3 ms·

Apple holds ~40% of the US smartphone market[0], and >50% of mobile revenue from app store purchases[1]. Apple is one half of a duopoly. The citations of globa

Apple holds ~40% of the US smartphone market[0], and >50% of mobile revenue from app store purchases[1]. Apple is one half of a duopoly. The citations of global mobile device market share are deceptive. It is not necessary for US regulators to prove that Apple has a monopoly in India to prove that they are engaged in anticompetitive behaviors in the US. If you want to make money as a mobile app developer, deciding not to support iOS can be a crippling decision. You don't really have a choice[2]. ---- [0]: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-share/ https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh... [1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-app-store-revenue-leads-google-pla.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-ap... [2]: That ends up being the much more interesting argument anyway, because Apple advocates mostly want Apple to be able to force developers to jump through hoops. I've seen a lot of arguments on this topic that say that 3rd-party app stores would be a disaster because companies wouldn't be de-facto forced to distribute through the primary app store. For those people, the duopoly and monopolistic power structures are the point -- they're not debating whether or not Apple is so powerful that it's taking away developer choice. They want Apple to take away developer choice. I disagree with those people, but I find their position to be much more compelling than, "India uses Android, so the US can't regulate its own market."

sempron64 6y ago
> You don’t really have a choice Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not monopoly make.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  It's not a question of whether you can "make plenty of money". It's whether we want to allow private regulation of markets. Right now Google and Apple are the regulators of the mobile app market - the public has no say in how those marketplaces are run, and both companies use their ownership of the OS platforms to enforce this market control. Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight over public markets. Two companies should not have the ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app market.
  - sempron64 6y ago
    I think it's important to consider whether the "mobile app market" should be considered a separate entity from the "software" market. Arguably almost all the functionality of mobile apps can be achieved using websites (accessible on the phone) and/or computer software. For comparison, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have a stranglehold on the console video game market, but because consoles aren't the only way to play games (though they are arguably they are necessary to make a AAA title profitable) it doesn't seem as egregious as what Apple is doing. When you're writing regulation and enforcing regulation it is important to clearly define the line is and I don't think it's clear here where exactly Apple has overstepped the role of a curator and become a gatekeeper -- they're powerful but they are not clearly (at least to me) the only game in town or even in a duopoly when it comes to software in general. If mobile apps in particular can be unambiguously shown to be meaningful and distinct as a market category, then I absolutely agree with your point.

sempron64 6y ago

> You don’t really have a choice Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not monopoly make.

arrosenberg 6y ago
It's not a question of whether you can "make plenty of money". It's whether we want to allow private regulation of markets. Right now Google and Apple are the regulators of the mobile app market - the public has no say in how those marketplaces are run, and both companies use their ownership of the OS platforms to enforce this market control. Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight over public markets. Two companies should not have the ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app market.
- sempron64 6y ago
  I think it's important to consider whether the "mobile app market" should be considered a separate entity from the "software" market. Arguably almost all the functionality of mobile apps can be achieved using websites (accessible on the phone) and/or computer software. For comparison, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have a stranglehold on the console video game market, but because consoles aren't the only way to play games (though they are arguably they are necessary to make a AAA title profitable) it doesn't seem as egregious as what Apple is doing. When you're writing regulation and enforcing regulation it is important to clearly define the line is and I don't think it's clear here where exactly Apple has overstepped the role of a curator and become a gatekeeper -- they're powerful but they are not clearly (at least to me) the only game in town or even in a duopoly when it comes to software in general. If mobile apps in particular can be unambiguously shown to be meaningful and distinct as a market category, then I absolutely agree with your point.