4 ms·

This kind of behavior - where whole swaths of consumers pay inflated prices, and have choice severely restricted, but the company enforcing such monopoly gets a

This kind of behavior - where whole swaths of consumers pay inflated prices, and have choice severely restricted, but the company enforcing such monopoly gets away on a ludicrous technicality, needs to end. However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive, and lest we forget, didn't exist before Apple's false "but it's all for the consumer's good" marketing blitzkrieg. Regardless of the B.S. mental gymnastics employed by Apple and it's shills, it is unfairly placed as a kingmaker in a $60B app-store market - and it's app store is designed to place it as a monopoly controller of software running on it's phones.

artimaeis 8y ago
> However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices The practice of locking down hardware is many things, but textbook anticompetitive it does not seem to be. Apple isn't working with other vendors to fix prices (cheap Android devices are far more common), reduce quality, or innovation.
- mankash666 8y ago
  From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism
  - artimaeis 8y ago
    How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.
    - mankash666 8y ago
      Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Did you even read the article? The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE. The existence of other handset manufactures is irrelevant
      - artimaeis 8y ago
        > Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Considering you're declaring Apple's practices anti-competitive, I thought you were. Apple's competition is definitively other handset manufacturers. > The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE Okay so you're trying to lay down that Apple, who profits _billions_ per quarter on the iOS App Store, is actively engaging in practices which _discourage_ competition? I mean, I think I see where you're coming from, and that fits a kind of definition of anti-competitive practice. Since a developer can't offer software free of the app store Apple has manipulated their own market to discourage that kind of competition. Still the fact is that there is nothing _special_ about iPhones or any other phone. They have distinct user bases. Despite the fact that Apple does sell software on their platform, if they didn't I don't believe it would change their position on the value of the walled garden. Apple is competing with decidedly few software companies, and those it competes with seem to be able to manage just fine even on iOS (see: Apple Music v Spotify, Notes v many-notes-apps, Reminders v many-todo-apps, etc.). It's not as though Apple releases apps then removes competing apps from the app store _because_ of the competition. Either way, thanks for engaging. I doubt we agree, but it was good to explore the thought out some more.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Gillette Razor Blades are not a monopoly. They are simply part of a product which is in a highly competitive market. Talking about a monopoly within an ecosystem misses what a monopoly means in economic terms. It's a question of consumer choice and leverage.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Considering Android is alive and healthy, you can't really say that Apple's moves here are anti-competitive.
- mankash666 8y ago
  Who said Apple is choking Android? Apple is choking app-developers within the iOS ecosystem.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    Right, but one manufacturer's device does not a market make.
    - mankash666 8y ago
      For paid apps, it does. App store revenues totalled some $60B in 2017, and guess which app store saw an overwhelming majority of those dollars flow through it. There's your market
    - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
      Would not suggest you use that phrase again. One device restricted to one store is a market. Just not the whole market.
favorited 8y ago
> lest we forget, didn't exist before Apple's false "but it's all for the consumer's good" marketing blitzkrieg Absolutely false. The video game industry has been doing this for 35 years, in every console since at least the NES.
- mankash666 8y ago
  In that case, they need to be brought to court too!
  - favorited 8y ago
    They have been[0], but that's not the point. Your claim that no industry or company had done this before Apple's "marketing blitzkrieg" is incorrect, and has in fact been standard practice in certain industries for decades. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc.#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...

artimaeis 8y ago

> However you look at it, completely locking down hardware owned by the user, to apps blessed by the manufacturer is the text-book definition of anti-competitive https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/anticompetitive-practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices The practice of locking down hardware is many things, but textbook anticompetitive it does not seem to be. Apple isn't working with other vendors to fix prices (cheap Android devices are far more common), reduce quality, or innovation.

mankash666 8y ago
From the wiki link: "Protectionism, tariffs and quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces" This is indeed text-book protectionism
- artimaeis 8y ago
  How does the level of locking of the Apple App store on iOS or Mac OS insulate Apple from outside competition the likes of Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc? Edit: In fact, doesn't the locked-down state of the hardware actually encourage competitors to release their own products? Anti-consumer could be valid here, but anti-competitive just doesn't seem correct.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Did you even read the article? The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE. The existence of other handset manufactures is irrelevant
    - artimaeis 8y ago
      > Who's arguing the app store inhibits handset competition? Considering you're declaring Apple's practices anti-competitive, I thought you were. Apple's competition is definitively other handset manufacturers. > The argument is that Apple chokes app developers ON THE APP STORE Okay so you're trying to lay down that Apple, who profits _billions_ per quarter on the iOS App Store, is actively engaging in practices which _discourage_ competition? I mean, I think I see where you're coming from, and that fits a kind of definition of anti-competitive practice. Since a developer can't offer software free of the app store Apple has manipulated their own market to discourage that kind of competition. Still the fact is that there is nothing _special_ about iPhones or any other phone. They have distinct user bases. Despite the fact that Apple does sell software on their platform, if they didn't I don't believe it would change their position on the value of the walled garden. Apple is competing with decidedly few software companies, and those it competes with seem to be able to manage just fine even on iOS (see: Apple Music v Spotify, Notes v many-notes-apps, Reminders v many-todo-apps, etc.). It's not as though Apple releases apps then removes competing apps from the app store _because_ of the competition. Either way, thanks for engaging. I doubt we agree, but it was good to explore the thought out some more.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Gillette Razor Blades are not a monopoly. They are simply part of a product which is in a highly competitive market. Talking about a monopoly within an ecosystem misses what a monopoly means in economic terms. It's a question of consumer choice and leverage.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

Considering Android is alive and healthy, you can't really say that Apple's moves here are anti-competitive.

mankash666 8y ago
Who said Apple is choking Android? Apple is choking app-developers within the iOS ecosystem.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Right, but one manufacturer's device does not a market make.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    For paid apps, it does. App store revenues totalled some $60B in 2017, and guess which app store saw an overwhelming majority of those dollars flow through it. There's your market
  - TooBrokeToBeg 8y ago
    Would not suggest you use that phrase again. One device restricted to one store is a market. Just not the whole market.

favorited 8y ago

> lest we forget, didn't exist before Apple's false "but it's all for the consumer's good" marketing blitzkrieg Absolutely false. The video game industry has been doing this for 35 years, in every console since at least the NES.

mankash666 8y ago
In that case, they need to be brought to court too!
- favorited 8y ago
  They have been[0], but that's not the point. Your claim that no industry or company had done this before Apple's "marketing blitzkrieg" is incorrect, and has in fact been standard practice in certain industries for decades. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_of_America_Inc.#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Games_Corp._v._Nintendo_...