7 ms·

Gruber's commentary on Microsoft abusing monopoly power over access to Windows customers (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/05/01/msft-goog http://daringfir

by kjksf 16y ago

Gruber's commentary on Microsoft abusing monopoly power over access to Windows customers (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/05/01/msft-goog http://daringfireball.net/linked/2006/05/01/msft-goog): “Who, us? Abuse a monopoly in one area to ram something down our customers’ throats so as to build a new monopoly that damages our leading competitor? What would ever make you think we’d do that?” Gruber's commentary on Apple abusing monopoly power over access to iPhone/iPad customers: "This sucks for Sony because, for now, they’re locked out of the App Store. It sucks for Amazon and Barnes & Noble too, if I’m right that, going forward, they’re going to have to offer in-app purchasing as an option. But you can’t say it’s surprising that the rules are evolving toward more money for Apple while improving the experience for users" See, when Apple does, it's "to be expected". When Microsoft does it, let's unleash the outrage. If Apple is successful in forcing Amazon to fork over 30% for iOS-originating Kindle purchases, then they don't even need to improve their iBooks business - they would get as much money from Amazon for each book sold as they would get directly from a publisher and either destroying Amazon's margins or causing the books to cost 30% more. Neither option is good for customers and the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better. Personally I don't want to see more abuse from Apple and enforced toll-roads for access to users of Apple made (but owned by people who purchase them) devices. It is becoming clearer and clearer that Apple is not satisfied with making bunch of money the ethical way and will use every means available to make even more money unless someone with an ultimate stick steps in and delivers sound beating.

