7 ms·

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

by zeveb 7y ago

Veen 7y ago
If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?
- sundvor 7y ago
  Then why are we seeing eg https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-an-app-store-antitrust-case-to-proceed/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains... ? Regardless, their behaviour with their own Dev relations is very much like what they're accusing Qualcomm of.
  - rstupek 7y ago
    The supreme court didn't say Apple was a monopoly it said that people could sue them to see if they were.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the case. The actual antitrust case is extremely weak against Apple. You'd need a nonsensical market definition to say Apple has monopoly power, and it wouldn't hold up in court.
- zeveb 7y ago
  > If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. They also refuse to permit their customers to run apps not approved by Apple on the phones they have bought. That's the monopoly.
  - mason55 7y ago
    Huh? That’s still not a monopoly. Argue that they’re violating anti-consumers laws to have access to device you purchased, sure, but what you’re describing is in no way a monopoly.
    - criddell 7y ago
      I think it comes down to how narrow you want to define the market. And even if it is a monopoly, that doesn't mean anything by itself. Monopolies aren't illegal.
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    That’s factually false. You can side load apps, plenty of enterprises do it.
    - sigstoat 7y ago
      last i looked that requires a couple hundred dollar per year special developer account from apple, with special checks to make sure you're actually a business doing it for business reasons. and they still sign your apps, they just do it automatically, i think.
      - village-idiot 7y ago
        So? You can still side load. Developers do it all the time. The approval process is only for distributing your private app to hundreds of people using Apple’s servers and hardware.
        sigstoat 7y ago
        look, buddy, i'm with you on the monopoly issue, but this whole side loading thing is bullshit. i don't think these mechanisms work the way you think they do, and they're certainly not reasonable for even expert users to keep an app up to date on their device. it just isn't legally relevant.
        village-idiot 7y ago
        Having side loaded apps personally, I'm not really sure why you're so pissed off.
- pier25 7y ago
  The monopoly is that no other software distributor can be used on iOS other than Apple.
  - YUMad 7y ago
    That is a monopoly in their own product, not in a market.
    - pier25 7y ago
      Doesn't matter, Apple is the only supplier of iOS apps and forbids any competition here.
      - conception 7y ago
        LG is the only supplier of apps for their TVs and forbids any competition there.
        pier25 7y ago
        So?
        closetohome 7y ago
        Exactly.
        henryfjordan 7y ago
        So does LG take a 30% rake of all app sales? It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to take advantage of that fact with non-competitive pricing.
      - xwdv 7y ago
        This poor understanding of what a monopoly is on your part is a testament to how uncommon true monopolies have become thanks to modern regulation.
- tracker1 7y ago
  If I want to sell an app to users on iOS, and those users want my app, there's no way for them to get it without Apple. That's a vertical market monopoly. And even if it doesn't qualify as a monopoly in your mind, it can still run afoul of anti-trust law.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    If you want to sell a product in Apple’s physical store, there’s no way to do it without Apple. That’s not a monopoly. That’s them exercising control over their own property. What’s the rationale to treat Apple’s digital store different than Apple’s physical store?
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You could say the same about console makers. They have been doing the same thing since the 80s....
CharlesW 7y ago
That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer. Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
  - npunt 7y ago
    Microsoft had a 90%+ market share in computer operating systems, aka a monopoly. So there's that.
  - Veen 7y ago
    But Microsoft did have a monopoly in the browser market at that time. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the browser market or the phone market or the app market. You can’t abuse a monopoly you don’t have.
    - mbreese 7y ago
      The monopoly was in the OS market. Microsoft got in trouble for trying to use that monopoly to create a new one in the nascent browser market.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        And Apple has no monopoly. Having a monopoly is a pre-requisite for being found guilty of using a monopoly to leverage your way into an adjacent market. End of story.
    - tooltalk 7y ago
      QCOM doesn't have a monopoly in the baseband market either, yet Koh's court found QCOM's monopoly there. The FTC simply redefined a market where QCOM had a dominant marketshare -- the "premium" modem market (LTE) -- for Koh to come to that ruling. So I guess if someone can prove AAPL's dominance in "premium" PC, education, or some niche subgroup in PC market, it too can be in trouble.

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

by zeveb 7y ago

The iPhone app-approval market leaps to mind.

