4 ms·

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.

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.