5 ms·
What about Apple, who, if antitrust law applies to them, would be the most egregious antitrust violator of all time in the tech industry, far worse than Google?
by devit 11y ago
What about Apple, who, if antitrust law applies to them, would be the most egregious antitrust violator of all time in the tech industry, far worse than Google?
Microsoft was convicted for merely including Internet Explorer along with Windows while Apple not only includes Safari, but prevents anyone else from offering browser engines (!) on its platform.
As well as tying iPhone/iPad hardware to iOS and viceversa, iOS to App Store and viceversa, iOS development to OSX, OSX to Mac hardware, App Store to 30% fees on developers and being subject to Apple's arbitrary whims with no recourse including being prevented from competing with any Apple software (under the "cannot replicate system functions" clause).
It seems the theory that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is saving them, but of course they are doing enormous damage with their lock-in even with 50% market share due to the large platform network effects.
- IBM 11y agohttps://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violating-antitrust-laws-while-Apple-which-is-even-worse-now-is-not-punished https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Microsoft-punished-for-violati...
- dagw 11y agothey are doing enormous damage with their lock-in Damage to whom? Damage to potential competitors? Sure, but that's fair game under antitrust laws. Damage to consumers? That argument is a lot harder to make.
- devit 11y agoWell, let's start, I don't think this list is exhaustive. Consumers: - Unless you carry two mobile devices, you can't use several apps that are iOS-only or Android-only. This is because Apple refuses to support Android apps, and Android cannot easily support iOS apps because iOS is tied to iPhone/iPad hardware (and other tech/legal issues caused by Apple) - If you decide to only carry an iOS device, your freedom is restricted and you can only run software according to Apple's permission. Also, it's not obvious to the average consumer which categories of software they have been prevented from using by Apple (this includes or included things like a faithful port of Firefox or Chrome, BitCoin wallets, BitTorrent software, games including the confederate flag and so on). - If you want to run iOS software, you have to pay Apple several hundred dollars more than you would in a competitive market for iOS devices, and can only choose between devices Apple makes Software developers: - Reaching a large majority of mobile users requires writing the software twice, due to existence of iOS and the fact that Android cannot support iOS apps and Apple refuses to support Android apps - Reaching the large market share of iOS users forces you to support Apple's practices, buy and manage Mac hardware, warp your software at additional cost to fit Apple whims, wait days to get updates delivered (if Apple decides to accept them) and pay 30% of your revenue for a service that has at most 5% marginal cost to Apple - Some software cannot be written for iOS because Apple doesn't allow it, reducing the market for it and potentially making it not viable to develop it Phone/tablet makers: - Lots of people only want to carry one device and want/need to use iOS apps (due to lock-in and exclusive software), so the market for new mobile devices is reduced even if they are better in all aspects than existing ones Society: - Less innovation happens due to Apple's restrictions on software and the reduced market for non-iOS devices - Freedom is being curtailed by Apple while offering users benefits for accepting that curtailed freedom, contributing to change cultural norms to a state where it is acceptable for such a company to decide which software and hardware is allowed in the marketplace, and in general what businesses and customers are allowed to do and publish If Apple were split into three truly independent companies, one selling hardware, one selling iOS and OSX, and one offering the App Store and other online services, most of these issues would no longer be present. Google is also guilty of several things similar to what Apple is doing, although they are generally less restrictive and it's possible to opt out, and thus less of an issue.
- Ensorceled 11y agoSorry, but NONE of this anti-trust territory. iPhones not running Android apps is not harm to consumers (leaving aside the technical hurdles of a few GB of libraries an OS wrappers). Apps not being allowed might be anti-trust, but the app policy is pretty fairly applied and is not necessarily anti-competitive so that would be a hard one to prove. Impact on software developers is NOT harm to consumers, it's just not. Competitive differentiation is NOT anti-trust. Finally, according to IDC, Google has 82% of the world market in units shipped. You are seriously losing the plot when you say Apple's actions are harming consumers by reducing market for non-iOS devices when Apple only has 13% world market share.
