6 ms·
The article states that Apple is extorting users. Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?
by moralsupply 6y ago
The article states that Apple is extorting users.
Is Apple forcing anybody to use their services?
- Apocryphon 6y agoBy not allowing alternate app stores, yes.
- errantspark 6y agoWhat if I just don't write apps for or use apple devices?
- threeseed 6y agoThen don't. Trust me nobody will care. Because only the worst developers believe they are more important than the consumer.
- coldtea 6y agoNobody forces anybody to buy an Apple product... In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not use that?
- i5heu 6y agoI must have a smartphone. Android is not usable because of the lack of privacy. So I am forced to use an iPhone. Regulation is necessary in Oligopolys.
- xvector 6y agoJust because the product you want doesn't exist doesn't mean you can force companies into making it. You can, on the other hand, support businesses or communities that are.
- tootie 6y agoFrom a practical point of view, if you're a developer and you don't target iOS you're going to lose. It's a duopoly and Apple really controls the affluent segment (ie the users willing to buy apps or pay for in-app services) pretty strongly. And the user base is very sticky. If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism.
- moogleii 6y agoSo is it a duopoly or a monopoly? I'm fine with just throwing around words in casual conversation, but the closer the conversation moves towards the orbit of law, the more words will matter. > If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism. I think that's just called bad decision making, which vendors are completely free to make. There are plenty of apps that are Android only, and I'm sure they fully realize their revenue will be less as a result. There are also plenty of third party game developers making exclusive titles for Playstation or Xbox all the time. They're roughly neck and neck outside of Japan, but in Japan, it's no contest, Playstation is completely dominant. Assuming we ignore Nintendo, would you then suggest that Sony has a monopoly on consoles there? One could claim that if you're a developer in Japan and you don't target Playstation in Japan, you're going to lose. But if the goal is maximum revenue ...that's just bad decision making. If the Xbox market in Japan just isn't coughing up dollars, how is that Sony's problem? Rather than continuously trying to compare Apple to a monopoly, which it isn't, I think the more effective comparison would be with RAND and FRAND. I don't know what kind of legal hoops would need to be jumped through to make the legal justification work, but it seems like Apple has an essential technology (the App Store), and must be obligated to license it (arguably reflected via the fee it charges), but that is an extant example of government regulation where the fee could be legally managed.
- d1zzy 6y agoSo Apple created a very desirable platform for developers by enforcing a set of "arbitrary" rules and being in complete control of it. Now developers want Apple to open up those rules. That seems contradictory to me. Now, don't get me wrong, as a consumer I do want to _own_ my device and have the freedom to do anything with it, even if I never exercise that freedom. And as a consumer I use my right to vote with my wallet by never purchasing iPhones and explain my decision to anyone that cares to listen. But in no way does that mean that I think what Apple is doing is wrong or illegal nor do I think they should be forced to change their business model because some people think they can have the cake and eat it too.
- 627467 6y agoOnce you buy an apple product you lose freedoms others have. So, while no one forces me to buy from apple, once I buy apple I'm forced to buy only what apple sees fit.
- scarface74 6y agoAnd once I buy a Tesla I can’t buy gas like most others can. Whose fault is it that you made a choice that doesn’t fit your needs?
- 627467 6y agoBeing creative with our analogies? Does Tesla contractually prevents you from buying gas?
- scarface74 6y agoWhen you buy a Tesla you know you can’t go to a gas station. Is it the governments responsibility to keep you from buying a device that didn’t meet your needs?
- 627467 6y agoI keep reading "can't" and I can't imagine how owning a Tesla prevents me from doing business in a gas station.
- scarface74 6y agoCan you buy gas or even use a standard charger for your Tesla?
- wayneftw 6y agoIf electric cars become as popular as smart phones that will change too. Just because 2 bad actors exist doesn’t mean we can’t stop them.
- 6y ago
- moralsupply 6y agoApple doesn't have to support other stores. If users don't like that idea, they can simply not use Apple products. Users have a choice. If, however, you want to impose the support of other stores on Apple by the means of regulations, you're effectively supporting the use of the government's monopoly of force against a company that is building products that people are happy to pay a premium to buy products from (and therefore are perfectly fine with the app store).
