6 ms·

Defining Apple as a monopolist on iOS is like calling Ford a monopolist in selling radios in Ford vehicles. No one thinks it’s a violation for Ford to include t

by iav 6y ago

Defining Apple as a monopolist on iOS is like calling Ford a monopolist in selling radios in Ford vehicles. No one thinks it’s a violation for Ford to include their own radio (built by a 3rd party like Bose - same as an app) in a Ford truck, and offer you an expensive upgrade to that radio (say also by Olufsen - also like a better App) if you want it. No one demands that Ford allow a different vendor to sell you a compatible radio through a Ford dealer and for Ford to not take a cut of the purchase price. And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. This analogy is at the core of Apple’s defense and it was brought up in previous anti trust cases like AA v. Sabre.

Denvercoder9 6y ago
> And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. No, not really. In the EU for example, a unauthorized change to one part can legally never void the warranty to an unrelated part.
mikestew 6y ago
And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. Don't know where you live, but that is not true in the U. S. "It is generally accepted as" against Federal law.
- Someone 6y ago
  Technically, I think it, unfortunately, is true that companies can say that in the USA and many other countries. Companies can say things they know aren’t true, misleading customers. They even often can make it hard for customers who know their rights to exercise those rights. I think it would be an improvement if such actions were punished harsher and more often.
vonmoltke 6y ago
> if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK This has been generally illegal in the US since 1975: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 (section c)
- iav 6y ago
  Interesting and I was wrong. While that might make for a good case why Apple should be compelled to allow the side loading of apps (especially since an App can be sandboxed and couldn’t possibly damage the device, a key criteria in the link). It still makes it hard to win an antitrust case against Apple. If you defined the market for Ford radios as to only include Ford-manufactured vehicles, then every single car company is a monopolist. Defense would push back that Ford competes against GM and Tesla, not against Bose and Sonos (in my prior analogy), so as long as consumers have choice of cars, then Ford shouldn’t be subject to antitrust actions and remedies in regards to radios.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwaite 6y ago
    There is nothing that would indicate side loading alone would be sufficient for applications wishing to forgo the App Store. Fortnite on Android is an example of an application which started out being side loaded but eventually conceded that there were too many platform restrictions for that to be viable.
  - dwaite 6y ago
    Apple does allow side-loading apps today, but with restrictions that make it unsuitable for consumer applications - requirement for an enterprise provisioning profile, applications expire after a set period of time, applications are expected to be deployed via Xcode, etc.
viridian 6y ago
The federal trade commission disagrees with you, and if this is the crux of Apple's defense they are in a bad spot.
- scarface74 6y ago
  The FTC can agree or disagree. Until a judge decides it doesn’t matter.
Despegar 6y ago
Your analogy was good until the part about warranty, which isn't relevant to Apple.
yyyk 6y ago
That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset. Here's IMHO a better analogy: Apple is running a mall, while also operating a chain store operating in said mall. Apple Mall allows competitors to Apple Chain Store to rent stores in the mall. However, it turns out that for some reason, there are "Beware of Leopard" signs near the competitor stores. Also, the public area near them is never cleaned or maintained, except for signs promising cheaper products at the Apple Chain Store (and the leopard signs of course). Would that be legal? Apple Mall is hardly a monopoly. Despite losing the location, the other stores could move. None of the agreements specifically bans this. For some reason though, I don't think that would fly - the other stores have a reasonable expectation that after paying rent Apple won't sabotage them. Just like companies paying for the Developer License and Apple Store tax have a reasonable expectation Apple won't unduly hinder them for its own products.
- dwaite 6y ago
  > That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset. This happens all the time. Integration of the radio and climate control system/navigation system. Custom wiring for the speaker system and accessory systems. Dashboard cavities which are a non-standard size.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sure, and if someone makes a radio that fulfills all of these functions, then they can sell it.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Not remotely comparable. Ford may not facilitate creating such a radio, but prevent it either. A company could figure out everything and sell a radio to a client without paying Ford or being sold to the customer by Ford or going via Ford at all or even losing warranty. Ultimately, being a marketmaker comes with responsibilities. If Apple wants to close iPhones and support only Apple software they could do that. But as long as Apple operates an App Store and does not allow other methods of install, this comes with the legal obligation to play fair.
ksec 6y ago
Except there are hundreds of Cars manufacture to chose from, easily portable, and all share the same public road transport. You have two system to choose from, Apple and Google.

by iav 6y ago

Denvercoder9 6y ago

> And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. No, not really. In the EU for example, a unauthorized change to one part can legally never void the warranty to an unrelated part.

mikestew 6y ago

And if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK. Don't know where you live, but that is not true in the U. S. "It is generally accepted as" against Federal law.

