5 ms·

Interesting that Apple/Google don't get sued for this. (I assume other stores like Amazon demand a similar amount.) It obviously is a result of a monopoly and t

Interesting that Apple/Google don't get sued for this. (I assume other stores like Amazon demand a similar amount.) It obviously is a result of a monopoly and the lack of competition of software stores. I'd assume the price to go down if there were a real competition. On Android, you can at least use other stores if you want to take the risk. But on iOS?

thekyle 6y ago
Both Apple and Google are currently being sued for this by Epic.
simonh 6y ago
>It obviously is a result of a monopoly That contention simply isn't reasonable. Apple was charging exactly the same right form the start of the store, when a lot of pundits and industry analysts were still saying the iPhone was a dead end. You can't accuse them of abusing their power as an industry whale to charge more, when they are charging exactly the same as they were when they were a minnow, and are still charging pretty much the same as every other comparable business. That just makes no sense at all.
- CPLX 6y ago
  The contention is absolutely reasonable. It’s in fact currently the subject of major litigation from Epic Games, and there was also a notable US House report on the same subject. That doesn’t mean it’s settled, or that the opposite argument isn’t also reasonable, but it’s certainly a valid controversy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - simonh 6y ago
    Just because it’s a controversy doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a valid or reasonable one. People make controversies on ludicrous grounds all the time, especially in the fake news era. If a local restaurant charges $5 for a milk shake which is very popular, grows to become a National chain and still charges $5 for their shakes, it is not reasonable to claim that they are only able to charge $5 due to their market power. I don’t care how many people disagree with me, I will continue to claim they are clearly full of it. That doesn’t mean the now National chain isn’t doing other things that are anti-competitive, or that their other business practices must be ok, but clearly the market has decided the shake is worth $5.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      > Just because it’s a controversy doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a valid or reasonable one. I would say the fact that the case survived a set of initial hearings before a Federal judge and hasn't been dismissed means that it meets a very clear and precise definition of being valid and reasonable in a legal sense.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Epic isn’t actually claiming the 30% for paid for apps on the store is unreasonable though. After all, they want to be able to charge on a store themselves so that would be self defeating. They are contending two things only. That in-app purchases are subject to a revenue split, and that they aren’t allowed to establish a store of their own on iOS.
    - stewbrew 6y ago
      Nobody forces you to drink your milkshake at that restaurant. You can go someplace else. You cannot easily go someplace else to install software on your iOS phone. On Android, you could but this makes the phone more insecure. There is no real competition among app stores. People usually use the store that was pre-installed. They don't compare prices in app stores app by app and then install from the store that is cheapest. No competition, no market. Your argument is fake.
      - simonh 6y ago
        Many flagship Android phones have come with multiple app stores installed, typically one from the phone vendor such as Samsung, the Google Play Store and one from the network and yet 30% has stayed as a pretty consistent charge in a situation where there clearly was plenty of competition. It's a market determined price. Steam, which operates on completely open desktop platforms charges 30%. Even Humble Bundle charges 25%, operates on open platforms and the only thing they do is marketing. Another 5% for running a store client and associated services hardly seems excessive. So nether arguing that open platforms would push down prices, or that app store competition would push them down has actually happened in the real world. 30% is very much validated as a competitive price. If the big stores did cut prices, this would arguably squeeze out the smaller stores and operators like Humble Bundle, reducing choice even more. That 30% is charged to developers, not consumers so in this case it's developers that are the market.
- frankietaylr 6y ago
  Its a different story when not much market share is present compared to when its a monopoly/duopoly where there is no other option.
Hamuko 6y ago
>It obviously is a result of a monopoly Apple and Google will both argue that it's not a monopoly because they're competing with each other. Not sure if they can in any way argue that it's not a duopoly however.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

thekyle 6y ago

Both Apple and Google are currently being sued for this by Epic.

simonh 6y ago

>It obviously is a result of a monopoly That contention simply isn't reasonable. Apple was charging exactly the same right form the start of the store, when a lot of pundits and industry analysts were still saying the iPhone was a dead end. You can't accuse them of abusing their power as an industry whale to charge more, when they are charging exactly the same as they were when they were a minnow, and are still charging pretty much the same as every other comparable business. That just makes no sense at all.

CPLX 6y ago
The contention is absolutely reasonable. It’s in fact currently the subject of major litigation from Epic Games, and there was also a notable US House report on the same subject. That doesn’t mean it’s settled, or that the opposite argument isn’t also reasonable, but it’s certainly a valid controversy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  Just because it’s a controversy doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a valid or reasonable one. People make controversies on ludicrous grounds all the time, especially in the fake news era. If a local restaurant charges $5 for a milk shake which is very popular, grows to become a National chain and still charges $5 for their shakes, it is not reasonable to claim that they are only able to charge $5 due to their market power. I don’t care how many people disagree with me, I will continue to claim they are clearly full of it. That doesn’t mean the now National chain isn’t doing other things that are anti-competitive, or that their other business practices must be ok, but clearly the market has decided the shake is worth $5.
  - CPLX 6y ago
    > Just because it’s a controversy doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a valid or reasonable one. I would say the fact that the case survived a set of initial hearings before a Federal judge and hasn't been dismissed means that it meets a very clear and precise definition of being valid and reasonable in a legal sense.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Epic isn’t actually claiming the 30% for paid for apps on the store is unreasonable though. After all, they want to be able to charge on a store themselves so that would be self defeating. They are contending two things only. That in-app purchases are subject to a revenue split, and that they aren’t allowed to establish a store of their own on iOS.
  - stewbrew 6y ago
    Nobody forces you to drink your milkshake at that restaurant. You can go someplace else. You cannot easily go someplace else to install software on your iOS phone. On Android, you could but this makes the phone more insecure. There is no real competition among app stores. People usually use the store that was pre-installed. They don't compare prices in app stores app by app and then install from the store that is cheapest. No competition, no market. Your argument is fake.
    - simonh 6y ago
      Many flagship Android phones have come with multiple app stores installed, typically one from the phone vendor such as Samsung, the Google Play Store and one from the network and yet 30% has stayed as a pretty consistent charge in a situation where there clearly was plenty of competition. It's a market determined price. Steam, which operates on completely open desktop platforms charges 30%. Even Humble Bundle charges 25%, operates on open platforms and the only thing they do is marketing. Another 5% for running a store client and associated services hardly seems excessive. So nether arguing that open platforms would push down prices, or that app store competition would push them down has actually happened in the real world. 30% is very much validated as a competitive price. If the big stores did cut prices, this would arguably squeeze out the smaller stores and operators like Humble Bundle, reducing choice even more. That 30% is charged to developers, not consumers so in this case it's developers that are the market.
frankietaylr 6y ago
Its a different story when not much market share is present compared to when its a monopoly/duopoly where there is no other option.

Hamuko 6y ago

>It obviously is a result of a monopoly Apple and Google will both argue that it's not a monopoly because they're competing with each other. Not sure if they can in any way argue that it's not a duopoly however.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]