davidedicillo 16y ago
Apple is far from having a monopoly, as the Android users and Apple hater keep reminding us. Microsoft at the time I think had 90% of the market or something ridiculous like that. Amazon is free to take its app to the other 100 tables presented at CES.
- kjksf 16y ago
  I can't wait until the day competition from Android will force Apple to be less arrogant and abusive but we both know that day has not yet arrived. Apple has 99% of tablet market and probably ~50% of smartphone market. The important figure is that it's 85 million devices as of April last year (http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-million-iphones-sold-35-million-ipod-touches-85-million-iphone-os-devices/ http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-million-iphones-sold-35-mi...). Do you actually argue that it's ok for Apple to forbid competitors like Adobe, Mozilla, Sony or Amazon from having the same access to 85 million (and growing) users of iPhone/iPad as Apple has? Is it a function of market share? The cause => effect in those situations is simple. Those who have enough market share to impose abusive terms, do. Whether it is Microsoft with Windows, Apple with iOS or telco companies collecting outrageous fees, they do it because they can. A 90% market share is not necessary. In all cases it limits competition and as an end result hurts users who pay higher prices and don't get to use innovations that the gatekeeper doesn't like.
  - jstevens85 16y ago
    Apple has 17.25% of smartphone market share. http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/01/the-iphone-share-17-25-of-smartphones-4-2-all-phones/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/01/the-iphone-share-17-25-of-s...
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    It sounds like you're suggesting that successful companies should help their less successful competitors rather than competing.
    - recoiledsnake 16y ago
      You mean like how Microsoft helps Apple by allowing iTunes to run on Windows and allow purchases? Maybe Apple should block purchases on Amazon.com on Safari on the iDevices and demand a 30% cut. After all, isn't it helping Amazon? The point is that the iPhone becomes more valuable because of the apps. For example, the iPhone would be more attractive to owners of Sony and other ebook readers if the app was approved. I think Microsoft should stop helping it's competitor Google by allowing it to work on Windows machines. They should just pre-install a redirect from google.com to bing.com in the hosts file.
      - GHFigs 16y ago
        You mean... No. I mean that the above comment seems to be suggesting that a company that reaches a certain level of success (e.g. Apple's user base) is in the wrong if it doesn't share that success on equal terms with any competitor that would like it. As if reaching that level of success were just a matter of chance and not, y'know...competition. That would be saying that your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again. Since you seem to traffic in absurd examples, try this: Why don't all of these companies just merge into one big company? That way nobody gets blocked out of anything and everybody gets to share the wealth.
        recoiledsnake 16y ago
        >I mean that the above comment seems to be suggesting that a company that reaches a certain level of success (e.g. Apple's user base) is in the wrong if it doesn't share that success on equal terms with any competitor that would like it. As if reaching that level of success were just a matter of chance and not, y'know...competition. That would be saying that your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again All of what you wrote makes sense for a single market. But here things are different. Apple makes phones. Amazon sells ebooks. The conflict of interest started when Apple started selling ebooks and now is ready to devalue it's phone to get leverage in the ebook space. i.e They're leveraging their smartphone marketshare to gather steam in the ebook space. Remind you of MS and Netscape? Pretty similar except for the Windows monopoly part. Didn't exactly that happen with Microsoft with Windows and Office? >your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again Err, how would Apple be held back from creating a killer ebook app and succeeding by the merits of it rather than sitting around and charging a tax on all the ebook purchases on iDevices? How does this benefit the user? So you mean creating a successful product by beating competition in one market should allow one to automatically make another successful product in another by riding roughshod over the competition leveraging the earlier success beyond just using the profit as capital? So, do you think Microsoft shouldn't have been punished for bundling IE(it was actually better than Netscape at that point) with Windows ? They didn't even ban Netscape or attempt to tax it, they just bundled their browser with a very successful OS which is not a matter of chance but, y'know...competition.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  Scary scenario: Lets say Apple and MS get to 50% share each on desktops/laptops. Won't that mean they could do whatever abuse they want to without scrutiny just because none of them is a monopoly? >But you can’t say it’s surprising that the rules are evolving toward more money for Apple while improving the experience for users — that’s win-win from Apple’s perspective. How is it an improvement to be unable to read the books you've already bought or movies you have already rented on the iDevices? Even Microsoft didn't pull such shit for Netflix on the Xbox 360. And the consoles are subsidized for a big loss which was to be made up by purchases by the customers. Apple makes a profit on every iDevice sold, every iApp sold, through iAds and on the $99/year developer fee. No wonder they're literally swimming in cash but still pull such new shit for even more control and money. If Microsoft did something like this with Windows, they would have more money than what the US has in circulation, which is probably where Apple is heading. At some point the industry is going to tell Apple to get lost and stop supporting the iDevices which is going to hurt Apple, which coupled with Android's rise might push Apple into a niche like on the desktop.
  - jstevens85 16y ago
    >Apple makes a profit on every iDevice sold, every iApp sold, through iAds and on the $99/year developer fee. What evidence do you have to support the allegation that Apple makes a profit on every App sold? Firstly, there's the cost of having the application tested, approved, uploaded and categorised. There's also the cost of hosting the app as well as the credit card processing fees. Users have the right to re-download any app they've purchased in the past. What about a 99c app that weighs in at 2GB? Does Apple really make a profit after credit card processing fees and bandwidth costs? As for the $99/year developer fee, there are costs involved in providing support, moderating forums, and approving applications.
    - recoiledsnake 16y ago
      You mean it cost millions to approve and sell Angry Birds? Bandwidth is pretty cheap these days and most apps are quite small. >As for the $99/year developer fee, there are costs involved in providing support, moderating forums, and approving applications I am sure Xcode costs a lot to develop etc. But Apple still gives it away to developers and has free documentation, examples, forums etc. Why? You're excluding the benefit of the Apps which make the iPhone more valuable to the users and are a big reason that people buy iPhones. No wonder Jobs like to tout the 300k+ app number every chance he gets.
- jordanroher 16y ago
