8 ms·

It's along the same lines of what Microsoft did when they were being investigated as a monopoly: throw a bone to smaller developers (or in Microsoft's case, kid

It's along the same lines of what Microsoft did when they were being investigated as a monopoly: throw a bone to smaller developers (or in Microsoft's case, kids in school) which actually just grows their market share (in Microsoft's case, kids learn to use Microsoft products and take that to work, in Apple's case, more devs see profitability in the Mac garden). > Apple / Google’s 30% take is the anti-competitive elephant in the room here No. They both built a distribution channel on which developers build, but they're not open markets. Those app stores are the property of their respective creators (this is a flaw of the app store paradigm in general, at least for those who want full control over their software). Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute. It's the same as traditional book publishers writing their contracts with authors they publish. Which is why open platforms and device jailbreaking remain valuable for those of us who believe in personal ownership of our software.

benhurmarcel 6y ago
Should that work in that way on desktop also? With Microsoft/Apple being free to restrict apps to their store only, and taking a cut of every transaction made outside the browser? If not, what's the difference with phones/tablets?
- simonh 6y ago
  The difference is just a historical choice. The desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to. Games console makers chose to go the locked down route at about the same time (in the grand scheme of things). The Mac launched long after many locked down games consoles existed. They just chose different strategies.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to They probably did. The industry was small. Attracting developers in significant numbers meant convincing people to become developers. That is a huge hurdle. Platforms with entry fees didn't build app ecosystems that attracted end users. By the time the iPhone was announced, developers were plenty and the software business model proven. Apple had resources to subsidize onboarding with a well-documented, rich API and good native apps.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    Apple takes some yearly fees from developers though, that's nearly a platform tax for Mac os.
    - simonh 6y ago
      So what? I’d you dont want it, don’t pay for it.
- swebs 6y ago
  No, but it seems to be the direction those two companies are moving anyway. Just look at Windows 10 "S mode". I'm just glad we have Linux as an option on the desktop to get away from that nonsense.
- indigochill 6y ago
  > what's the difference with phones/tablets? The difference I see is more about Apple specifically, because unlike, say, Google with Android, they have full vertical integration. They make both the hardware and the OS. Everything about Apple is focused on complete corporate control over the experience. If Apple decided to only permit apps distributed through App Store X on OS X, I wouldn't be at all surprised. That's Apple's MO. And there is a customer segment I think that serves, which is the consumer market which doesn't want to think about maintaining their own digital security, because Apple seems like a reasonably benevolent dictator in this respect, as much as developers dislike the cut they take. Requiring Apple to open their devices to third-party app stores would break this vice grip they have on the experience and, IMO, degrade the experience for Apple's end users (even if it might make things nicer for developers).
- Spivak 6y ago
  I think they should be allowed to do it. If we let them get away with it because the alternatives are worse then that's our own fault. Hard to fault a business for realizing that they have a stupid amount of leverage because people have made themselves dependent on you and charging more.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Hard to fault a business What? If a business is causing a large negative externality, that's a bad thing. Just because you can't "fault" people for pursuing profit doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it any way possible? I just really don't understand this worldview.
pja 6y ago
Appoogle are a duopoly. You can’t get significant sales on mobile phones without going through their respective App Stores, which both charge 30%. What a coincidence! Your comparisons with book publishers are specious: if I write a book today I can go to any of a number of publishers, none of whom have any kind of control over access to readers. Or I can even self-publish and sell direct. Jailbreaking is a complete irrelevance in market terms: It’s effectively impossible to sell on Apple devices without paying Apple’s tax & very difficult to sell on Android devices (which Google controls via carefully written contracts with mobile phone manufacturers) without paying Google 30%. We have anti-monopoly + market collusion laws for good reasons. It’s about time they were enforced.
- bobthebuild123 6y ago
  Google literally has multiple alternative app stores currently active.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    We've barely been able to get people to stop referring to all Android devices as "Droids". The average person doesn't even know about alternate app stores, yet alone have the will to seek them out, install them, search for an app, and then pay for it (likely having to enter payment info this time). You might as well tell developers to release their apps on the dark web. I'm sure you can release niche apps on these stores, but the general market isn't moving away from the Play Store any time soon, and that's where the money is.
    - ody4242 6y ago
      Well, there is Amazon Appstore for Android, where you can buy digital goods (apps and games as well) on an Android device. Idk if the Amazon Appstore is available for IOS with the same terms. Can you buy IOS apps via Amazon Appstore on an IOS device?
      - sgerenser 6y ago
baq 6y ago
the whole point of antitrust regulations is that > Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute. actually isn't always true - especially when it hurts consumers. of course it isn't up to us here to decide if it does. remember that private doesn't mean unregulated.
- zaroth 6y ago
  Just look at what Apple has accomplished in the meteoric rise of the iPhone. This is strong evidence of a company that is competing like hell to keep and grow its customers base. “Hurting consumers” would be an almost Orwellian characterization of the smartphone technology revolution driven predominantly by the competition between Apple, Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > a company that is competing like hell The problem is when by "competing like hell", you compete so hard that you suppress your competition. The issue that anti-competition laws seek to redress is the suppression of other competition.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      Except the competition isn’t suppressed, and there’s no actual monopoly here. What we have is a pretty clear case of a minuscule minority of users bitterly complaining that a company isn’t making its products exactly the way they want them to. A store is allowed to charge what it wants for its products. A store is allowed to set the policies that it wants for the goods that it sells in its own stores. It just so happens that Apple’s customers absolutely love its products, and that Apple’s products are absolute technological leaders in their space. Apple didn’t get there, e.g. like Facebook by buying up the competition any time it started to emerge as a threat. They got there through decades of focused development and investment.
      - 6y ago
ksk 6y ago
>Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights Who defines what those rights are? I don't agree with this dictatorial definition of rights. This mindset needs to change. I don't want Microsoft "owning" Windows and banning Firefox and Chrome because its their "right".
stale2002 6y ago
> Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want They are within their right to charge what they want. But it is anti-competitive for them to use significant market power to leverage themselves in other markets. The lawsuit is not about the 30% cut. Instead, the anti-competitive behavior is that Apple prevent competing Apple stores using its significant market power. Thats how anti-trust law works.

