11 ms·

They can let people know it exists through any number of ways. They just can’t bundle that advertisement explicitly into product they sell on the App Store. But

They can let people know it exists through any number of ways. They just can’t bundle that advertisement explicitly into product they sell on the App Store. But they actually do (in the radio spots). They just can’t do it in plain text. Again, this is can be true in other places in retail as well. Walmart may not be happy if I slap a giant sticker on my box that says, “Buy direct from us for less!” Sometimes the stores don’t care. Sometimes they do. If they don’t like it they reserve the right to kick you off the shelf or ask you to remove it.

jedberg 7y ago
You keep conflating Apple's store with Apple's hardware. All of Apple's policies would be fine if they allowed any store on their hardware, because then other stores could have other policies. But since Apple doesn't allow other stores, it's not the same as regular retail, because the consumer can't choose another store with better policies.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain. I understand that a lot of people really want to use Apple phones, because they feel that they are superior to Android phones. But this is not a monopoly, it's literally how the market is supposed to work. You can't walk into a Walmart physical store and ask to see their embedded Target store. Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedberg 7y ago
    But there isn't a duopoly of retailers. There are many to choose from.
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      As far as I know, duopolies are only illegal if the two companies collude to distort the market.
  - treis 7y ago
    >No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain. Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation. >Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence. No, they aren't. You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example.
    - themagician 7y ago
      It's not a textbook example. The textbook examples are Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T and Microsoft. It's closest to the Microsoft example, but when you actually READ the textbook you realize the Microsoft example really focuses on specific actions that Microsoft took to prevent companies from promoting Netscape. Much of the Microsoft example was about intent. Moreover, the case was settled and the government dropped the case.
    - snowwrestler 7y ago
      > Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation. Antitrust law considers the entire market, not just how one company treats their own customers. Apple's policies have no effect on your ability to sell apps on Android. Here's an example of what would be potentially anti-competitive behavior by Apple: if they made 3rd party developers sign exclusivity contracts that said in order to sell in the Apple App Store, they have to agree to NOT sell a version of the same app in the Google Play store. That would be Apple using its position in the market to exclude competition. But Apple does not do this. Developers are free to release the same app on Apple and Android, and customers are free to buy into the Apple system or the Android system. Competition exists and is robust. In fact, as measured by unit sales and installed base, Android is arguably ahead of Apple. > You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example. This is Apple's choice in how they configure those computers; it's not legally mandated.

jedberg 7y ago

You keep conflating Apple's store with Apple's hardware. All of Apple's policies would be fine if they allowed any store on their hardware, because then other stores could have other policies. But since Apple doesn't allow other stores, it's not the same as regular retail, because the consumer can't choose another store with better policies.

snowwrestler 7y ago
No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain. I understand that a lot of people really want to use Apple phones, because they feel that they are superior to Android phones. But this is not a monopoly, it's literally how the market is supposed to work. You can't walk into a Walmart physical store and ask to see their embedded Target store. Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jedberg 7y ago
  But there isn't a duopoly of retailers. There are many to choose from.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    As far as I know, duopolies are only illegal if the two companies collude to distort the market.
- treis 7y ago
  >No, you're conflating "Apple has a monopoly on app stores in general" with "Apple has a monopoly on what they sell to their customers." The former is an anti-trust concern; the latter is just the basics of how a retail operation works. Which themagician has been patiently trying to explain. Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation. >Hardware, software, and inventory are bundled into an experience by every retailer in existence. No, they aren't. You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example.
  - themagician 7y ago
    It's not a textbook example. The textbook examples are Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T and Microsoft. It's closest to the Microsoft example, but when you actually READ the textbook you realize the Microsoft example really focuses on specific actions that Microsoft took to prevent companies from promoting Netscape. Much of the Microsoft example was about intent. Moreover, the case was settled and the government dropped the case.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    > Apple is using its position in one market (phone hardware sales) to exclude competition in another (app sales). It's a text book example of an antitrust violation. Antitrust law considers the entire market, not just how one company treats their own customers. Apple's policies have no effect on your ability to sell apps on Android. Here's an example of what would be potentially anti-competitive behavior by Apple: if they made 3rd party developers sign exclusivity contracts that said in order to sell in the Apple App Store, they have to agree to NOT sell a version of the same app in the Google Play store. That would be Apple using its position in the market to exclude competition. But Apple does not do this. Developers are free to release the same app on Apple and Android, and customers are free to buy into the Apple system or the Android system. Competition exists and is robust. In fact, as measured by unit sales and installed base, Android is arguably ahead of Apple. > You don't have to buy software to run on a Mac exclusively from Apple, for example. This is Apple's choice in how they configure those computers; it's not legally mandated.