  Apple may not have a monopoly on the raw number of physical devices in the world (except tablets), but aren't they "winning" from a profits perspective? Isn't that what Gruber has celebrated for years: that Apple makes more money selling one phone than any other company on Earth? That they're beating Microsoft and Google at the only game that matters to a corporation, the bottom line? But since the global market share of iOS devices is less than 50% + 1, Apple can do absolutely anything they want? Sorry for all the questions. But Apple can't have it both ways: either they're a plucky underdog fighting tooth and nail against the big boys, or they're in a dominant position and have some responsibility that comes with leadership. Specifically, not jerking around other companies with fickle, frequent policy changes.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    There is no "responsibility that comes with leadership." There is fiduciary responsibility, which they are doing a good job with (which may include "jerking other companies around"), regardless of market position. There is responsibility to your customers, because no company can survive without that (which also may include "jerking other companies around"). But if there isn't clear monopolistic behavior, there is no responsibility to other companies. Apple may have 90%[1] of the mindshare in the market, but they can't use that position to keep somebody else from entering the market and they can't use their position to control another market. I want to be able to read books using the Kindle app. I will be pissed if I can't. It will make me seriously consider whether to get an iPad or an Android tablet when they get good enough (since that will be my primary reading platform at that point). But Apple has every right to do that. They aren't keeping Amazon from entering the electronic book market in any way, and I can find dozens of devices roughly equivalent to my iPhone that I can read those Amazon books on. Kicking ass does not a monopoly make. [1] Yes, I made this number up, but I think it is a reasonable approximation of something you could never quantify, anyway.
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
There's no Kindle app for Barnes&Nobles' Nook or Sony's Reader, there's no iBooks app for Amazon's Kindle either. Apple is the only ebook reseller that allows other ebook resellers on its platform. It's to be expected that Apple wants to charge the other ebook resellers for the privilege. How much Apple wants to charge publishers and distributors is unclear, but I have a feeling that we'll find out more at tomorrow's launch of The Daily [1]. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/02/01/the.daily.peek/ http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/02/01/the.daily.peek...
- Kylekramer 16y ago
  Google is also in the ebook business. I doubt they are going to try to take a percentage of Amazon or B&N's sales.
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    Google doesn't manufacture ereaders, phones or tablets. It sells a mobile OS and it's the proprietor of one of many app catalogs for Android. It also has little control over which ereader apps are shipped with Android devices (except for the one Samsung model they sell). As for its ebook store: they launched it less than two months a go; it's impossible to tell what their plans are. Outside of the US, they only offer books that are in the public domain. Even within the US, they don't seem very interested in selling ebooks: 'Google eBookstore' is only one of dozens of available retailers within the Google eBooks app. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/discover-more-than-3-million-google.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/discover-more-than-3-...
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  Those who bought the Nook or Reader knew that from the outset. This isn't a move against Amazon - I expect that Amazon isn't going to lose any sleep over pulling their app from the Apple App Store. This is (would be should Apple enforce this against established players) a move against people who bought Apple products expecting certain services to be provided, much like Sony's decision to remove the OtherOS feature from the Playstation. Only unlike Sony's removal of the OtherOS feature, Apple doesn't need people to buy Apps through them to turn a profit.
GHFigs 16y ago
the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better What exactly do you want the government to do?
- kjksf 16y ago
  If you look at Microsoft's anti-trust case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) government imposed several rules on Microsoft e.g. required them to publish all protocols and APIs (e.g. Exchange protocol) so that other can create interoperable implementations. They were forbidden from doing different OEM pricing (so they couldn't strong arm OEMs by requesting that they pay more for a Windows license unless they make some concession in favor of Microsoft) etc. More generally: "the Settlement's requirements were primarily designed to ensure there were stringent oversight procedures and explicit requirements to prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"". It's not hard to identify Apple's 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' that could be rectified by government imposed rules. One such 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' is inability to sell (or give away) applications that are not approved by Apple. Solution: Apple needs to allow installation of applications without approval by Apple. Technical solution: sideloading, third party stores like on Android. Another 'predatory behavior' is the rule under discussion i.e. Apple disallowing all forms of commerce other than iTunes (which results in 30% tax to Apple). Solution: the rule needs to go away. There are more predatory rules in the app store agreement (like inability to write interpreters which means no Firefox for iPhone) but they wouldn't be important as long as the biggest predatory rule was eliminated: inability to install apps that are not approved by Apple.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    Is there a precedent for conditions of a uniform voluntary agreement being considered "predatory"? Edit: The parent comment did not deserve downvotes, folks.
    - kjksf 16y ago
      I'm not sure what uniform means in that context but "voluntary" is not a good standard because it's too loose a word. Again, going back to Microsoft's case: reportedly Microsoft demanded OEMs to stop dual-installing competing BeOS on Windows machine or else they would have to pay more for Windows license. For the OEM that was voluntary contract in that they had a choice: quit the business selling Windows machines, be less competitive than other OEMs (higher prices or smaller margins) or stop dual-installing Microsoft's competitor. The third option was the most compelling but neither was fair or good for competition or users. Apple is in the same position as Microsoft was: they can impose whatever restrictions they want on access to iPhone/iPad users. Acceptance of those rules is "voluntary" on part of Amazon or Sony or Mozilla or me, but that doesn't meant that those rules are fair or good for competition or users. I for one, would like to see Firefox on iPad but it's not going to happen thanks to "voluntary" agreement between Apple and Mozilla that Mozilla "voluntarily" couldn't accept. And that's just one example of things that I would like to see on iPad but won't.
kevin_morrill 16y ago
If you don't like Apple's product, then don't buy them. It's pretty offensive when you say, "the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better". You're talking about the government seizing someone's property and completely violating my ability to freely associate with whomever I want on my own terms.

