3 ms·

I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. It is one thing to require apps to be vetted - but to demand that 100% of all content is subj

by teilo 16y ago

I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. It is one thing to require apps to be vetted - but to demand that 100% of all content is subject to an Apple Tax, even though it never touches any Apple assets at all? One could argue that since Apple must provide storage, infrastructure, and man-hours for all the apps that are purchased for iOS devices, that they are well within their rights to take a cut of App purchases. But what justification do they have for demanding the same regarding content consumed by said apps? They do not store the content. They do not filter the content. They do not provide the bandwidth that delivers the content. They are not liable for what the content itself is. What possible justification could they have for doing this? This is very nearly the same as saying that Sony should get a cut of all ad revenue for anything viewed on their TVs.

cgranade 16y ago
The only justification I've heard, and it's a very weak one, is that Apple provides the customers. That is, if Apple weren't around to run the App Store, then customers would be too stupid to find anything interesting to read, listen to or watch. Surely, they can justify some amount for payment processing overhead, but requiring all apps to use Apple's payment processing terms is beyond ridiculous.
rhygar 16y ago
Anti-trust applies here just as much as it applies to theaters who don't allow customers to bring in their own food.
w1ntermute 16y ago
> I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. Except Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share needed for the legal definition of "trust".
- cgranade 16y ago
  Not in general, no, but they do have quite enough market share in some niche markets, such as smartphone apps. I think that is sufficient to spark anti-trust suits in many jurisdictions.
noelchurchill 16y ago
I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. No. Apple has plenty of competition for the app store. First of all from the Android app store. Second, the entire internet is competition for the app store.

by teilo 16y ago

cgranade 16y ago

The only justification I've heard, and it's a very weak one, is that Apple provides the customers. That is, if Apple weren't around to run the App Store, then customers would be too stupid to find anything interesting to read, listen to or watch. Surely, they can justify some amount for payment processing overhead, but requiring all apps to use Apple's payment processing terms is beyond ridiculous.

rhygar 16y ago

Anti-trust applies here just as much as it applies to theaters who don't allow customers to bring in their own food.

w1ntermute 16y ago

> I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. Except Apple doesn't have anywhere near the market share needed for the legal definition of "trust".

cgranade 16y ago
Not in general, no, but they do have quite enough market share in some niche markets, such as smartphone apps. I think that is sufficient to spark anti-trust suits in many jurisdictions.

noelchurchill 16y ago

I really think there is some valid anti-trust possibilities here. No. Apple has plenty of competition for the app store. First of all from the Android app store. Second, the entire internet is competition for the app store.