7 ms·

It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists. But I just want to point out that Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not par

It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists. But I just want to point out that Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley. Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market. I will refrain to say if Apple if guilty in this case, just saying that if hypothetically it is, this is not the end. In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. They don't have a monopoly in phones, laptops, desktops, tablets, music, TV, processors, none of their products dominate their market. Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going to get you very far.
- snovv_crash 6y ago
  Unlike the US, Europe doesn't require a monopoly for certain anticompetitive behaviours to be deemed illegal.
  - noarchy 6y ago
    Nor does the US (if we're talking about the strictest definition of "monopoly", which rarely occurs in the private sector), but there are probably degrees of difference in what will set off regulators in the EU versus the US.
- orwin 6y ago
  Apple Store is not a monopoly, but it is a monopsony and i really don't understand why people defends this. A monopsony is arguably worst than a monopoly.
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    Can you explain which market is a single buyer market (monopsony)? Are you arguing app developers have to see their apps to Apple? Which then sells them to consumers (as a monopoly)?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  They have a monopoly on iOS app stores. This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different. It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead" doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store. Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores. If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.
  - jpttsn 6y ago
    Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating?
    - bubblethink 6y ago
      Mercedes doesn't stop you from replacing the leather, does it? Why do you need a flawed analogy to make a flawed argument? You can make a flawed argument as is.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating? The key to understanding this is to realize that you're talking about two different markets, which makes your question ambiguous. Are you asking, do they have a monopoly over the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating? In that case the answer doesn't really matter, and I suspect this is the point you were trying to make, because the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating is not a meaningful market definition, since there could be other seating brands that compete for the same customers. But the analogous question to the one I'm asking is, do they have a monopoly over seating for Mercedes vehicles? That could very well be a sensible market definition, because if you need a new seat for your Mercedes, one designed for a Chevy may not fit. And then the answer depends entirely on whether they have any competitors in that market. If five different companies make seats you can put in a Mercedes, none of them have a monopoly. If Mercedes -- or another company which isn't Mercedes, if Mercedes itself doesn't make them anymore -- is the only one making seats that fit in a Mercedes, then they have a monopoly on that market. The question is whether the customer who has a Mercedes and needs a seat can only buy it from one place.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
If Android were not part of Google, it wouldn't have gotten distribution just like Firefox OS. If this story is true, it amazes me that Google executives still don't understand why Android worked. It wasn't because of Andy Rubin's bumbling executive leadership.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. This may be true, but it seems hard to make the case that Apple is using monopoly power to stifle innovation in the CPU market, of all things. > I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. Really? I'm not at all sure that Apple Music, for instance, would be competitive with Spotify if it wasn't bundled with iOS devices -- I can't think of any other unbundled music service that's competitive with them. (And how many of your Android-using friends are Apple Music subscribers? It's technically possible, right?) Likewise, would lots of people be lining up to use iCloud if Macs, iPhones and iPads started with what amounts to "click here to use iCloud?" iMessage, maybe? Eh, maybe, but. > In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws. Sure, but I'm not convinced the problems with Apple's App Store policies are best addressed by forcing Apple to spin off "The App Store Company." They'd be much better addressed by forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps (probably using the "Gatekeeper" technology they already have in place on Macs, which I naïvely thought would have come to iOS by now) and relaxing in-app purchase rules to the point where apps that don't -- or can't, like Amazon Kindle -- use Apple's in-app purchase framework can at least tell you how to buy content from it. Hell, as some HN nerds would tell you, you could get a huge chunk of the way there simply by forcing Apple to build full PWA support into WebKit. None of those things require Apple to be broken up in any material way. Also, side note: > Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley. You know Android was one of the hottest startups in the Valley and that's why Google bought them, right? :) (Arguably hotter than PA Semi was when Apple bought them!)
