4 ms·

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. That comparison do

>Just as Microsoft were stopped from shipping a browser with their OS, vendors should be prevented from shipping an App Store with their OS. That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. >They should be FORCED to have an open platform, Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly content with a single, curated-by-Apple app store for iOS. I like the stability it affords the platform. I'd never accept it on a general-purpose computing device, but for my phone it's perfect.

jorvi 8y ago
> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. That's Apple's magic trick. They only own the top 20% of the market (evading monopoly attention) but they extract almost 100% of all profit in the smartphone market. No idea how you'd legislate against that though..
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Their magic trick is creating products and services that people want to buy. No one told Google to skimp on customer service and make 18 chat programs that don’t work. No one told Microsoft to drag their feet on preventing malware from destroying the usability of their system. It was Microsoft’s choice to profit from letting manufacturers sell computers riddled with malware that you had to spend hours to remove after buying. It’s google’s choice to not offer product support such that you can’t use their “flagship” devices for 5 years. Apple invested in setting up their retail stores, training employees well, making their devices easy to use, and now they are reaping the rewards.
- jhasse 8y ago
  Sure, by why should the profit matter when we want to determine what is a monopoly and what isn't? Consumers have a choice, no matter what Apple makes.
- peruvian 8y ago
  There's no trick - just Apple being better at this than the competition.
airstrike 8y ago
> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Apple sold 47% of the all smartphones shipped in the US in Q4 2018 https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
- jhasse 8y ago
  1. "in the US" 2. 47% is not a monopoly
  - egoisticalgoat 8y ago
    it's not a monopoly (which your parent also didn't say), but since it's still the biggest piece of pie in the marketshare it's certainly not a "minority" as your parents parent said
- koyote 8y ago
  But only 13% worldwide. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-21-gartner-says-global-smartphone-sales-stalled-in-the-fourth-quart https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...
jdietrich 8y ago
>That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Market share is not the only criteria for determining whether a company has a dominant market position under EU competition law. Apple have a substantial share of the mobile phone market and they have a total monopoly on iOS app distribution. If you want to sell apps to ~27% of consumers in the EU, you have no choice but to go through Apple. End users might have a meaningful choice, but developers don't, which is highly relevant in this case.
- mediocrejoker 8y ago
  Why can't developers sell apps in the Android play store?
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    They can, but that doesn't stop Apple's behaviour from being anti-competitive and illegal under EU law. Apple only control a minority of the smartphone market, but they exert a stranglehold over that share and use that stranglehold to artificially disadvantage competitors.
    - mediocrejoker 8y ago
      I am not a lawyer (and it seems the law may differ significantly between the US and Europe) but I think all companies want to disadvantage their competitors, so whether or not this is illegal really hinges on the definition of artificial.
    - jhasse 8y ago
      Do you have an example for a case where the EU fined a company for anti-competitive behaviour where the company did NOT control a majority of the relevant market?
- jhasse 8y ago
  I would say that a "substantial share" is not a "dominant market position".
supermatt 8y ago
> Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly content with a single, curated-by-Apple app store for iOS. I like the stability it affords the platform. And you should be able to choose that. But should you change your mind, you should be able to take your purchases with you and go elsewhere. Although apple is in the spotlight here, all of these vendor-locked app-stores are the problem.

jorvi 8y ago

> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. That's Apple's magic trick. They only own the top 20% of the market (evading monopoly attention) but they extract almost 100% of all profit in the smartphone market. No idea how you'd legislate against that though..

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Their magic trick is creating products and services that people want to buy. No one told Google to skimp on customer service and make 18 chat programs that don’t work. No one told Microsoft to drag their feet on preventing malware from destroying the usability of their system. It was Microsoft’s choice to profit from letting manufacturers sell computers riddled with malware that you had to spend hours to remove after buying. It’s google’s choice to not offer product support such that you can’t use their “flagship” devices for 5 years. Apple invested in setting up their retail stores, training employees well, making their devices easy to use, and now they are reaping the rewards.
jhasse 8y ago
Sure, by why should the profit matter when we want to determine what is a monopoly and what isn't? Consumers have a choice, no matter what Apple makes.
peruvian 8y ago
There's no trick - just Apple being better at this than the competition.

airstrike 8y ago

> By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Apple sold 47% of the all smartphones shipped in the US in Q4 2018 https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...

jhasse 8y ago
1. "in the US" 2. 47% is not a monopoly
- egoisticalgoat 8y ago
  it's not a monopoly (which your parent also didn't say), but since it's still the biggest piece of pie in the marketshare it's certainly not a "minority" as your parents parent said
koyote 8y ago
But only 13% worldwide. https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-21-gartner-says-global-smartphone-sales-stalled-in-the-fourth-quart https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2019-02-2...

jdietrich 8y ago

>That comparison doesn't really work, because MSFT had an effective desktop monopoly. By contrast, Apple is a minority player in the mobile market. Market share is not the only criteria for determining whether a company has a dominant market position under EU competition law. Apple have a substantial share of the mobile phone market and they have a total monopoly on iOS app distribution. If you want to sell apps to ~27% of consumers in the EU, you have no choice but to go through Apple. End users might have a meaningful choice, but developers don't, which is highly relevant in this case.

mediocrejoker 8y ago
Why can't developers sell apps in the Android play store?
- jdietrich 8y ago
  They can, but that doesn't stop Apple's behaviour from being anti-competitive and illegal under EU law. Apple only control a minority of the smartphone market, but they exert a stranglehold over that share and use that stranglehold to artificially disadvantage competitors.
  - mediocrejoker 8y ago
    I am not a lawyer (and it seems the law may differ significantly between the US and Europe) but I think all companies want to disadvantage their competitors, so whether or not this is illegal really hinges on the definition of artificial.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    Do you have an example for a case where the EU fined a company for anti-competitive behaviour where the company did NOT control a majority of the relevant market?
jhasse 8y ago
I would say that a "substantial share" is not a "dominant market position".

supermatt 8y ago

> Just because YOU want this doesn't mean the Apple users want it. I'm utterly content with a single, curated-by-Apple app store for iOS. I like the stability it affords the platform. And you should be able to choose that. But should you change your mind, you should be able to take your purchases with you and go elsewhere. Although apple is in the spotlight here, all of these vendor-locked app-stores are the problem.