4 ms·

And could someone please explain where there's an expectation of equal access and right to appear with a certain preference in a closed app store's search resul

And could someone please explain where there's an expectation of equal access and right to appear with a certain preference in a closed app store's search results? Or not to have your app's functionality copied by anyone else?

madsbuch 7y ago
The App store is the de facto access to applications for a large enough part of the public that it should be regulated by the public. Just like you can't sell poisonous food in your "closed" restaurant or can't sell dangerous electrical appliances in your "closed" electronic store. Applications stores are public markets and should be regulated as such.
moron4hire 7y ago
Apple wants to claim the App Store is just a store, that it being closed and no option to install another store does not equal monopolistic tactics. That can only fly if they also don't abuse their privileged position to undercut app competitors. It's no different than Standard Oil giving itself preferential shipment prices on the rails. This is text-book anti-competitive behavior. So yes, in a regulated environment where monopolistic tactics are supposed to be verboten, we are supposed to have a right to at least be on equal standing with Apple's own apps.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Not all anti-competitive behavior is illegal, or wrong. What I'm interested in is when does a company's territory become a public right to insist that others have access? Starbucks coffee shops give preferential treatment to Starbucks products, and not to others. Can you claim a similar right to have access to sell your goods through their stores?
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    Starbucks doesn't have a monopoly on coffee shops, neither do they have an easy way out preventing their customers from going to other coffee shops. Apple iOS users need to spend hundreds of dollars for a new Android device and new apps to get out of their situation. You're also moving the goal post. This particular issue isn't about access to the store at all, it's about Apple giving itself preferential treatment.
Drew_ 7y ago
There's an expectation when your platform is the only option. This wouldn't be a problem at all if Apple allowed alternative app stores. Since that is not allowed, any anticompetitive behavior they exhibit in their store is ripe for a lawsuit. Apple has a 100% monopoly on the distribution of ALL iOS software.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  Sure, but as others have pointed out, it depends on what you consider the market. Apple does not have a monopoly on the distribution of phone apps. Just iPhone. When does the thing someone created become a public good with rights to equal access?
umvi 7y ago
Well, there's at least an implicit expectation that a "platform" farming out work to (and taking a cut from) 3rd party developers should be neutral with regard to app ratings and popularity Apple wants to have its cake and eat it to (have a non-neutral platform that favors only them while implying the platform is neutral to their money cows).
travisjungroth 7y ago
There are three areas of reasoning of why people might consider this bad: moral, legal, and business. A consumer might be offended by this behavior and take their business elsewhere. A citizen may believe this is against the law and point it out. A vendor might dislike these terms and complain publicly. What’s not fair is to completely disengage from someone’s area of reasoning to pick a more favorable ground. I see this all the time. “This is immoral!” “Who cares? It’s legal.” “This is illegal!” “Who cares? Take your business elsewhere.” “These are terrible business terms!” “Who cares? It’s moral.”
asr 7y ago
Your question is worded to suggest you are not actually open to the answer, but I will try anyway: in antitrust law. You cannot create an open App Store ecosystem, invite in outside developers, and then pivot and kill them all off by steering customers to your own app. Closing off your previously-open ecosystem can be illegal. Read Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs.
- supernova87a 7y ago
  I am open to explanations. I'm especially interested in how a phone manufacturer that is 3rd place among others can be said to have a monopoly over the market. Or do you mean just for iPhone apps? Because at that point, how fine do you get to dice it to find a monopoly? I'm sure that once you slice it thin enough, almost any company can be said to have a monopoly. Where does it end? Joe's Pizza has a monopoly on the sale of pizza on the 300 block of Main Street, and has been trying to keep out competitors by buying the store next door.

madsbuch 7y ago

The App store is the de facto access to applications for a large enough part of the public that it should be regulated by the public. Just like you can't sell poisonous food in your "closed" restaurant or can't sell dangerous electrical appliances in your "closed" electronic store. Applications stores are public markets and should be regulated as such.

moron4hire 7y ago

Apple wants to claim the App Store is just a store, that it being closed and no option to install another store does not equal monopolistic tactics. That can only fly if they also don't abuse their privileged position to undercut app competitors. It's no different than Standard Oil giving itself preferential shipment prices on the rails. This is text-book anti-competitive behavior. So yes, in a regulated environment where monopolistic tactics are supposed to be verboten, we are supposed to have a right to at least be on equal standing with Apple's own apps.

supernova87a 7y ago
Not all anti-competitive behavior is illegal, or wrong. What I'm interested in is when does a company's territory become a public right to insist that others have access? Starbucks coffee shops give preferential treatment to Starbucks products, and not to others. Can you claim a similar right to have access to sell your goods through their stores?
- moron4hire 7y ago
  Starbucks doesn't have a monopoly on coffee shops, neither do they have an easy way out preventing their customers from going to other coffee shops. Apple iOS users need to spend hundreds of dollars for a new Android device and new apps to get out of their situation. You're also moving the goal post. This particular issue isn't about access to the store at all, it's about Apple giving itself preferential treatment.

Drew_ 7y ago

There's an expectation when your platform is the only option. This wouldn't be a problem at all if Apple allowed alternative app stores. Since that is not allowed, any anticompetitive behavior they exhibit in their store is ripe for a lawsuit. Apple has a 100% monopoly on the distribution of ALL iOS software.

supernova87a 7y ago
Sure, but as others have pointed out, it depends on what you consider the market. Apple does not have a monopoly on the distribution of phone apps. Just iPhone. When does the thing someone created become a public good with rights to equal access?

umvi 7y ago

Well, there's at least an implicit expectation that a "platform" farming out work to (and taking a cut from) 3rd party developers should be neutral with regard to app ratings and popularity Apple wants to have its cake and eat it to (have a non-neutral platform that favors only them while implying the platform is neutral to their money cows).

travisjungroth 7y ago

There are three areas of reasoning of why people might consider this bad: moral, legal, and business. A consumer might be offended by this behavior and take their business elsewhere. A citizen may believe this is against the law and point it out. A vendor might dislike these terms and complain publicly. What’s not fair is to completely disengage from someone’s area of reasoning to pick a more favorable ground. I see this all the time. “This is immoral!” “Who cares? It’s legal.” “This is illegal!” “Who cares? Take your business elsewhere.” “These are terrible business terms!” “Who cares? It’s moral.”

asr 7y ago

Your question is worded to suggest you are not actually open to the answer, but I will try anyway: in antitrust law. You cannot create an open App Store ecosystem, invite in outside developers, and then pivot and kill them all off by steering customers to your own app. Closing off your previously-open ecosystem can be illegal. Read Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs.

supernova87a 7y ago
I am open to explanations. I'm especially interested in how a phone manufacturer that is 3rd place among others can be said to have a monopoly over the market. Or do you mean just for iPhone apps? Because at that point, how fine do you get to dice it to find a monopoly? I'm sure that once you slice it thin enough, almost any company can be said to have a monopoly. Where does it end? Joe's Pizza has a monopoly on the sale of pizza on the 300 block of Main Street, and has been trying to keep out competitors by buying the store next door.