- veselin 6y ago
  Agreed for PASemi and Android. They were hot, certainly they won in the short-mid term by being part of the bigger organizations. But by now, I think it severely limits their possible impact. All the big app stores that are also part of another purchase (e.g. hardware in this case) will almost inevitably have monopoly problems (nobody can compete with Apple on speed of devices so Apple can raise the "prices" of apps). You are talking about the technical aspect that sideloading should be allowed (i.e. some competition), but this is not enough - eventually this competition should have some form of an "equal" start, probably by allowing them to install the market from the App Store, which is what Telegram wanted in their case.
threeseed 6y ago
> It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist". Especially given that your opinion that every company needs to spin off their internal units into seperate companies is frankly insane.
- echelon 6y ago
  > Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist". When people dismiss the harm caused by the 30% tax, the lack of other ways to install software, the draconian rules and enforcement, the pain of developing for two completely different platforms, and the erosion of web tech, it's hard to see them as empathetic colleagues. We're being shaken down here. It hurts. And we're mad.
  - redwall_hp 6y ago
    Yep. I like iOS, and the value of iPhones is excellent. But I have an enormous problem with the App Store being the sole means of installing software. Especially since it's curated in step with Apple's puritanical corporate moralism. How many stories have we seen about social networking apps being suspended from the app store because it's possible to view nude images? That's not really any concern of Apple's. How about when they started kicking out apps for controlling vaping devices? I detest people smoking/vaping around me as much as anyone, but I don't think Apple should be able to wield their vendor lock-in inflict their views on others. This isn't even about markets or Apple choosing what they want to sell or other fluff. Apple has made themselves the gatekeeper of an expensive device tightly integrated into peoples' day-to-day lives, and is actively abusing that position to control individuals and profiteer egregiously by controlling what software is allowed in. It's as if the company that made your car blocked you from listening to metal or rap inside it, and took 30% of the cost of every gallon of fuel.
  - innagadadavida 6y ago
    As an phone user, I don’t care about your app being available or not - there are three other alternatives and they all at equally good. I’m pretty sure the same situation holds for Android. All your arguments apply equally to the US federal income tax. Try to sue the government on that and see where you end up. We all hate taxes as much as the next guy. Picking a stupid fight instead of focussing on your product will be detrimental to you and you will lose users. Just because you are part of a loud crowd doesn’t make you right or have the moral high ground.
jariel 6y ago
"There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market." Ouf, no, every company developers or buys technologies, which gives them competitive advantage and hence some margin. This is not 'illegal' this is just normal business. The App Store, however, is a different thing altogether, and there may be anti-trust issues there. Finally - if Android was not part of Google, it's possibly they never would have seen the light of day. Android is not special. That it was free, backed by a massive company, chock full of all sorts of other services and 100's of millions in app development and R&D, promoted by the biggest software distributor in the world - is what made it 'special'. Danger was just a way for Google to move quickly into the space. Without 'free Android' eating away at the bottom end of BlackBerry while the iPhone ate away at the top end ... we might be using iPhones and BlackBerries today. The anti-trust case against Apple is legit, but it's also not perfectly straight forward. I hope Telegram wins, because if the EU requires Apps out of the App Store even just in Europe, I feel it would probably roil into the rest of thew world quickly enough and we can be free of that walled garden.
bsder 6y ago
> Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. Who would buy their processor? Nobody. Those people could leave now and build that startup. The valley is not known for its loyalty. Instead, ever more VLSI designers are parking themselves in the established companies. There is a reason there have been almost no VLSI startups for 15+ years (what was the last "successful" one--Atheros?). It's a brutal business and takes multiple chunks of $100 million to succeed.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