Someone 6y ago
Technically, I think it, unfortunately, is true that companies can say that in the USA and many other countries. Companies can say things they know aren’t true, misleading customers. They even often can make it hard for customers who know their rights to exercise those rights. I think it would be an improvement if such actions were punished harsher and more often.

vonmoltke 6y ago

> if Ford says that installing a third party radio without their authorization voids your warranty or otherwise makes it impossible to do so, it’s generally accepted to be OK This has been generally illegal in the US since 1975: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2302 (section c)

iav 6y ago
Interesting and I was wrong. While that might make for a good case why Apple should be compelled to allow the side loading of apps (especially since an App can be sandboxed and couldn’t possibly damage the device, a key criteria in the link). It still makes it hard to win an antitrust case against Apple. If you defined the market for Ford radios as to only include Ford-manufactured vehicles, then every single car company is a monopolist. Defense would push back that Ford competes against GM and Tesla, not against Bose and Sonos (in my prior analogy), so as long as consumers have choice of cars, then Ford shouldn’t be subject to antitrust actions and remedies in regards to radios.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaite 6y ago
  There is nothing that would indicate side loading alone would be sufficient for applications wishing to forgo the App Store. Fortnite on Android is an example of an application which started out being side loaded but eventually conceded that there were too many platform restrictions for that to be viable.
- dwaite 6y ago
  Apple does allow side-loading apps today, but with restrictions that make it unsuitable for consumer applications - requirement for an enterprise provisioning profile, applications expire after a set period of time, applications are expected to be deployed via Xcode, etc.

viridian 6y ago

The federal trade commission disagrees with you, and if this is the crux of Apple's defense they are in a bad spot.

scarface74 6y ago
The FTC can agree or disagree. Until a judge decides it doesn’t matter.

Despegar 6y ago

Your analogy was good until the part about warranty, which isn't relevant to Apple.

yyyk 6y ago

That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset. Here's IMHO a better analogy: Apple is running a mall, while also operating a chain store operating in said mall. Apple Mall allows competitors to Apple Chain Store to rent stores in the mall. However, it turns out that for some reason, there are "Beware of Leopard" signs near the competitor stores. Also, the public area near them is never cleaned or maintained, except for signs promising cheaper products at the Apple Chain Store (and the leopard signs of course). Would that be legal? Apple Mall is hardly a monopoly. Despite losing the location, the other stores could move. None of the agreements specifically bans this. For some reason though, I don't think that would fly - the other stores have a reasonable expectation that after paying rent Apple won't sabotage them. Just like companies paying for the Developer License and Apple Store tax have a reasonable expectation Apple won't unduly hinder them for its own products.

dwaite 6y ago
> That's not exactly the same scenario. If Ford allowed installing radios only via Ford and allowed other companies to sell radios via Ford, but then artificially restricted said radios so that its radios would have an advantage then it would apply, and I suspect that people would be upset. This happens all the time. Integration of the radio and climate control system/navigation system. Custom wiring for the speaker system and accessory systems. Dashboard cavities which are a non-standard size.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sure, and if someone makes a radio that fulfills all of these functions, then they can sell it.
- yyyk 6y ago
  Not remotely comparable. Ford may not facilitate creating such a radio, but prevent it either. A company could figure out everything and sell a radio to a client without paying Ford or being sold to the customer by Ford or going via Ford at all or even losing warranty. Ultimately, being a marketmaker comes with responsibilities. If Apple wants to close iPhones and support only Apple software they could do that. But as long as Apple operates an App Store and does not allow other methods of install, this comes with the legal obligation to play fair.

ksec 6y ago

Except there are hundreds of Cars manufacture to chose from, easily portable, and all share the same public road transport. You have two system to choose from, Apple and Google.