4 ms·

Some of the things they do are anticompetitive within their ecosystem, yes, and these things should be addressed. But charging 30% for using their app store is

Some of the things they do are anticompetitive within their ecosystem, yes, and these things should be addressed. But charging 30% for using their app store is not. It's the price for access to the clubhouse that they built. If you don't like the entry fee, build your own clubhouse or find another one. Every reason you provided is more reason to build a competitive solution. None of them are incentive for Apple to lower their prices. You don't have to use Apple. You can send snail mail or use pigeon carriers like in the olden times if you want to communicate with people. And of course, you can always use the string and paper cup method to talk to your friends, rather than Facetiming. The cost you pay is for the convenience, and despite being very used to it, most people can live without it.

stale2002 6y ago
> But charging 30% for using their app store is not. The issue is not that they charge this fee. Instead it is that they prevent competing app store on their platform, through the use of anti competitive practices. If, instead, it was quick an easy to install a different app store on the iPhone, then few people would complain. > Every reason you provided is more reason to build a competitive solution Apple prevents competing app stores. Thats not really possible to get a different app store on the iPhone. This is anti-competitive, due to the size of Apple's market share, which is around 50% of the US smartphone market. This anti-competitiveness is therefore illegal, according to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. > If you don't like the entry fee, build your own clubhouse or find another one. You missed the other option. Which is to prosecute apple for their illegal, anti-competitive practices, and make them follow the law by allowing competing app stores.
- kempbellt 6y ago
  > on their platform On...their platform. The rest of your comment relies on this being an issue. I don't see how it is. They also don't make it "quick and easy" to install a different OS on their devices. Should we sue them for anti-competitive behavior here too? "I can't one-click install Android on the phone that YOU built. That's not fair! I'm suing!" I don't understand your argument at all.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > On...their platform. Anti competitive practices are still illegal, under the sherman anti trust act, even if the company "owns" the platform. To give a relevant example, most people would agree that it would be illegal and anti-competitive if Microsoft made every single app on the PC go through the microsoft store. In fact, there was already a court case, 20 years ago, where Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, which was a bit similar to this. (Yes, microsoft had around ~80% of the market share then, but Apple now has ~50% of the smartphone market, which is enough for anti-trust law to apply. Thus it is a similar case) > I don't understand your argument at all. The argument is that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and that similar behavior has already been ruled illegal in the past, and if we thought about other hypotheticals, such as if Microsoft did the same behavior for the PC, that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Just think about the microsoft example if you are still confused. Basically everyone would agree that it would be illegally anti-competitive for microsoft to prevent people from downloading software onto their PC, and forced everyone to give them a cut through the microsoft PC app store.
    - kempbellt 6y ago
      Oh, I'm not confused. I just don't see it as a good argument. One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform for their own benefit, is in itself, anti-competitive. I use my car to get to work and run errands. You could argue that my car is my platform, which I use for my benefit. Is it anti-competitive of me to not go out of my way to pick up other people and take them to their jobs? Would that be covered in the "Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" (Yes, I am familiar with it...), as the act was intended? I doubt it. You are of course welcome to disagree. I'll be expecting a ride to the grocery store tomorrow, and even if you have errands to run, we need to run mine first, because if you prioritize running errands in your car over mine, you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! If I went out of my way to prevent others from getting a car so that I kept an advantage over them, that is anti-competitive behavior. Anti-trust laws were written to protect the public marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple app store is a private marketplace that Apple can do with as it sees fit. They can delete it today if they want, but that's just me.
- pb7 6y ago
  You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up. iOS is not a market. It is licensed software. You do not own it when you buy an iPhone, merely a license to use it provided you agree that you cannot install whatever you want on it.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up. Yes you can. Just go look at the microsoft court case, if you don't believe me. Microsoft created their software. But it was absolutely still possible for them to be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior. The Microsoft case directly proves you wrong. The courts ruled against them. Even though microsoft created windows. Imagine if microsoft prevented people from installing other software on the PC, that did not go through their app store. Even IF, they changed their licensings, to whatever Apple's are, I think that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Or do you instead believe that Microsoft could prevent competiting software (such as web browsers) from being installed on the PC?
    - pb7 6y ago
      Microsoft didn’t create the entire product from the ground up. They created the software only. Without the software, a whole lot of hardware was obsolete. Apple creates both the hardware and the software. They are 100% at loss if the software pushes consumers away.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > They are 100% at loss if Doesn't matter. That is not an excuse to break the law. There is simply nothing in the law that gives a company immunity from anti trust law, if they built both the hardware and software. Such a law simply does not exist.

