4 ms·

Having multiple middlemen selling the same app to the same customer isn't an incentive for the developer to lower their prices. Given that app developers set th

Having multiple middlemen selling the same app to the same customer isn't an incentive for the developer to lower their prices. Given that app developers set their own prices, Apple's effect on prices with their store "monopoly" would be hard capped at 30%. And unlike a traditional retail store, the whole process is exceptionally transparent — every developer pays the same 30%, every developer gets boned by the same restrictions. Anyway, there is a competitor to the App Store, it's the Play Store and it's available to any consumer who wishes to shop there. Apple certainly doesn't have a monopoly on app sales.

lightedman 10y ago
"Anyway, there is a competitor to the App Store, it's the Play Store and it's available to any consumer who wishes to shop there." Except Android apps don't work on iPhone.
- sjwright 10y ago
  What a remarkable insight. The thing is, the law doesn't concern itself with iOS app sales, but rather the overall market of app sales. Is the overall market of app sales healthy? Yes, it most certainly is. The reality is Apple doesn't control the marketplace of mobile apps. They don't even have a majority of it. People are free to choose whatever handset they like. And they do.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    "People are free to choose whatever handset they like. And they do." Except for those tied to a specific device for work reasons. Blackberry, anyone (that is, back in the day?)
    - lightedman 10y ago
      And meanwhile, my point is proven: "The policy also applies to private phones used by employees for work purposes" Thank you Deutsche Bank for the vindication. http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/deutsche-bank-switches-off-text-messaging-20170113-gtrdg9.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/deutsche-...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Actually, the law defines monopoly or market power by whether a firm has pricing power (the ability to raise prices without sales moving to a competitor) for its goods. If non-iOS apps aren't competitors to which people move in response to price increases for iOS apps, then they wouldn't be the same market for anti-trust analysis.
  - tarboreus 10y ago
    This is incorrect. The question is whether they have a monopoly on apps on the platform, not whether they have a monopoly on handsets.
umanwizard 10y ago
To your first paragraph: Sure, the effect is hard-capped at 30%. How is that an argument that it's not a real problem? If someone was cheating you for 30% of your bill on anything, wouldn't you complain? To your second paragraph: transparency isn't what's being discussed here. The developers aren't suing Apple; end users are. To your third paragraph: nobody is alleging that Apple has a monopoly on computer programs in general; the point is that they have a monopoly on distribution channels for -- specifically -- iOS apps.
- sjwright 10y ago
  My point about the 30% is that Apple is only liable for inflating prices at most 30%. Prices can't be three times higher than the market would have set because Apple doesn't set the final price. Here's a question, if Apple ran the App Store for free (0% commission) would there be any case to answer? How about 1%? Why is 30% so unreasonable? Seems to be the fair market rate for store services, I'd argue. Microsoft has a monopoly on distribution channels for Xbox games. (Including packaged game discs which just like their online store require their blessing and a license fee. The only difference in practice is method of data delivery and additional middlemen taking a further cut of sales.) Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft? Sure, why not?
    - sjwright 10y ago
      Why should the government of one country pick the business model Microsoft must use on their games console? For a country that seems to bleat "freedom" like a trademark, that's pretty authoritarian.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        Anti-trust law, particularly in the form of the Sherman Act, has been preventing certain types of business models - deemed anticompetitive - for many years. See for example United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.. I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether those legal restrictions are philosophically compatible with some concept of freedom. Citing the best work of political science of the last 40 years, Minister - We are discussing right and wrong. Humphrey - You may be, Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time. Yes, Minister - (S03E06) The Whisky Priest

lightedman 10y ago

"Anyway, there is a competitor to the App Store, it's the Play Store and it's available to any consumer who wishes to shop there." Except Android apps don't work on iPhone.

sjwright 10y ago
What a remarkable insight. The thing is, the law doesn't concern itself with iOS app sales, but rather the overall market of app sales. Is the overall market of app sales healthy? Yes, it most certainly is. The reality is Apple doesn't control the marketplace of mobile apps. They don't even have a majority of it. People are free to choose whatever handset they like. And they do.
- lightedman 10y ago
  "People are free to choose whatever handset they like. And they do." Except for those tied to a specific device for work reasons. Blackberry, anyone (that is, back in the day?)
  - lightedman 10y ago
    And meanwhile, my point is proven: "The policy also applies to private phones used by employees for work purposes" Thank you Deutsche Bank for the vindication. http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/deutsche-bank-switches-off-text-messaging-20170113-gtrdg9.html http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/deutsche-...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Actually, the law defines monopoly or market power by whether a firm has pricing power (the ability to raise prices without sales moving to a competitor) for its goods. If non-iOS apps aren't competitors to which people move in response to price increases for iOS apps, then they wouldn't be the same market for anti-trust analysis.
- tarboreus 10y ago
  This is incorrect. The question is whether they have a monopoly on apps on the platform, not whether they have a monopoly on handsets.

umanwizard 10y ago

To your first paragraph: Sure, the effect is hard-capped at 30%. How is that an argument that it's not a real problem? If someone was cheating you for 30% of your bill on anything, wouldn't you complain? To your second paragraph: transparency isn't what's being discussed here. The developers aren't suing Apple; end users are. To your third paragraph: nobody is alleging that Apple has a monopoly on computer programs in general; the point is that they have a monopoly on distribution channels for -- specifically -- iOS apps.

sjwright 10y ago
My point about the 30% is that Apple is only liable for inflating prices at most 30%. Prices can't be three times higher than the market would have set because Apple doesn't set the final price. Here's a question, if Apple ran the App Store for free (0% commission) would there be any case to answer? How about 1%? Why is 30% so unreasonable? Seems to be the fair market rate for store services, I'd argue. Microsoft has a monopoly on distribution channels for Xbox games. (Including packaged game discs which just like their online store require their blessing and a license fee. The only difference in practice is method of data delivery and additional middlemen taking a further cut of sales.) Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft?
- icebraining 10y ago
  Should Microsoft be required to open the Xbox to games not blessed by Microsoft? Sure, why not?
  - sjwright 10y ago
    Why should the government of one country pick the business model Microsoft must use on their games console? For a country that seems to bleat "freedom" like a trademark, that's pretty authoritarian.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Anti-trust law, particularly in the form of the Sherman Act, has been preventing certain types of business models - deemed anticompetitive - for many years. See for example United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.. I'm not particularly interested in discussing whether those legal restrictions are philosophically compatible with some concept of freedom. Citing the best work of political science of the last 40 years, Minister - We are discussing right and wrong. Humphrey - You may be, Minister, but I'm not. It would be a serious misuse of government time. Yes, Minister - (S03E06) The Whisky Priest