- Apocryphon 6y agoAs a customer, I am happy with the potential for greater consumer choice. And as an app developer, I am happy with the potential for greater 3rd party dev leverage over the platform. In this specific situation, I am okay with exploring options involving the government monopoly of force to bring about potentially beneficial outcomes, when used against the most valuable company on the planet, for what will likely cost them relatively little downside. This is from a practical standpoint, not one involving schools of ideology wrt government power.
- moralsupply 6y agoAre you saying that you're fine to use the government's force against a company that is not causing harm to anyone just so that you benefit from that intervention (and in complete disregard to all users who are happy to pay for Apple's products and services exactly the way they are)? There's a name for this: Crony Capitalism.
- Apocryphon 6y agoGiven that breaking up a major power leads to increased competition, it’s arguably more capitalistic and market-efficient.
- moralsupply 6y agoDefinitely not. Any government interference in the market will lead to distortions and malinvestments, not "increased competition" -- unless you believe that giving unfair advantages to Apple competitors is acceptable by any standards, and that this would lead to a more efficient market. Apple made its brand and has a loyal customer base due to the quality of the products it delivers, therefore it's providing what the market wants.
- IshKebab 6y agoThat's not what defines a monopoly. Ticketmaster can't just say "We're not forcing you to go to events - you could just sit at home if you want. Therefore we don't have a monopoly!" I would have thought that is obvious to be honest.
- xvector 6y agoAnd yet no one is forcing you to buy an iPhone. Unlike Ticketmaster's shady ticket-depletion tactics, you are not out of options if you decide to get something other than an iPhone. In fact, the vast majority of people get something other than an iPhone.
- cwyers 6y agoExcept Apple isn't even the leader in marketshare in mobile devices that run apps.
- coldtea 6y agoThat would be the case if Apple, like Ticketmaster, had a controlling share of the mobile OS space. They have less than 30% though...
- matsemann 6y agoAs an app developer, they have a large percent, though. And you cannot choose the phone your customers have.
- inopinatus 6y agoYes. Apple's rules oblige app vendors to not advertise or link to any external method of signing up for a service. So, not only can you can only use Apple's payment methods, but you have to lie (by omission) to consumers about their options. This is the market distortion of the App Store.
- moralsupply 6y ago> Apple's rules oblige app vendors The rules only oblige app vendors if they agree with that contract. Users also only engage in doing business with Apple on a voluntary basis. That's not extortion, by definition.
- inopinatus 6y agoI didn't say it was. It's also not illegal to have market power. What is unlawful, at least in my enlightened jurisdiction, is abusing market power to mislead the consumer, and even more so obliging other parties to do so.
- scarface74 6y agoCan I put a product in Walmart and tell users they can get it cheaper elsewhere - in Walmart?
- wayneftw 6y agoIf you don’t put your product in Walmart is your product guaranteed to be a failure? Have you ever heard of anybody releasing a wildly successful app and it not being in the Apple app store? Are you aware that there are many many many more stores like Walmart than there are stores like the Apple app store?
- scarface74 6y agoIf you don’t put your product in Walmart is your product guaranteed to be a failure? Tell that to all of the low end TV manufacturers, game systems (see Sega), toy manufacturers, and back in the day musicians who went out of their way to create an edited version just for Walmart.
- 627467 6y agoIf by anybody you include their own customers... Yes. The case here is driven mostly by Spotify who claim (my paraphrasing) they cannot benefit Apple customers equaly because of Apple restrictive practices and fee model. You may not have purchased a Apple device with intention to use with Spotify, but others may. (Now extrapolate the Spotify story to any appmaker who wish to sell to Apple customers)
- scarface74 6y agoSpotify in fact doesn’t go through the App Store for purchases. The better question is why hasn’t Spotify made a decent watch app that can stream directly to it and download music for off line use? Apple added the ability last year. How much of a cut does Spotify take from musicians to be on its platform?
- 627467 6y agoAnd Spotify may well be target of investigation one day. They are also in the monopolistic platform business model.
- Apocryphon 6y agoAnd like the Apple App Store, they also benefit from taking a substantial cut from their IP creators.
- 627467 6y agoIn my view, the percentages are not the biggest factors that lead to this situation (although it adds to the outrage when the monopolistic accusations are thrown around). The problem is: all of these big techs want to be a platform, and all of them sell (to their investors) the idea that their platform will be very profitable precisely because it will lock the participants inside a ecosystem hard to escape from. Apple wasn't always in this business.
- 6y ago