benhurmarcel 6y ago

Should that work in that way on desktop also? With Microsoft/Apple being free to restrict apps to their store only, and taking a cut of every transaction made outside the browser? If not, what's the difference with phones/tablets?

simonh 6y ago
The difference is just a historical choice. The desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to. Games console makers chose to go the locked down route at about the same time (in the grand scheme of things). The Mac launched long after many locked down games consoles existed. They just chose different strategies.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > desktop platform owners chose to be open in that way, but they didn't have to They probably did. The industry was small. Attracting developers in significant numbers meant convincing people to become developers. That is a huge hurdle. Platforms with entry fees didn't build app ecosystems that attracted end users. By the time the iPhone was announced, developers were plenty and the software business model proven. Apple had resources to subsidize onboarding with a well-documented, rich API and good native apps.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Apple takes some yearly fees from developers though, that's nearly a platform tax for Mac os.
  - simonh 6y ago
    So what? I’d you dont want it, don’t pay for it.
swebs 6y ago
No, but it seems to be the direction those two companies are moving anyway. Just look at Windows 10 "S mode". I'm just glad we have Linux as an option on the desktop to get away from that nonsense.
indigochill 6y ago
> what's the difference with phones/tablets? The difference I see is more about Apple specifically, because unlike, say, Google with Android, they have full vertical integration. They make both the hardware and the OS. Everything about Apple is focused on complete corporate control over the experience. If Apple decided to only permit apps distributed through App Store X on OS X, I wouldn't be at all surprised. That's Apple's MO. And there is a customer segment I think that serves, which is the consumer market which doesn't want to think about maintaining their own digital security, because Apple seems like a reasonably benevolent dictator in this respect, as much as developers dislike the cut they take. Requiring Apple to open their devices to third-party app stores would break this vice grip they have on the experience and, IMO, degrade the experience for Apple's end users (even if it might make things nicer for developers).
Spivak 6y ago
I think they should be allowed to do it. If we let them get away with it because the alternatives are worse then that's our own fault. Hard to fault a business for realizing that they have a stupid amount of leverage because people have made themselves dependent on you and charging more.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Hard to fault a business What? If a business is causing a large negative externality, that's a bad thing. Just because you can't "fault" people for pursuing profit doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it any way possible? I just really don't understand this worldview.

