13 ms·

Apple is a monopoly. When Microsoft was investigated and fined for anti-trust behaviors, it hasn't engaged in this level of abuse.

hnarayanan 6y ago
In what metric is Apple a monopoly?
- benologist 6y ago
  "The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents." - the antitrust committee investigating them https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation-apple-disturbing-behavior/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
- partyboy 6y ago
  every
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- madeofpalk 6y ago
  Epic asserts that they maintain an illegal monopoly of iOS app distribution.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    But surprisingly Epic didn’t go after the console makers..
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      Because Epic is happy with the console makers, but they're not happy with Apple. The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        It couldn’t possibly be that they don’t want to piss of the consoles where 80% of their revenue is derived?
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Epic is maintaining an illegal monopoly on Fortnite distribution. It's not available on Steam store for example.
    - madeofpalk 6y ago
      If you feel so wronged by this, take it up with the courts and see if they agree?
- nobodyshere 6y ago
  In having App Store as the only way to install common apps for their devices.
  - alpaca128 6y ago
    But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation. That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5% market share? I think not.
    - gpm 6y ago
      > But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation. That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
      - hnarayanan 6y ago
        His point is that it’s like saying “Coke has a monopoly on the sale and distribution of Coke.”
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - anonymousab 6y ago
        Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple. I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
- echelon 6y ago
  iPhone is the only computer many Americans own. Software development and access to American consumers is no longer free and open.
- ahnick 6y ago
  Market share in the US mobile OS market. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    Was that supposed to show Apple was a monopoly? Because that's not what it shows.
    - ahnick 6y ago
      It shows they have a majority share of the mobile OS market in the US; therefore, they can basically act like they have a monopoly in the US. Everyone else is a distant second, so they can monopolize or attempt to monopolize the mobile app market.
      - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
        That's not how any of this works. Majority share is a lot of power, but the theory of how monopolies work doesn't support the idea that anyone with a majority of the market has monopoly power.
        ahnick 6y ago
        It's most definitely how this works. Monopoly power isn't some binary attribute. It's not like you flip a switch one day from not being a monopoly to suddenly becoming a monopoly. Monopoly power is accrued over time with increasing market share. Very few companies have the kind of market share we are talking about here with Apple and the US mobile OS market. Take for example, Walmart, who many people think of being gigantic in the retail sector in the US. They only account for 16% of US retail sales. If Apple only had 16% of the US mobile OS market there wouldn't even be a discussion about anti-trust laws and Apple wouldn't have just made this announcement -> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
- yyyk 6y ago
  It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to use their payment system.
  - jjtheblunt 6y ago
    Not being sarcastic, and I'm misunderstanding what you mean: how can Apple abuse their market power over something they alone created?
    - yyyk 6y ago
      Two reasons: 1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line. 2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
      - mrh0057 6y ago
        Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%. Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
      - nuker 6y ago
        > Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
        6y ago
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory practices, which Apple clearly does.
  - misnome 6y ago
    I think that the word "clearly" isn't so obvious as you seem to think.
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
oneplane 6y ago
Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario. The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either. While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
- MereInterest 6y ago
  > There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario. While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
- 8note 6y ago
  It got worse by moving from laptops to phones? I used to use a laptop for the things I use my phone for now The benefit of phones over laptops is the mobility, and I see no reason why the open options should go away for that mobility
  - oneplane 6y ago
    From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't much for them to think about or consider in terms of flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a vague term to describe platform access - are you really free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware and OS yourself etc?) Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
coliveira 6y ago
I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.
- 013a 6y ago
  I think its really important the narrative stays clear concerning this: Its never been about users having choice (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not having a choice. Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first guess is these two factors: A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
    - ric2b 6y ago
      Don't forget that Android has more than one store and depending on the company you buy your phone from it might even come with another store pre-installed, such as the Samsung store. So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android. If they don't make as much money that is not Google or Apple's fault. What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
bitxbit 6y ago
Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store. > about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
- pier25 6y ago
  You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView). I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
  - bitxbit 6y ago
    Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers.
    - flyingswift 6y ago
      That is a large benefit of the doubt...
    - criley2 6y ago
      >Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
godzillabrennus 6y ago
Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly. Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules. I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user. I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store. I think that would ultimately be better for consumers. That’s long term better for Apple.
- grumple 6y ago
  Monopoly != anti-trust violator
- cnst 6y ago
  You can install any other store on Android; you can enable installation from any source on Android; you don't even need to jailbreak to get this option on Android. Not possible on iOS.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
nodamage 6y ago
I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power. By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3] [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17987618389090921096 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1]. Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court. No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping. This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world. [1]: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
protomyth 6y ago
it hasn't engaged in this level of abuse. Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.
- lostmsu 6y ago
  How is this relevant? Did Microsoft prohibit releasing same hardware with a different OS (like Google does nowadays)?
  - protomyth 6y ago
    They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.
    - lostmsu 6y ago
      That does not answer my question. Did they abuse monopoly, and if they did - how?
      - protomyth 6y ago
        How is not an abuse of monopoly to create agreements that require Microsoft to be paid even if their product doesn't ship on the computer?
        lostmsu 6y ago
        Which agreement are you talking about specifically?
        protomyth 6y ago
        The agreements with Dell, HP, etc. that required them to charge for Windows on every machine even if it didn't ship with Windows.
ipv6ipv4 6y ago
The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?

