8 ms·

Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even smartphones.

by layoutIfNeeded 6y ago

supercanuck 6y ago
They have a monopoly over the apps on the iOS.
- zepto 6y ago
  In that case every single retail store has a monopoly on the products they sell. This is a meaningless definition of monopoly.
  - supercanuck 6y ago
    I don’t need to spend $1,000 to enter a store. The issue is market power
  - realusername 6y ago
    Except in the retail world, there's competition between stores. Competition is non-existent in the mobile world, there's only two companies and both have the exact same fees and very similar policies.
    - zepto 6y ago
      So we need more entrants. Why doesn’t this coalition of multi-billion dollar corporations invest in creating an Android based alternative with different policies? That would add choice to the market rather than taking it away. They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they just don’t feel the need to make the investment.
      - realusername 6y ago
        That's because of the market lock-in and power of both companies, you can't use any of the Apple stack and Android without the Play Store is a commercial death sentence.
        zepto 6y ago
        Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store? I don’t see why Epic couldn’t create their own gaming focussed device, and buy a bunch of exclusive titles including their own content. If their store had better terms than Play, and accepted APKs, why wouldn’t other developers want to sell through it? If the argument is that developers are desperate for better terms, it must follow that they would want to support a store which provided them.
        realusername 6y ago
        > Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store? Because of network effects, consumers just don't want a phone without their banking apps. Epic tried to make a deal like you suggest with OnePlus and LG but it was cancelled due to Google pressure.
        zepto 6y ago
        Epic could market the device at first to their own customers, many of whom are kids who don’t need banking apps. Network effects are strong, but not impossible to overcome. All they need to do is sell the device to users who don’t care about banking apps for long enough for banking apps to be uploaded to their store. As for the the deal with OnePlus and LG. I don’t believe it was anything like what I am suggesting - that was just a co-marketing effort. They weren’t going to create a new and open platform based on Android. The argument that nobody can ever compete against Android no matter what they do is a weak one. The iPod was an incredibly niche device when it was launched. There is a proven market for handheld gaming platforms that don’t run banking apps. Epic could start there and build out, just like Apple did.
        realusername 6y ago
        They could create a device targeting kids with games, nice controls and everything but it would just be another kind of PSVita at the end with Sony and Nintendo as competitors... It would never be a device competing in the mobile app market. So yeah, they could do that but it would be pointless.
      - arrosenberg 6y ago
        > They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they just don’t feel the need to make the investment. Is it clear? If it's that easy, how did Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon all fail in their efforts to break into that market? It seems much simpler to force Apple to follow fair trade rules on the marketplace, than to force every other company to develop their own OS and hardware. Furthermore, the latter option basically bars anyone who isn't already in control of a large corporation from entering the mobile app market without Apple's blessing.
snicker7 6y ago
The Apple store has a monopoly on installing software on Apple devices.
m_ke 6y ago
They control almost 70% of mobile app revenue: https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-platform-to-build-your-mobile-app-on-first/#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20revenue,of%20the%20number%20of%20downloads https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-platform-t.... A service like netflix, spotify or basecamp can't compete without an iOS app.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
  Yep. And why are iOS users more willing to pay for mobile apps than Android users? Because they know that Apple keeps app vendors on a short leash. Apple has a monopoly on non-shit smartphones precisely because of their restrictive policies.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    Or maybe the reason iOS users spend more is because iOS users generally have more spendable money? As signaled by them having bought an expensive device.
- MrScruff 6y ago
  Yes but there are alternatives. The consumer has chosen and they've chosen Apple's model for how a phone should work.
indymike 6y ago
All of this depends on how the market is defined. If we use iPhone users as the market, then Apple is clearly a monopoly. If we use smartphones or computing devices, then Apple is not. Time will tell, and lots of lawyers are going to get paid a lot of money to argue this one out.
- layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
  Ok, then why doesn't Coca-Cola Inc. let other companies' sell their beverage from Coca-Cola vending machines? Clearly they have a monopoly on Coca-Cola vending machines...
0xDEEPFAC 6y ago
Yea and Google doesn't do the same sh*t as Apple? Looking at it this way, it is impossible to avoid abusive and increasingly vague and restrictive store policies.. You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for standing up.
- ojilles 6y ago
  If you wish more competition to enter the market I'd argue for Apple to increase its prices (the higher margins the more competition). You're arguing they lower their prices, and thats just going to cement their position.
  - 0xDEEPFAC 6y ago
    I am not arguing for them to continue their status quo, I am saying that without competition Apple/Google have no incentive to improve. We would all be better off if Apple lowered prices and we got alternatives. That's a win/win even if most users don't use the alternatives.