by kjksf 16y ago

davidedicillo 16y ago

Apple is far from having a monopoly, as the Android users and Apple hater keep reminding us. Microsoft at the time I think had 90% of the market or something ridiculous like that. Amazon is free to take its app to the other 100 tables presented at CES.

kjksf 16y ago
I can't wait until the day competition from Android will force Apple to be less arrogant and abusive but we both know that day has not yet arrived. Apple has 99% of tablet market and probably ~50% of smartphone market. The important figure is that it's 85 million devices as of April last year (http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-million-iphones-sold-35-million-ipod-touches-85-million-iphone-os-devices/ http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-million-iphones-sold-35-mi...). Do you actually argue that it's ok for Apple to forbid competitors like Adobe, Mozilla, Sony or Amazon from having the same access to 85 million (and growing) users of iPhone/iPad as Apple has? Is it a function of market share? The cause => effect in those situations is simple. Those who have enough market share to impose abusive terms, do. Whether it is Microsoft with Windows, Apple with iOS or telco companies collecting outrageous fees, they do it because they can. A 90% market share is not necessary. In all cases it limits competition and as an end result hurts users who pay higher prices and don't get to use innovations that the gatekeeper doesn't like.
- jstevens85 16y ago
  Apple has 17.25% of smartphone market share. http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/01/the-iphone-share-17-25-of-smartphones-4-2-all-phones/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/02/01/the-iphone-share-17-25-of-s...
- GHFigs 16y ago
  It sounds like you're suggesting that successful companies should help their less successful competitors rather than competing.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    You mean like how Microsoft helps Apple by allowing iTunes to run on Windows and allow purchases? Maybe Apple should block purchases on Amazon.com on Safari on the iDevices and demand a 30% cut. After all, isn't it helping Amazon? The point is that the iPhone becomes more valuable because of the apps. For example, the iPhone would be more attractive to owners of Sony and other ebook readers if the app was approved. I think Microsoft should stop helping it's competitor Google by allowing it to work on Windows machines. They should just pre-install a redirect from google.com to bing.com in the hosts file.
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      You mean... No. I mean that the above comment seems to be suggesting that a company that reaches a certain level of success (e.g. Apple's user base) is in the wrong if it doesn't share that success on equal terms with any competitor that would like it. As if reaching that level of success were just a matter of chance and not, y'know...competition. That would be saying that your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again. Since you seem to traffic in absurd examples, try this: Why don't all of these companies just merge into one big company? That way nobody gets blocked out of anything and everybody gets to share the wealth.
      - recoiledsnake 16y ago
        >I mean that the above comment seems to be suggesting that a company that reaches a certain level of success (e.g. Apple's user base) is in the wrong if it doesn't share that success on equal terms with any competitor that would like it. As if reaching that level of success were just a matter of chance and not, y'know...competition. That would be saying that your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again All of what you wrote makes sense for a single market. But here things are different. Apple makes phones. Amazon sells ebooks. The conflict of interest started when Apple started selling ebooks and now is ready to devalue it's phone to get leverage in the ebook space. i.e They're leveraging their smartphone marketshare to gather steam in the ebook space. Remind you of MS and Netscape? Pretty similar except for the Windows monopoly part. Didn't exactly that happen with Microsoft with Windows and Office? >your reward for creating a wildly successful product is to be held back from doing so again Err, how would Apple be held back from creating a killer ebook app and succeeding by the merits of it rather than sitting around and charging a tax on all the ebook purchases on iDevices? How does this benefit the user? So you mean creating a successful product by beating competition in one market should allow one to automatically make another successful product in another by riding roughshod over the competition leveraging the earlier success beyond just using the profit as capital? So, do you think Microsoft shouldn't have been punished for bundling IE(it was actually better than Netscape at that point) with Windows ? They didn't even ban Netscape or attempt to tax it, they just bundled their browser with a very successful OS which is not a matter of chance but, y'know...competition.
recoiledsnake 16y ago