- matthewmacleod 11y agoI wanted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of this, but it's just drivel. Here's the key – companies are free to provide whatever devices and services they want on the market, so long as they don't have so much influence that it distorts the market. If they do, then they will come under increased scrutiny. Apple are, and should be, totally free to enforce whatever stupid restrictions they want, because there are multiple other mobile device platforms available. It's not even the largest one. The market is open and competitive.
- staunch 11y agoYou're completely confused. Apple is behaving legally and ethically in virtually everything you describe. You just don't like their choices and how much their work influences the industry. That's fine, you don't have to like their choices, this is America. What Microsoft did was control the industry. Bill Gates prevented big PC makers (like Dell) from shipping alternatives to Microsoft software, ensuring there was effectively no way to buy a non-Microsoft computer. Apple has never done anything even close to as evil as what Bill Gates did in his prime. He held the industry back in multiple ways, for years. Apple has done more to accelerate technology than any single organization in history.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago> He held the industry back in multiple ways, for years. This is an oft-repeated meme, but outside of anecdotes where they were being mean to competitors, there is no evidence of the software industry being harmed by its practices on any meaningful scale. In fact, at least one study looked at economic data and found no empirical evidence for it: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=269498
- Ensorceled 11y agoGoogle has dominate market share in critical technology markets; smart phone, search, online advertising. Apple has minority market share in pretty much all their markets. Microsoft had over 90% market share at the time they used their free, and really crappy, IE to pretty much destroy all other browser developers. It's not anti-trust unless it hurts consumers. Being forced to develop on Apple software/hardware affects consumers not at all. What harm is resulting from being forced to use a webkit browser? Being able to load only apps vetted by Apple would also be difficult to show harm given all the malware that keeps popping up on Android. Apple is only 38% market share, Google is ~60%, it's right in the article. World wide Apple is only 18%. I know people hate Apple but really, can we stick to hating them for the crap they actually do.
- Steltek 11y ago> FTC officials have met with technology company representatives who say Google gives priority to its own services on the Android platform, while restricting others AOSP is Open Source. Starting from that, Google hasn't restricted anything. Going forward from there, Google (with Play, Play Services) has gradually started tightening things up because of harm to consumers. Is your Android phone running the latest security patches. No? Google needed a way to push out critical updates and their behind-the-scenes position means they have more limited control than Apple does. It obviously doesn't solve everything but I'd argue that they're doing their best to protect consumers.
- Ensorceled 11y agoGoogle Android is NOT open source. If you want to use Google Android you are restricted. You can FORK Android and build your own but that is a massive undertaking. This isn't about software products anyway, it's about services, search in particular. But this is irrelevant, I'm not attacking Google, I'm disputing the "Apple is the bigger anti-trust violator" idea, which is just silly.
- RealityVoid 11y agoI'm lost, isn't THAT what open source means? Having access to source code? (Witch you do on Android)
- NietTim 11y agoI agree with your point, but Microsoft, and Windows, was, is and always will be way bigger then OSX or iOS. iOS is tiny compared to Windows
- matthewmacleod 11y agoI see this all of the time, and don't understand why it keeps coming up. It's super-simple: - Having a dominant market position is okay. - Abusing a dominant market position is not okay. It's not a complex issue. Complaining that "antitrust law only applies to monopolists" is a theory is a nonsense objection.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoAnd trying to abuse your market position when you don't have a dominant position is also okay. Probably an ineffective, and therefore bad, strategy, but legally okay.
- joshu 11y agoYour memory of history is suspect.
- aruggirello 11y agoIMHO perhaps it's time for antitrust laws to be rewritten. We need to consider each individual marketplace/platform as a market on its own, and we need to consider cross-platform links, and protect any involved third parties in such marketplaces, like independent developers, software houses, etc. - not just customers.