Apple does not have a monopoly on phones. Not even smartphones.

supercanuck 6y ago

They have a monopoly over the apps on the iOS.

zepto 6y ago
In that case every single retail store has a monopoly on the products they sell. This is a meaningless definition of monopoly.
- supercanuck 6y ago
  I don’t need to spend $1,000 to enter a store. The issue is market power
- realusername 6y ago
  Except in the retail world, there's competition between stores. Competition is non-existent in the mobile world, there's only two companies and both have the exact same fees and very similar policies.
  - zepto 6y ago
    So we need more entrants. Why doesn’t this coalition of multi-billion dollar corporations invest in creating an Android based alternative with different policies? That would add choice to the market rather than taking it away. They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they just don’t feel the need to make the investment.
    - realusername 6y ago
      That's because of the market lock-in and power of both companies, you can't use any of the Apple stack and Android without the Play Store is a commercial death sentence.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store? I don’t see why Epic couldn’t create their own gaming focussed device, and buy a bunch of exclusive titles including their own content. If their store had better terms than Play, and accepted APKs, why wouldn’t other developers want to sell through it? If the argument is that developers are desperate for better terms, it must follow that they would want to support a store which provided them.
        realusername 6y ago
        > Why is it a death sentence not to have the play store? Because of network effects, consumers just don't want a phone without their banking apps. Epic tried to make a deal like you suggest with OnePlus and LG but it was cancelled due to Google pressure.
        zepto 6y ago
        Epic could market the device at first to their own customers, many of whom are kids who don’t need banking apps. Network effects are strong, but not impossible to overcome. All they need to do is sell the device to users who don’t care about banking apps for long enough for banking apps to be uploaded to their store. As for the the deal with OnePlus and LG. I don’t believe it was anything like what I am suggesting - that was just a co-marketing effort. They weren’t going to create a new and open platform based on Android. The argument that nobody can ever compete against Android no matter what they do is a weak one. The iPod was an incredibly niche device when it was launched. There is a proven market for handheld gaming platforms that don’t run banking apps. Epic could start there and build out, just like Apple did.
        realusername 6y ago
        They could create a device targeting kids with games, nice controls and everything but it would just be another kind of PSVita at the end with Sony and Nintendo as competitors... It would never be a device competing in the mobile app market. So yeah, they could do that but it would be pointless.
    - arrosenberg 6y ago
      > They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they just don’t feel the need to make the investment. Is it clear? If it's that easy, how did Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon all fail in their efforts to break into that market? It seems much simpler to force Apple to follow fair trade rules on the marketplace, than to force every other company to develop their own OS and hardware. Furthermore, the latter option basically bars anyone who isn't already in control of a large corporation from entering the mobile app market without Apple's blessing.

snicker7 6y ago

The Apple store has a monopoly on installing software on Apple devices.

m_ke 6y ago

They control almost 70% of mobile app revenue: https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-platform-to-build-your-mobile-app-on-first/#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20revenue,of%20the%20number%20of%20downloads https://swagsoft.com.sg/blog/android-vs-ios-which-platform-t.... A service like netflix, spotify or basecamp can't compete without an iOS app.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
Yep. And why are iOS users more willing to pay for mobile apps than Android users? Because they know that Apple keeps app vendors on a short leash. Apple has a monopoly on non-shit smartphones precisely because of their restrictive policies.
- matsemann 6y ago
  Or maybe the reason iOS users spend more is because iOS users generally have more spendable money? As signaled by them having bought an expensive device.
MrScruff 6y ago
Yes but there are alternatives. The consumer has chosen and they've chosen Apple's model for how a phone should work.

indymike 6y ago

All of this depends on how the market is defined. If we use iPhone users as the market, then Apple is clearly a monopoly. If we use smartphones or computing devices, then Apple is not. Time will tell, and lots of lawyers are going to get paid a lot of money to argue this one out.

layoutIfNeeded 6y ago
Ok, then why doesn't Coca-Cola Inc. let other companies' sell their beverage from Coca-Cola vending machines? Clearly they have a monopoly on Coca-Cola vending machines...

0xDEEPFAC 6y ago

Yea and Google doesn't do the same sh*t as Apple? Looking at it this way, it is impossible to avoid abusive and increasingly vague and restrictive store policies.. You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for standing up.

ojilles 6y ago
If you wish more competition to enter the market I'd argue for Apple to increase its prices (the higher margins the more competition). You're arguing they lower their prices, and thats just going to cement their position.
- 0xDEEPFAC 6y ago
  I am not arguing for them to continue their status quo, I am saying that without competition Apple/Google have no incentive to improve. We would all be better off if Apple lowered prices and we got alternatives. That's a win/win even if most users don't use the alternatives.