It makes no sense for app vendors to behave like crime cartels or sanctioned regimes in order to avoid a 30% fee. The margins are not high enough. It's fraud. Executives could go to jail.
Also, this whole web of companies would have to distribute the same set of apps, which would make it relatively easy for Apple to spot. Contrary to a prosecutor, Apple doesn't have to prove anything. They just close the accounts without recourse if they have any suspicion. End of story.
And the app vendor would have to forego the benefit of accumulating reviews under one name. Or they could have the opposite problem, users gravitating to one of the clones that ranks highest. How would they make sure each clone has no more than 1 million users?
This is no way to run a company. It's totally bonkers.
>I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such a cartel.
No, Siemens is not a criminal organisation running a web of hidden shell companies. Siemens is a conglomerate comprising a large number of subsidiaries and associated companies that they publish right on their website [1].
I have no doubt that large companies use complicated structures in order to exploit loopholes. But there are limits to that, especially as Apple doesn't require a complex lawmaking process in order to change their ToS. They can close a loophole at the stroke of a pen. And they can close developer accounts at will if ToS are violated.
The speed at which apple can alter their ToS is indeed a key differentiator.
Any cartel instantly becomes a criminal cartel if governance over laws/EULAs is basically absent and biased against the cartel.
[added]
Not saying Siemens is nefarious, but they do seem to be subverting the spirit of law. The conglomerate sure makes it easy to "reorganize" without due process for firing lots of employees.
> I think Siemens Germany is a nice example of just such a cartel. Nicely distributed in small chunks to abide to the letter of (labour) law.
Siemens is not a good example. If you're looking for better examples, there's Aldi. It intentionally splits its structure to avoid triggering stricter labor and reporting laws.
Also, this whole web of companies would have to distribute the same set of apps, which would make it relatively easy for Apple to spot. Contrary to a prosecutor, Apple doesn't have to prove anything. They just close the accounts without recourse if they have any suspicion. End of story.
And the app vendor would have to forego the benefit of accumulating reviews under one name. Or they could have the opposite problem, users gravitating to one of the clones that ranks highest. How would they make sure each clone has no more than 1 million users?
This is no way to run a company. It's totally bonkers.