Scary scenario: Lets say Apple and MS get to 50% share each on desktops/laptops. Won't that mean they could do whatever abuse they want to without scrutiny just because none of them is a monopoly? >But you can’t say it’s surprising that the rules are evolving toward more money for Apple while improving the experience for users — that’s win-win from Apple’s perspective. How is it an improvement to be unable to read the books you've already bought or movies you have already rented on the iDevices? Even Microsoft didn't pull such shit for Netflix on the Xbox 360. And the consoles are subsidized for a big loss which was to be made up by purchases by the customers. Apple makes a profit on every iDevice sold, every iApp sold, through iAds and on the $99/year developer fee. No wonder they're literally swimming in cash but still pull such new shit for even more control and money. If Microsoft did something like this with Windows, they would have more money than what the US has in circulation, which is probably where Apple is heading. At some point the industry is going to tell Apple to get lost and stop supporting the iDevices which is going to hurt Apple, which coupled with Android's rise might push Apple into a niche like on the desktop.
- jstevens85 16y ago
  >Apple makes a profit on every iDevice sold, every iApp sold, through iAds and on the $99/year developer fee. What evidence do you have to support the allegation that Apple makes a profit on every App sold? Firstly, there's the cost of having the application tested, approved, uploaded and categorised. There's also the cost of hosting the app as well as the credit card processing fees. Users have the right to re-download any app they've purchased in the past. What about a 99c app that weighs in at 2GB? Does Apple really make a profit after credit card processing fees and bandwidth costs? As for the $99/year developer fee, there are costs involved in providing support, moderating forums, and approving applications.
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    You mean it cost millions to approve and sell Angry Birds? Bandwidth is pretty cheap these days and most apps are quite small. >As for the $99/year developer fee, there are costs involved in providing support, moderating forums, and approving applications I am sure Xcode costs a lot to develop etc. But Apple still gives it away to developers and has free documentation, examples, forums etc. Why? You're excluding the benefit of the Apps which make the iPhone more valuable to the users and are a big reason that people buy iPhones. No wonder Jobs like to tout the 300k+ app number every chance he gets.
jordanroher 16y ago
Apple may not have a monopoly on the raw number of physical devices in the world (except tablets), but aren't they "winning" from a profits perspective? Isn't that what Gruber has celebrated for years: that Apple makes more money selling one phone than any other company on Earth? That they're beating Microsoft and Google at the only game that matters to a corporation, the bottom line? But since the global market share of iOS devices is less than 50% + 1, Apple can do absolutely anything they want? Sorry for all the questions. But Apple can't have it both ways: either they're a plucky underdog fighting tooth and nail against the big boys, or they're in a dominant position and have some responsibility that comes with leadership. Specifically, not jerking around other companies with fickle, frequent policy changes.
- SoftwareMaven 16y ago
  There is no "responsibility that comes with leadership." There is fiduciary responsibility, which they are doing a good job with (which may include "jerking other companies around"), regardless of market position. There is responsibility to your customers, because no company can survive without that (which also may include "jerking other companies around"). But if there isn't clear monopolistic behavior, there is no responsibility to other companies. Apple may have 90%[1] of the mindshare in the market, but they can't use that position to keep somebody else from entering the market and they can't use their position to control another market. I want to be able to read books using the Kindle app. I will be pissed if I can't. It will make me seriously consider whether to get an iPad or an Android tablet when they get good enough (since that will be my primary reading platform at that point). But Apple has every right to do that. They aren't keeping Amazon from entering the electronic book market in any way, and I can find dozens of devices roughly equivalent to my iPhone that I can read those Amazon books on. Kicking ass does not a monopoly make. [1] Yes, I made this number up, but I think it is a reasonable approximation of something you could never quantify, anyway.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago

There's no Kindle app for Barnes&Nobles' Nook or Sony's Reader, there's no iBooks app for Amazon's Kindle either. Apple is the only ebook reseller that allows other ebook resellers on its platform. It's to be expected that Apple wants to charge the other ebook resellers for the privilege. How much Apple wants to charge publishers and distributors is unclear, but I have a feeling that we'll find out more at tomorrow's launch of The Daily [1]. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/02/01/the.daily.peek/ http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/02/01/the.daily.peek...