Veen 7y ago

If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. It’s just a store that they control. Would you say that their physical stores are a monopoly that they abuse by not selling samsung phones?

sundvor 7y ago
Then why are we seeing eg https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-an-app-store-antitrust-case-to-proceed/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains... ? Regardless, their behaviour with their own Dev relations is very much like what they're accusing Qualcomm of.
- rstupek 7y ago
  The supreme court didn't say Apple was a monopoly it said that people could sue them to see if they were.
- Despegar 7y ago
  The Supreme Court didn't rule on the merits of the case. The actual antitrust case is extremely weak against Apple. You'd need a nonsensical market definition to say Apple has monopoly power, and it wouldn't hold up in court.
zeveb 7y ago
> If you mean Apple owns and runs an App Store, then yes, but that’s not a monopoly. They also refuse to permit their customers to run apps not approved by Apple on the phones they have bought. That's the monopoly.
- mason55 7y ago
  Huh? That’s still not a monopoly. Argue that they’re violating anti-consumers laws to have access to device you purchased, sure, but what you’re describing is in no way a monopoly.
  - criddell 7y ago
    I think it comes down to how narrow you want to define the market. And even if it is a monopoly, that doesn't mean anything by itself. Monopolies aren't illegal.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  That’s factually false. You can side load apps, plenty of enterprises do it.
  - sigstoat 7y ago
    last i looked that requires a couple hundred dollar per year special developer account from apple, with special checks to make sure you're actually a business doing it for business reasons. and they still sign your apps, they just do it automatically, i think.
    - village-idiot 7y ago
      So? You can still side load. Developers do it all the time. The approval process is only for distributing your private app to hundreds of people using Apple’s servers and hardware.
      - sigstoat 7y ago
        look, buddy, i'm with you on the monopoly issue, but this whole side loading thing is bullshit. i don't think these mechanisms work the way you think they do, and they're certainly not reasonable for even expert users to keep an app up to date on their device. it just isn't legally relevant.
        village-idiot 7y ago
        Having side loaded apps personally, I'm not really sure why you're so pissed off.
pier25 7y ago
The monopoly is that no other software distributor can be used on iOS other than Apple.
- YUMad 7y ago
  That is a monopoly in their own product, not in a market.
  - pier25 7y ago
    Doesn't matter, Apple is the only supplier of iOS apps and forbids any competition here.
    - conception 7y ago
      LG is the only supplier of apps for their TVs and forbids any competition there.
      - pier25 7y ago
        So?
        closetohome 7y ago
        Exactly.
        henryfjordan 7y ago
        So does LG take a 30% rake of all app sales? It's not illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to take advantage of that fact with non-competitive pricing.
    - xwdv 7y ago
      This poor understanding of what a monopoly is on your part is a testament to how uncommon true monopolies have become thanks to modern regulation.
tracker1 7y ago
If I want to sell an app to users on iOS, and those users want my app, there's no way for them to get it without Apple. That's a vertical market monopoly. And even if it doesn't qualify as a monopoly in your mind, it can still run afoul of anti-trust law.
- zaroth 7y ago
  If you want to sell a product in Apple’s physical store, there’s no way to do it without Apple. That’s not a monopoly. That’s them exercising control over their own property. What’s the rationale to treat Apple’s digital store different than Apple’s physical store?
- scarface74 7y ago
  You could say the same about console makers. They have been doing the same thing since the 80s....

CharlesW 7y ago

That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on what food appears on their menu. It's non-sensical as a complaint.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
In United States v. Microsoft Corp.[0] it was determined that Microsoft abused monopoly it's power by simply preventing OEMs from removing internet explorer. Apple demands that all web browsing is done via Safari on IOS as I understand it. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....
- npunt 7y ago
  Microsoft had a 90%+ market share in computer operating systems, aka a monopoly. So there's that.
- Veen 7y ago
  But Microsoft did have a monopoly in the browser market at that time. Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the browser market or the phone market or the app market. You can’t abuse a monopoly you don’t have.
  - mbreese 7y ago
    The monopoly was in the OS market. Microsoft got in trouble for trying to use that monopoly to create a new one in the nascent browser market.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      And Apple has no monopoly. Having a monopoly is a pre-requisite for being found guilty of using a monopoly to leverage your way into an adjacent market. End of story.
  - tooltalk 7y ago
    QCOM doesn't have a monopoly in the baseband market either, yet Koh's court found QCOM's monopoly there. The FTC simply redefined a market where QCOM had a dominant marketshare -- the "premium" modem market (LTE) -- for Koh to come to that ruling. So I guess if someone can prove AAPL's dominance in "premium" PC, education, or some niche subgroup in PC market, it too can be in trouble.