Epic, Spotify, and Tinder form advocacy group to push for app store changes
Can we just link directly to the advocacy group&#x27;s page (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;appfairness.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;appfairness.org&#x2F;</a>)? I&#x27;m not certain the article is adding anything.<p>----<p>I&#x27;m generally supportive of at least some of Epic&#x27;s arguments towards Apple, and I do believe that Apple (and multiple other FAANG companies) are engaged in anti-competitive behavior that&#x27;s currently hurting the market. But a lot of the arguments I&#x27;m reading on the App Fairness site in particular seem really poorly phrased, almost to the point of being incoherent.<p>From their objection on &quot;user freedom&quot;:<p>&gt; Think about this a little differently: A box of Cheerios costs about $3.00 at Kroger, but sometimes Cheerios offers a coupon which lowers the price to $2.50 at any store that offers Cheerios. What Apple is doing is basically like Kroger telling Cheerios that they’re not allowed to offer coupons, and if they do, Cheerios is at risk of being kicked out of the cereal aisle. Consumers wouldn’t stand for this type of monopolistic behavior over their cereal, so why should they allow it for the apps used on their mobile devices?<p>I had to think really hard what they mean by this and how it actually relates to user freedom. Most resellers <i>are</i> allowed to choose their own prices for goods. I don&#x27;t think this analogy corresponds at all to what Apple is doing. Apple is banning apps from telling consumers <i>in app</i> about other purchasing options. That&#x27;s a totally different objection.<p>I&#x27;m pleased to see developers banding together, but if this is the result then I wish they&#x27;d spend more time making more reasonable, understandable arguments. If this site was my first introduction to the debate over app store policies, I think I&#x27;d probably be on Apple&#x27;s side.