Kylekramer 16y ago
Google is also in the ebook business. I doubt they are going to try to take a percentage of Amazon or B&N's sales.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  Google doesn't manufacture ereaders, phones or tablets. It sells a mobile OS and it's the proprietor of one of many app catalogs for Android. It also has little control over which ereader apps are shipped with Android devices (except for the one Samsung model they sell). As for its ebook store: they launched it less than two months a go; it's impossible to tell what their plans are. Outside of the US, they only offer books that are in the public domain. Even within the US, they don't seem very interested in selling ebooks: 'Google eBookstore' is only one of dozens of available retailers within the Google eBooks app. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/discover-more-than-3-million-google.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/discover-more-than-3-...
lukeschlather 16y ago
Those who bought the Nook or Reader knew that from the outset. This isn't a move against Amazon - I expect that Amazon isn't going to lose any sleep over pulling their app from the Apple App Store. This is (would be should Apple enforce this against established players) a move against people who bought Apple products expecting certain services to be provided, much like Sony's decision to remove the OtherOS feature from the Playstation. Only unlike Sony's removal of the OtherOS feature, Apple doesn't need people to buy Apps through them to turn a profit.

GHFigs 16y ago

the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better What exactly do you want the government to do?

kjksf 16y ago
If you look at Microsoft's anti-trust case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft) government imposed several rules on Microsoft e.g. required them to publish all protocols and APIs (e.g. Exchange protocol) so that other can create interoperable implementations. They were forbidden from doing different OEM pricing (so they couldn't strong arm OEMs by requesting that they pay more for a Windows license unless they make some concession in favor of Microsoft) etc. More generally: "the Settlement's requirements were primarily designed to ensure there were stringent oversight procedures and explicit requirements to prevent Microsoft from engaging in "Predatory Behavior" or other practices that might form a "Barrier to Entry"". It's not hard to identify Apple's 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' that could be rectified by government imposed rules. One such 'predatory behavior' that creates 'barrier to entry' is inability to sell (or give away) applications that are not approved by Apple. Solution: Apple needs to allow installation of applications without approval by Apple. Technical solution: sideloading, third party stores like on Android. Another 'predatory behavior' is the rule under discussion i.e. Apple disallowing all forms of commerce other than iTunes (which results in 30% tax to Apple). Solution: the rule needs to go away. There are more predatory rules in the app store agreement (like inability to write interpreters which means no Firefox for iPhone) but they wouldn't be important as long as the biggest predatory rule was eliminated: inability to install apps that are not approved by Apple.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  Is there a precedent for conditions of a uniform voluntary agreement being considered "predatory"? Edit: The parent comment did not deserve downvotes, folks.
  - kjksf 16y ago
    I'm not sure what uniform means in that context but "voluntary" is not a good standard because it's too loose a word. Again, going back to Microsoft's case: reportedly Microsoft demanded OEMs to stop dual-installing competing BeOS on Windows machine or else they would have to pay more for Windows license. For the OEM that was voluntary contract in that they had a choice: quit the business selling Windows machines, be less competitive than other OEMs (higher prices or smaller margins) or stop dual-installing Microsoft's competitor. The third option was the most compelling but neither was fair or good for competition or users. Apple is in the same position as Microsoft was: they can impose whatever restrictions they want on access to iPhone/iPad users. Acceptance of those rules is "voluntary" on part of Amazon or Sony or Mozilla or me, but that doesn't meant that those rules are fair or good for competition or users. I for one, would like to see Firefox on iPad but it's not going to happen thanks to "voluntary" agreement between Apple and Mozilla that Mozilla "voluntarily" couldn't accept. And that's just one example of things that I would like to see on iPad but won't.

kevin_morrill 16y ago

If you don't like Apple's product, then don't buy them. It's pretty offensive when you say, "the sooner government steps in and clips Apple's wings the better". You're talking about the government seizing someone's property and completely violating my ability to freely associate with whomever I want on my own terms.