stale2002 6y ago

> But charging 30% for using their app store is not. The issue is not that they charge this fee. Instead it is that they prevent competing app store on their platform, through the use of anti competitive practices. If, instead, it was quick an easy to install a different app store on the iPhone, then few people would complain. > Every reason you provided is more reason to build a competitive solution Apple prevents competing app stores. Thats not really possible to get a different app store on the iPhone. This is anti-competitive, due to the size of Apple's market share, which is around 50% of the US smartphone market. This anti-competitiveness is therefore illegal, according to section 2 of the sherman anti-trust act. > If you don't like the entry fee, build your own clubhouse or find another one. You missed the other option. Which is to prosecute apple for their illegal, anti-competitive practices, and make them follow the law by allowing competing app stores.

kempbellt 6y ago
> on their platform On...their platform. The rest of your comment relies on this being an issue. I don't see how it is. They also don't make it "quick and easy" to install a different OS on their devices. Should we sue them for anti-competitive behavior here too? "I can't one-click install Android on the phone that YOU built. That's not fair! I'm suing!" I don't understand your argument at all.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > On...their platform. Anti competitive practices are still illegal, under the sherman anti trust act, even if the company "owns" the platform. To give a relevant example, most people would agree that it would be illegal and anti-competitive if Microsoft made every single app on the PC go through the microsoft store. In fact, there was already a court case, 20 years ago, where Microsoft lost an anti-trust case, which was a bit similar to this. (Yes, microsoft had around ~80% of the market share then, but Apple now has ~50% of the smartphone market, which is enough for anti-trust law to apply. Thus it is a similar case) > I don't understand your argument at all. The argument is that Apple's actions are illegally anti-competitive, and that similar behavior has already been ruled illegal in the past, and if we thought about other hypotheticals, such as if Microsoft did the same behavior for the PC, that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Just think about the microsoft example if you are still confused. Basically everyone would agree that it would be illegally anti-competitive for microsoft to prevent people from downloading software onto their PC, and forced everyone to give them a cut through the microsoft PC app store.
  - kempbellt 6y ago
    Oh, I'm not confused. I just don't see it as a good argument. One could argue that using anti-competitive laws to prevent people from controlling their platform for their own benefit, is in itself, anti-competitive. I use my car to get to work and run errands. You could argue that my car is my platform, which I use for my benefit. Is it anti-competitive of me to not go out of my way to pick up other people and take them to their jobs? Would that be covered in the "Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" (Yes, I am familiar with it...), as the act was intended? I doubt it. You are of course welcome to disagree. I'll be expecting a ride to the grocery store tomorrow, and even if you have errands to run, we need to run mine first, because if you prioritize running errands in your car over mine, you are being anti-competitive, and that isn't fair! If I went out of my way to prevent others from getting a car so that I kept an advantage over them, that is anti-competitive behavior. Anti-trust laws were written to protect the public marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, the Apple app store is a private marketplace that Apple can do with as it sees fit. They can delete it today if they want, but that's just me.
pb7 6y ago
You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up. iOS is not a market. It is licensed software. You do not own it when you buy an iPhone, merely a license to use it provided you agree that you cannot install whatever you want on it.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > You cannot have a monopoly within a product you have created from the ground up. Yes you can. Just go look at the microsoft court case, if you don't believe me. Microsoft created their software. But it was absolutely still possible for them to be engaging in illegal anti-competitive behavior. The Microsoft case directly proves you wrong. The courts ruled against them. Even though microsoft created windows. Imagine if microsoft prevented people from installing other software on the PC, that did not go through their app store. Even IF, they changed their licensings, to whatever Apple's are, I think that basically everyone would agree that this would be illegally anti-competitive. Or do you instead believe that Microsoft could prevent competiting software (such as web browsers) from being installed on the PC?
  - pb7 6y ago
    Microsoft didn’t create the entire product from the ground up. They created the software only. Without the software, a whole lot of hardware was obsolete. Apple creates both the hardware and the software. They are 100% at loss if the software pushes consumers away.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > They are 100% at loss if Doesn't matter. That is not an excuse to break the law. There is simply nothing in the law that gives a company immunity from anti trust law, if they built both the hardware and software. Such a law simply does not exist.