit a certain level of market saturation that "voting with your money" so to speak just doesn't work anymore and the company does not listen to customers - only investors, who are fucking retards that know nothing. Apple does not sell phones. Apple sells an "experience" and anything outside of that "experience" is not allowed by them - it's not even a good, quality experience. It is your phone. You should be allowed to do whatever you want with it including:
-side loading a
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, if you think they don't do extensive research into consumer tastes and behavior before releasing any product, think again. They aren't just spending $34 billion a year on engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
And you want your tastes regarding those items to be enforced by law?
Those aren't tastes. They are basic things you should be allowed to do precisely because it is YOUR device. You are not borrowing, renting, or leasing the device. You own it. It's yours. Not Apple's. Apple should not be able to deny you basic access to the device that you own.
Oh, if you think they don't do extensive research into consumer tastes and behavior before releasing any product, think again.
They aren't and haven't been. iPhones have not launched with any new features that users actually want that isn't just catching up to Android. Apple keeps trying to make the ugly ass, piece of shit, that is the Vision Pro work despite
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. They aren't. You are just ok with people "owning" devices without actually being "in control" of said devices. Which is an absolutely insane point of view.
Late stage capitalism gets another one to bend over and take it.
Crazy (Score:2)
It's bonkers that anyone falls for anything Apple says. They charge developers a flat fee just to develop for it. They take commissions of developer sales. They charge alt app stores for existing. And for what purpose? They don't use that money to improve anything or offer jack shit.
The hardware is mid. The software is below mid.