4 ms·

Do customers receive a benefit from these sign-in services, and then do Apple, Facebook, Google also receive some form of compensation in return for the costs/o

by gojomo 7y ago

Do customers receive a benefit from these sign-in services, and then do Apple, Facebook, Google also receive some form of compensation in return for the costs/overhead of providing such services? That Apple/FB/Google compensation being some mix of: other product purchases, user behavioral data (including the valuable extra peek into their usage of these 1st-party apps), additional ad impressions of higher value with this deeper customer lock-in, etc. A hyperliteralist could argue over what exactly the product/service is, in each case - sign-on itself? The whole stack of other customized media these companies serve to the same users? Synergistic old products or bulled services? The app store? But the fact pattern, & effect of a ‘big guy’ using market power to force partners/customers/users/developers/competitors to unnaturally add a new, pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying.

tptacek 7y ago
I think the difference between forcing people to "buy" a product (or select a house product instead of "buying" a third party option) and forcing people to comply with a platform standard is in fact going to be material in an anti-trust case. I'm not sure I see the "pro-Apple-profits" angle here. Generally, customers are better off with IdP-assisted login than with one-off password login, and if that feature needs to exist for UX and safety reasons, it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Right but the point is that > it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP. Doesn't make something not anticompetative. If apples offering is truly better, they should offer it and it will be naturally adopted.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I don't like the requirement. It actually makes work for my clients (and thus me), and it's not work that I would otherwise choose to prioritize. I'm just saying that it looks very unlikely to be an antitrust vector.
    - gojomo 7y ago
      Your own testimony here seems to be that it's otherwise an unattractive bit of extra work for you, but Apple's dominance gives you no choice but to adopt what they've required as a bundle with their dominant hardware/app-store products. That could make strong evidence in a future 'tying' case by a Democratic President's antitrust appointments!
alwillis 7y ago
pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying. No, it doesn't. First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly, which by the way, isn’t illegal. With their 20% global market share [1], they clearly aren't a monopoly. Do they have a monopoly in the iOS app market? Absolutely, but that's to be expected. It’s their platform that developers have agreed to their terms of service. Nobody is being forced to develop on their platform, especially since they aren't the market leader. This is nothing like the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, after a federal decent decree forbidding Microsoft from using their 95% market share that was obviously a monopoly from tying Internet Explorer to Windows. Of course, they went ahead anyway, declaring that Internet Explorer was so integrated into Windows that it could not be removed, which proved to be false. Microsoft threatened to cancel the Windows licenses of various PC manufacturers if they continued to ship Netscape Navigator instead of IE, clearly abusing their monopoly power. Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly; there hasn't been any ruling to the contrary. They are only requiring Sign in with Apple if a developer already provides social logins. Apple gives developers 2FA, verification of the login being a real person and not a bot. Users get to be anonymous by using a proxy email address if they choose. And there's no tracking by companies who make the vast majority of their revenue by monetizing user information. And it works on macOS, iOS, watchOS, the web, and Android devices. It would be hard to argue users don't benefit from this. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...
- gojomo 7y ago
  There's no requirement that there be a "ruling that Apple is a monopoly" before we observe, based on the facts, that they are doing things that run afoul of antitrust law, or what antitrust law "should" be to maximize welfare. Rulings are a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.

by gojomo 7y ago

tptacek 7y ago

I think the difference between forcing people to "buy" a product (or select a house product instead of "buying" a third party option) and forcing people to comply with a platform standard is in fact going to be material in an anti-trust case. I'm not sure I see the "pro-Apple-profits" angle here. Generally, customers are better off with IdP-assisted login than with one-off password login, and if that feature needs to exist for UX and safety reasons, it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP.

joshuamorton 7y ago
Right but the point is that > it seems understandable that Apple wouldn't want Facebook locking everyone into Facebook's extremely intrusive IdP. Doesn't make something not anticompetative. If apples offering is truly better, they should offer it and it will be naturally adopted.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I don't like the requirement. It actually makes work for my clients (and thus me), and it's not work that I would otherwise choose to prioritize. I'm just saying that it looks very unlikely to be an antitrust vector.
  - gojomo 7y ago
    Your own testimony here seems to be that it's otherwise an unattractive bit of extra work for you, but Apple's dominance gives you no choice but to adopt what they've required as a bundle with their dominant hardware/app-store products. That could make strong evidence in a future 'tying' case by a Democratic President's antitrust appointments!

alwillis 7y ago

pro-Apple-profits option to their own separate offerings quacks like antitrust tying. No, it doesn't. First, there’s been no ruling that Apple is a monopoly, which by the way, isn’t illegal. With their 20% global market share [1], they clearly aren't a monopoly. Do they have a monopoly in the iOS app market? Absolutely, but that's to be expected. It’s their platform that developers have agreed to their terms of service. Nobody is being forced to develop on their platform, especially since they aren't the market leader. This is nothing like the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft back in the day, after a federal decent decree forbidding Microsoft from using their 95% market share that was obviously a monopoly from tying Internet Explorer to Windows. Of course, they went ahead anyway, declaring that Internet Explorer was so integrated into Windows that it could not be removed, which proved to be false. Microsoft threatened to cancel the Windows licenses of various PC manufacturers if they continued to ship Netscape Navigator instead of IE, clearly abusing their monopoly power. Apple doesn’t have a smartphone monopoly; there hasn't been any ruling to the contrary. They are only requiring Sign in with Apple if a developer already provides social logins. Apple gives developers 2FA, verification of the login being a real person and not a bot. Users get to be anonymous by using a proxy email address if they choose. And there's no tracking by companies who make the vast majority of their revenue by monetizing user information. And it works on macOS, iOS, watchOS, the web, and Android devices. It would be hard to argue users don't benefit from this. [1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-share-of-apple-iphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...

gojomo 7y ago
There's no requirement that there be a "ruling that Apple is a monopoly" before we observe, based on the facts, that they are doing things that run afoul of antitrust law, or what antitrust law "should" be to maximize welfare. Rulings are a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Whether users benefit or not is not necessarily relevant for antitrust analysis; it is only since the Reagan era that direct consumer damage was considered a requirement for antitrust prosecutions. Most of the economics/antitrust experts favored by Democratic Party legislators or possible Presidents seek a return to the pre-Reagan enforcement standards, or new standards based on the unique economics of new tech-enabled platform business models.