pja 6y ago

Appoogle are a duopoly. You can’t get significant sales on mobile phones without going through their respective App Stores, which both charge 30%. What a coincidence! Your comparisons with book publishers are specious: if I write a book today I can go to any of a number of publishers, none of whom have any kind of control over access to readers. Or I can even self-publish and sell direct. Jailbreaking is a complete irrelevance in market terms: It’s effectively impossible to sell on Apple devices without paying Apple’s tax & very difficult to sell on Android devices (which Google controls via carefully written contracts with mobile phone manufacturers) without paying Google 30%. We have anti-monopoly + market collusion laws for good reasons. It’s about time they were enforced.

bobthebuild123 6y ago
Google literally has multiple alternative app stores currently active.
- Sodman 6y ago
  We've barely been able to get people to stop referring to all Android devices as "Droids". The average person doesn't even know about alternate app stores, yet alone have the will to seek them out, install them, search for an app, and then pay for it (likely having to enter payment info this time). You might as well tell developers to release their apps on the dark web. I'm sure you can release niche apps on these stores, but the general market isn't moving away from the Play Store any time soon, and that's where the money is.
  - ody4242 6y ago
    Well, there is Amazon Appstore for Android, where you can buy digital goods (apps and games as well) on an Android device. Idk if the Amazon Appstore is available for IOS with the same terms. Can you buy IOS apps via Amazon Appstore on an IOS device?
    - sgerenser 6y ago

baq 6y ago

the whole point of antitrust regulations is that > Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want within their app store and enforce whatever capricious whims they like on apps that they distribute. actually isn't always true - especially when it hurts consumers. of course it isn't up to us here to decide if it does. remember that private doesn't mean unregulated.

zaroth 6y ago
Just look at what Apple has accomplished in the meteoric rise of the iPhone. This is strong evidence of a company that is competing like hell to keep and grow its customers base. “Hurting consumers” would be an almost Orwellian characterization of the smartphone technology revolution driven predominantly by the competition between Apple, Samsung, Google, Huawei, etc.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > a company that is competing like hell The problem is when by "competing like hell", you compete so hard that you suppress your competition. The issue that anti-competition laws seek to redress is the suppression of other competition.
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Except the competition isn’t suppressed, and there’s no actual monopoly here. What we have is a pretty clear case of a minuscule minority of users bitterly complaining that a company isn’t making its products exactly the way they want them to. A store is allowed to charge what it wants for its products. A store is allowed to set the policies that it wants for the goods that it sells in its own stores. It just so happens that Apple’s customers absolutely love its products, and that Apple’s products are absolute technological leaders in their space. Apple didn’t get there, e.g. like Facebook by buying up the competition any time it started to emerge as a threat. They got there through decades of focused development and investment.
    - 6y ago

ksk 6y ago

>Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights Who defines what those rights are? I don't agree with this dictatorial definition of rights. This mindset needs to change. I don't want Microsoft "owning" Windows and banning Firefox and Chrome because its their "right".

stale2002 6y ago

> Both Apple and Google are fully within their rights to charge whatever they want They are within their right to charge what they want. But it is anti-competitive for them to use significant market power to leverage themselves in other markets. The lawsuit is not about the 30% cut. Instead, the anti-competitive behavior is that Apple prevent competing Apple stores using its significant market power. Thats how anti-trust law works.