5 ms·

There's no requirement in law that all technology businesses need to hew to any particular philosophy or ideology of computing; no one has to be "open". This ha

There's no requirement in law that all technology businesses need to hew to any particular philosophy or ideology of computing; no one has to be "open". This has always chafed a lot of tech people because Apple is successful while being "closed". The only thing that would change this is if Apple was found to be "dominant" or have "monopoly power" in a "relevant market" as held by a court.

actuator 6y ago
But aren't they a dominant power already. Android can have 80% market share but the app store revenue reality is 2:1 in the favour of iOS.[1] Isn't it anti competitive for a new service like a movie streaming app to be at a competitive disadvantage financially than if Apple decides to launch their own. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion-android-developers-apple-155 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion...
- scarface74 6y ago
  That argument is going to be a winning one. Apple achieved market dominance by charging three times as much for the same product - those bastards. It’s not Apple’s fault that the entire Android ecosystem is a commoditized race to the bottom.
  - actuator 6y ago
    I didn't quote the revenue of iPhones, I quoted the revenue of app developers from the respective stores being 2:1 in favour of iOS.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      So now that evil monopolist not only convinced people to pay three times as much now they convinced those poor more affluent consumers to give developers twice as much. Cry me a river....
- Despegar 6y ago
  >But aren't they a dominant power already. Android can have 80% market share but the revenue reality is 2:1 in the favour of iOS. A regulator/prosecutor will certainly try to argue they're dominant! But market power is measured by market share, not share of revenue. That'd basically find anyone that sells high-end products in any category as a monopolist. >Isn't it anti competitive for a new service like a movie streaming app to be at a competitive disadvantage financially than if Apple decides to launch their own. Apple is not barred from competing with anyone in the App Store, just as Walmart isn't banned from competing with any of the vendors they stock in their stores.
  - actuator 6y ago
    I think I should reword my comment. How is App store revenue example of app being "high end". It just shows it is more profitable for a developer to be on iOS as they probably get 2/3 of their revenue from it.
  - brmgb 6y ago
    > But market power is measured by market share, not share of revenue. Actually market share is routinely defined as share of revenue. It often makes more sense than number of units. > That'd basically find anyone that sells high-end products in any category as a monopolist. High-end products have high margins but low volume. High end producers are rarely dominating their market by share of revenue.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Care to name a case in the last 40 years where “a monopoly” was defined by revenue?
      - brmgb 6y ago
        As dominant position is clearly defined using market share with market share being understood as both unit market shares and revenue market share, I will go with all of them.

actuator 6y ago

But aren't they a dominant power already. Android can have 80% market share but the app store revenue reality is 2:1 in the favour of iOS.[1] Isn't it anti competitive for a new service like a movie streaming app to be at a competitive disadvantage financially than if Apple decides to launch their own. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion-android-developers-apple-155 https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/4/21121558/google-80-billion...

scarface74 6y ago
That argument is going to be a winning one. Apple achieved market dominance by charging three times as much for the same product - those bastards. It’s not Apple’s fault that the entire Android ecosystem is a commoditized race to the bottom.
- actuator 6y ago
  I didn't quote the revenue of iPhones, I quoted the revenue of app developers from the respective stores being 2:1 in favour of iOS.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    So now that evil monopolist not only convinced people to pay three times as much now they convinced those poor more affluent consumers to give developers twice as much. Cry me a river....
Despegar 6y ago
>But aren't they a dominant power already. Android can have 80% market share but the revenue reality is 2:1 in the favour of iOS. A regulator/prosecutor will certainly try to argue they're dominant! But market power is measured by market share, not share of revenue. That'd basically find anyone that sells high-end products in any category as a monopolist. >Isn't it anti competitive for a new service like a movie streaming app to be at a competitive disadvantage financially than if Apple decides to launch their own. Apple is not barred from competing with anyone in the App Store, just as Walmart isn't banned from competing with any of the vendors they stock in their stores.
- actuator 6y ago
  I think I should reword my comment. How is App store revenue example of app being "high end". It just shows it is more profitable for a developer to be on iOS as they probably get 2/3 of their revenue from it.
- brmgb 6y ago
  > But market power is measured by market share, not share of revenue. Actually market share is routinely defined as share of revenue. It often makes more sense than number of units. > That'd basically find anyone that sells high-end products in any category as a monopolist. High-end products have high margins but low volume. High end producers are rarely dominating their market by share of revenue.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Care to name a case in the last 40 years where “a monopoly” was defined by revenue?
    - brmgb 6y ago
      As dominant position is clearly defined using market share with market share being understood as both unit market shares and revenue market share, I will go with all of them.