hnarayanan 6y ago

In what metric is Apple a monopoly?

benologist 6y ago
"The kind of common theme is the abuse of their market power to maintain their market dominance, to crush competitors, to exclude folks from their platform and to earn monopoly rents." - the antitrust committee investigating them https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation-apple-disturbing-behavior/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
partyboy 6y ago
every
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
madeofpalk 6y ago
Epic asserts that they maintain an illegal monopoly of iOS app distribution.
- scarface74 6y ago
  But surprisingly Epic didn’t go after the console makers..
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    Because Epic is happy with the console makers, but they're not happy with Apple. The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      It couldn’t possibly be that they don’t want to piss of the consoles where 80% of their revenue is derived?
- threeseed 6y ago
  Epic is maintaining an illegal monopoly on Fortnite distribution. It's not available on Steam store for example.
  - madeofpalk 6y ago
    If you feel so wronged by this, take it up with the courts and see if they agree?
nobodyshere 6y ago
In having App Store as the only way to install common apps for their devices.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation. That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5% market share? I think not.
  - gpm 6y ago
    > But that also applies to every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support, ranging from smartwatches to home automation. That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
    - hnarayanan 6y ago
      His point is that it’s like saying “Coke has a monopoly on the sale and distribution of Coke.”
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      Tim Sweeney has made some statements about this, to try and walk a line where, while the situation is equally true about game consoles, they shouldn't count/shouldn't be forced to be open because their platforms are less innately profitable. That is, consoles are sold at a loss and have a lot of R&D costs, and so they have more rights to maintain an exclusionary platform than Apple. I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
echelon 6y ago
iPhone is the only computer many Americans own. Software development and access to American consumers is no longer free and open.
ahnick 6y ago
Market share in the US mobile OS market. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america/ https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  Was that supposed to show Apple was a monopoly? Because that's not what it shows.
  - ahnick 6y ago
    It shows they have a majority share of the mobile OS market in the US; therefore, they can basically act like they have a monopoly in the US. Everyone else is a distant second, so they can monopolize or attempt to monopolize the mobile app market.
    - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
      That's not how any of this works. Majority share is a lot of power, but the theory of how monopolies work doesn't support the idea that anyone with a majority of the market has monopoly power.
      - ahnick 6y ago
        It's most definitely how this works. Monopoly power isn't some binary attribute. It's not like you flip a switch one day from not being a monopoly to suddenly becoming a monopoly. Monopoly power is accrued over time with increasing market share. Very few companies have the kind of market share we are talking about here with Apple and the US mobile OS market. Take for example, Walmart, who many people think of being gigantic in the retail sector in the US. They only account for 16% of US retail sales. If Apple only had 16% of the US mobile OS market there wouldn't even be a discussion about anti-trust laws and Apple wouldn't have just made this announcement -> https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=84w3e5bm
yyyk 6y ago
It's irrelevant whether Apple are technically a monopoly or not; Apple abuses their iOS market power to force vendors to use their payment system.
- jjtheblunt 6y ago
  Not being sarcastic, and I'm misunderstanding what you mean: how can Apple abuse their market power over something they alone created?
  - yyyk 6y ago
    Two reasons: 1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line. 2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
    - mrh0057 6y ago
      Also have to mention apple is charging a fee way outside the norm for a payment processor at 30%. Have to also remember to deploy to the app store and a lot of the development has to be done on a Mac. So it is really equivalent of saying you must buy the factory from us, only sell in our store, and only use our payment processor.
    - nuker 6y ago
      > Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
      - 6y ago
IncRnd 6y ago
Apple is a monopoly that controls what applications can run on iPhones. Being a monopoly is not illegal in the US. What is illegal is for a monopoly to engage in predatory practices, which Apple clearly does.
- misnome 6y ago
  I think that the word "clearly" isn't so obvious as you seem to think.
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    I was referring to the specific point that is mentioned in the article, that Apple demanded 30% from Fortnite sales that had nothing to do with being listed in the store. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

oneplane 6y ago

Microsoft went from open options to package deals with no options. iOS (and vendored Android) started out with nothing, then added a store. There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario. The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either. While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".