Except Apple doesn't have a monopoly in any of its markets. They don't have a monopoly in phones, laptops, desktops, tablets, music, TV, processors, none of their products dominate their market. Of course you can try and distort the meaning of monopoly but that isn't going to get you very far.

snovv_crash 6y ago
Unlike the US, Europe doesn't require a monopoly for certain anticompetitive behaviours to be deemed illegal.
- noarchy 6y ago
  Nor does the US (if we're talking about the strictest definition of "monopoly", which rarely occurs in the private sector), but there are probably degrees of difference in what will set off regulators in the EU versus the US.
orwin 6y ago
Apple Store is not a monopoly, but it is a monopsony and i really don't understand why people defends this. A monopsony is arguably worst than a monopoly.
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  Can you explain which market is a single buyer market (monopsony)? Are you arguing app developers have to see their apps to Apple? Which then sells them to consumers (as a monopoly)?
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
They have a monopoly on iOS app stores. This is a different market than Android app stores because the set of customers is completely different. It's like having a monopoly in California. "Just sell in New York instead" doesn't work, because you already sell in New York and not selling in California doesn't get the California customers to the New York store. Compare this to stores that actually have competition, e.g. three grocers on the same street corner. If you don't want to sell to one of them, the customers who want your product just go across the street and buy it there. If you sell to all of them they each represent a third of your sales. If you don't want to sell to one of them, you don't actually lose all of those sales because the same customers can still buy your product from the other stores. If you don't sell to Apple, none of those app sales go to Android because people don't replace their $1000 phone to buy a $1 app. That's what makes it a different market, which is what makes it a monopoly.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating?
  - bubblethink 6y ago
    Mercedes doesn't stop you from replacing the leather, does it? Why do you need a flawed analogy to make a flawed argument? You can make a flawed argument as is.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Is Mercedes a monopoly for Mercedes leather seating? The key to understanding this is to realize that you're talking about two different markets, which makes your question ambiguous. Are you asking, do they have a monopoly over the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating? In that case the answer doesn't really matter, and I suspect this is the point you were trying to make, because the market for the Mercedes brand of leather seating is not a meaningful market definition, since there could be other seating brands that compete for the same customers. But the analogous question to the one I'm asking is, do they have a monopoly over seating for Mercedes vehicles? That could very well be a sensible market definition, because if you need a new seat for your Mercedes, one designed for a Chevy may not fit. And then the answer depends entirely on whether they have any competitors in that market. If five different companies make seats you can put in a Mercedes, none of them have a monopoly. If Mercedes -- or another company which isn't Mercedes, if Mercedes itself doesn't make them anymore -- is the only one making seats that fit in a Mercedes, then they have a monopoly on that market. The question is whether the customer who has a Mercedes and needs a seat can only buy it from one place.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

If Android were not part of Google, it wouldn't have gotten distribution just like Firefox OS. If this story is true, it amazes me that Google executives still don't understand why Android worked. It wasn't because of Andy Rubin's bumbling executive leadership.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

> I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. This may be true, but it seems hard to make the case that Apple is using monopoly power to stifle innovation in the CPU market, of all things. > I am sure that the Apple services will also do better outside the Apple hardware group. Really? I'm not at all sure that Apple Music, for instance, would be competitive with Spotify if it wasn't bundled with iOS devices -- I can't think of any other unbundled music service that's competitive with them. (And how many of your Android-using friends are Apple Music subscribers? It's technically possible, right?) Likewise, would lots of people be lining up to use iCloud if Macs, iPhones and iPads started with what amounts to "click here to use iCloud?" iMessage, maybe? Eh, maybe, but. > In fact, many good things may happen in the long term by actually applying the anti-monopoly laws and breaking up a few companies instead of working around the laws. Sure, but I'm not convinced the problems with Apple's App Store policies are best addressed by forcing Apple to spin off "The App Store Company." They'd be much better addressed by forcing Apple to allow sideloading of apps (probably using the "Gatekeeper" technology they already have in place on Macs, which I naïvely thought would have come to iOS by now) and relaxing in-app purchase rules to the point where apps that don't -- or can't, like Amazon Kindle -- use Apple's in-app purchase framework can at least tell you how to buy content from it. Hell, as some HN nerds would tell you, you could get a huge chunk of the way there simply by forcing Apple to build full PWA support into WebKit. None of those things require Apple to be broken up in any material way. Also, side note: > Google executives were saying some years ago that if Android was not part of Google, it would have been one of hottest startups in the valley. You know Android was one of the hottest startups in the Valley and that's why Google bought them, right? :) (Arguably hotter than PA Semi was when Apple bought them!)

