You can say this about any closed platform. There's nothing wrong with closed platforms having these policies if they are advertised and designed as such. Apple has been consistent from day one.
there are other options, buy an Android or Linux mobile device if you want something a bit more open.
> Unless you’re flush with cash, you rename the app.
Or if you're willing to take the gamble. My default response to C&Ds (and other similar notices) that have no actual legal justifiability behind them is a nice succinct "fuck off", and I've yet to receive any follow-up from about a dozen such interactions.
Now at least some of those "legal notices" were clearly from people who had never interacted with a lawyer in their lives (my personal favourite was someone who insisted that having their username on a ban list for cheating in a video game was a violation of the GDPR), but there's a lot of entities who have a track record of spamming anyone they can find with vague threats in the hope that some people will cave in to their bullying, fully aware that they can do absolutely nothing to those who don't.
I'm no expert on Japanese trademark law, but I suspect it's very unlikely that Clubhouse has any case here.
It is true that as a consumer, I can avoid Apple products. The real issue relates to the options open to app publishers, that is, people who want to distribute an app.
There is no viable alternative for a company wishing to publish an app: you have to target iOS or you perish. Many companies today need to have an iOS app. For example, a bank, or a big chain grocery outlet, probably needs an iOS app to exist in the market. This isn't a tiny niche area which can be avoided.
The only way you can publish an app is with Apple's approval. Therefore, Apple are exercising a significant degree of market power.
In the US, the idea that because a company is private it can trade however it pleases has been rejected since 1890 when the Sherman Act was introduced. It's the same in most capitalist economies. The conduct of companies is subject to reasonable regulation to ensure healthy competition.
I've established earlier that Apple has significant market power in the mobile app space. Because of that, it's fair that we ask Apple to be reasonable when deciding what apps to approve, and the conditions on which they approve them, because they are exercising a significant degree of market power.
This is a space calling for regulation. Apple and Google should not be free to reject or impose conditions on apps as they wish. We have a right, as the people who make rules about how companies may trade, to ask for them to be regulated when they are exercising a significant degree of market power.
It's perfectly reasonable to not distribute on Apple platforms. Many companies choose to do this, and have for decades!
The viable alternative is a web page. But yes, if you want the security and performance supported on a native Apple platform, you have to play by Apple's rules.
Except when Apple neglects web page technology (example: push notifications are available on every browser platform except iOS).
And harm to companies is harm to consumers when they purchase products with applications that get taken away due to Apple (example: I upgraded my iPhone to play Fortnite, which was available on iOS at the time of purchase -- now it's not).
Competition law should work in the inserts of consumers, not private business. As long as consumers are voluntarily choosing to lock themselves behind this walled garden, I don't see why their user experience should be degraded to further business interests.
I think your point answered by this: 'Businesses' are 'consumers' in the app distribution market. Again, you are looking at it from the perspective of phone users, but that's not the market which I'm saying is potentially anti-competitive.
Even then, it's clear that Google aspires to be more like Apple with every iteration of their software. And the number of people opting for Linux at this point are insignificant.