MereInterest 6y ago
> There is no precedent on the platforms to point to an "it got worse" scenario. While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24217116
8note 6y ago
It got worse by moving from laptops to phones? I used to use a laptop for the things I use my phone for now The benefit of phones over laptops is the mobility, and I see no reason why the open options should go away for that mobility
- oneplane 6y ago
  From our perspective: yes. But legally and from the perspective or the mass-marketed users there really isn't much for them to think about or consider in terms of flexibility of application installation. (freedom is such a vague term to describe platform access - are you really free if you don't harvest your self-grown silicon chrystals, diffuse the chips yourself, write the firmware and OS yourself etc?) Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.

coliveira 6y ago

I don't know if you remember the 90s, but at the time MS was the ONLY monopoly in personal computing. Intel was the other big force, but even they had competition on AMD. All other companies had not even a slim of hope of controlling the ecosystem like MS had. Now we have Apple, but you still can buy Google devices and do whatever you want outside their walled garden.

013a 6y ago
I think its really important the narrative stays clear concerning this: Its never been about users having choice (because users do have choice): Its about Developers not having a choice. Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
- judge2020 6y ago
  Of course the argument for this is "why are iOS users more inclined to purchase games and IAPs compared to Android users?". I'm legitimately curious about this, but my first guess is these two factors: A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Don't forget that Android has more than one store and depending on the company you buy your phone from it might even come with another store pre-installed, such as the Samsung store. So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
- coliveira 6y ago
  I don't think this line of argument would fly, because developers have actually a choice in developing for Android. If they don't make as much money that is not Google or Apple's fault. What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.

bitxbit 6y ago

Might be an unpopular opinion but I don’t think they are acting to the level of MSFT in the 90s. What MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps. Also recall that Jobs was pretty adamant about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. Now, do I think 30% is ridiculous in 2020? Yes. But it made sense a decade ago when having a half decent working app almost guaranteed you revenue.

stale2002 6y ago
> hat MSFT did would be equivalent to Apple forcing everyone to use its apps and not allow any competing apps This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store. > about allowing third-party apps in the beginning. No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
pier25 6y ago
You can't uninstall Safari from iOS. In fact you can't even browse the web without it as Apple prohibits any other browsing engine (Chrome, FF, etc, are using WKWebView). I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
- bitxbit 6y ago
  Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers.
  - flyingswift 6y ago
    That is a large benefit of the doubt...
  - criley2 6y ago
    >Fair point but that’s largely due to security not Apple’s desire to lockout other browsers Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.

godzillabrennus 6y ago

Android is another phone platform with a larger market share. This is hardly a monopoly. Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules. I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user. I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store. I think that would ultimately be better for consumers. That’s long term better for Apple.

grumple 6y ago
Monopoly != anti-trust violator
cnst 6y ago
You can install any other store on Android; you can enable installation from any source on Android; you don't even need to jailbreak to get this option on Android. Not possible on iOS.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
heavyset_go 6y ago
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

nodamage 6y ago

I am not sure why this fallacy continues to be repeated in every Apple thread. Apple currently has 46% US market share [1] and 14% global market share [2]. This is far from monopoly power. By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3] [1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share... [3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17987618389090921096 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...

nvrspyx 6y ago
First, these statistics are for phones shipped, not current active users of said phones. It's well known that iPhone users tend to hold on to their phone for longer before upgrading compared to Android users, who often switch phones much earlier. You need to look at operating-system market share based on active users(e.g. web tracking), not "who upgraded their phone this quarter". In that regard, Apple has over 56% market share in the US and over 24% market share globally [1]. Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court. No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping. This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world. [1]: https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile

protomyth 6y ago

it hasn't engaged in this level of abuse. Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.

lostmsu 6y ago
How is this relevant? Did Microsoft prohibit releasing same hardware with a different OS (like Google does nowadays)?
- protomyth 6y ago
  They effectively made it impossible to buy a computer without paying them. They profited even when they were not part of a transaction which killed BeOS and others.
  - lostmsu 6y ago
    That does not answer my question. Did they abuse monopoly, and if they did - how?
    - protomyth 6y ago
      How is not an abuse of monopoly to create agreements that require Microsoft to be paid even if their product doesn't ship on the computer?
      - lostmsu 6y ago
        Which agreement are you talking about specifically?
        protomyth 6y ago
        The agreements with Dell, HP, etc. that required them to charge for Windows on every machine even if it didn't ship with Windows.

ipv6ipv4 6y ago

The monopoly word gets thrown around a lot in this context. But it's not clear where the monopoly is, in a legal, anti-competitive sense. Can you define what Apple's market monopoly is?