veselin 6y ago
Agreed for PASemi and Android. They were hot, certainly they won in the short-mid term by being part of the bigger organizations. But by now, I think it severely limits their possible impact. All the big app stores that are also part of another purchase (e.g. hardware in this case) will almost inevitably have monopoly problems (nobody can compete with Apple on speed of devices so Apple can raise the "prices" of apps). You are talking about the technical aspect that sideloading should be allowed (i.e. some competition), but this is not enough - eventually this competition should have some form of an "equal" start, probably by allowing them to install the market from the App Store, which is what Telegram wanted in their case.

threeseed 6y ago

> It is full of Apple (and other corporate) apologists Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist". Especially given that your opinion that every company needs to spin off their internal units into seperate companies is frankly insane.

echelon 6y ago
> Just because someone has a different opinion to yours doesn't make them an "apologist". When people dismiss the harm caused by the 30% tax, the lack of other ways to install software, the draconian rules and enforcement, the pain of developing for two completely different platforms, and the erosion of web tech, it's hard to see them as empathetic colleagues. We're being shaken down here. It hurts. And we're mad.
- redwall_hp 6y ago
  Yep. I like iOS, and the value of iPhones is excellent. But I have an enormous problem with the App Store being the sole means of installing software. Especially since it's curated in step with Apple's puritanical corporate moralism. How many stories have we seen about social networking apps being suspended from the app store because it's possible to view nude images? That's not really any concern of Apple's. How about when they started kicking out apps for controlling vaping devices? I detest people smoking/vaping around me as much as anyone, but I don't think Apple should be able to wield their vendor lock-in inflict their views on others. This isn't even about markets or Apple choosing what they want to sell or other fluff. Apple has made themselves the gatekeeper of an expensive device tightly integrated into peoples' day-to-day lives, and is actively abusing that position to control individuals and profiteer egregiously by controlling what software is allowed in. It's as if the company that made your car blocked you from listening to metal or rap inside it, and took 30% of the cost of every gallon of fuel.
- innagadadavida 6y ago
  As an phone user, I don’t care about your app being available or not - there are three other alternatives and they all at equally good. I’m pretty sure the same situation holds for Android. All your arguments apply equally to the US federal income tax. Try to sue the government on that and see where you end up. We all hate taxes as much as the next guy. Picking a stupid fight instead of focussing on your product will be detrimental to you and you will lose users. Just because you are part of a loud crowd doesn’t make you right or have the moral high ground.

jariel 6y ago

"There are plenty of innovations and certainly there is the tendency to use them to raise the prices for consumers (which is illegal) as opposed to grow the market." Ouf, no, every company developers or buys technologies, which gives them competitive advantage and hence some margin. This is not 'illegal' this is just normal business. The App Store, however, is a different thing altogether, and there may be anti-trust issues there. Finally - if Android was not part of Google, it's possibly they never would have seen the light of day. Android is not special. That it was free, backed by a massive company, chock full of all sorts of other services and 100's of millions in app development and R&D, promoted by the biggest software distributor in the world - is what made it 'special'. Danger was just a way for Google to move quickly into the space. Without 'free Android' eating away at the bottom end of BlackBerry while the iPhone ate away at the top end ... we might be using iPhones and BlackBerries today. The anti-trust case against Apple is legit, but it's also not perfectly straight forward. I hope Telegram wins, because if the EU requires Apps out of the App Store even just in Europe, I feel it would probably roil into the rest of thew world quickly enough and we can be free of that walled garden.

bsder 6y ago

> Similarly, I am sure that if PASemi is spun off Apple, it may be the hottest CPU company in the world. Who would buy their processor? Nobody. Those people could leave now and build that startup. The valley is not known for its loyalty. Instead, ever more VLSI designers are parking themselves in the established companies. There is a reason there have been almost no VLSI startups for 15+ years (what was the last "successful" one--Atheros?). It's a brutal business and takes multiple chunks of $100 million to succeed.