3 ms·

[ed: completely missed that this is macOS, not iOS, so much of the criticism here isn't valid] Wouldn't have to force Apple to put it on their store store if t

[ed: completely missed that this is macOS, not iOS, so much of the criticism here isn't valid] Wouldn't have to force Apple to put it on their store store if they allowed third-party stores. These devices aren't just phones, in fact the phone is the minor function these days. They're computers in fact and in the marketing copy, yet Apple exerts monopoly power[1] to capriciously decide what may run on the device that I bought, paying upwards ofa thousand dollars for[2]. [1] in terms of app revenue iOS is dominant. Apple is able to dictate usurious and abusive terms and vendors are effectively forced to capitulate due to the size of the market they control. [2] I don't actually have an iPhone despite the superiority because of this, but couching it in third-person terms is awkward.

saagarjha 6y ago
In this case, of course, the software could have been distributed outside of the store since the platform was macOS. As such, much of the issue was that Apple claims to apply their rules fairly and sanely on their store, and it was clear that this was not happening.
- andreareina 6y ago
  Missed that it was macOS, thanks for pointing that out. Agreed that in that case it's more an issue of inconsistency.
null_object 6y ago
> capriciously decide what may run on the device that I bought, paying upwards of a thousand dollars for But aren't there alternative phone devices that you or anyone else is free to choose? There are even phones that can install open-source operating systems. So an Apple device isn't strictly a 'monopoly' is it? In fact, the high price of the device could be said to operate against it being a monopoly: unlike (say) Amazon, that squeezes out local competition by strategically under-pricing until all other alternatives are unable to remain economically viable. For me, these contentions seem to conflate a company's success with monopoly power.
- LeoNatan25 6y ago
  There is no realistic way to move between these giant platforms. As a consumer, once you’ve purchased services and applications, you are pretty much locked to the ecosystem. This is another aspect that requires legislation. Taking this problem into account, it is monopoly power. Allowing this party software installation is the only solution. In this case, since it’s on macOS, the problem is moot. But on iOS, that is the only solution that will benefit consumers.
  - null_object 6y ago
    Oh well, as the downvotes have started I may as well say that I'm genuinely not convinced by any of these arguments. And I'm not in any way an Apple 'fan-boy' - I'm very much opposed to how deceptive the app-subscription system can be, and hate the monetized apps aimed at children (and have written to Apple many times about these matters). But pretty much the only substantive argument in favor of using legislation to attack Apple's 'monopoly' always seems to boil down to "their system is so much better than the alternatives that the user is locked-in". If that's the best HN has got, then I think the standard stance is basically sour grapes. Anyway, as others have pointed out, Amphetamine could totally have been distributed outside the supposed 'monopoly' store environment - so the app-developers bleating was especially egregious.
- koluna 6y ago
  It absolutely is a monopoly. They control the distribution within an OS that a good chunk of the population uses. Phones are not commodity devices that one can build in a shack - they require significant effort and investment, and it’s not realistic to say that PinePhone is going to be a viable alternative to Android and iOS anytime soon. This is akin to Microsoft becoming the gatekeeper of every single application you run on Windows under the guise of “it’s for your own good” - it would be infringing on your consumer rights, and you would have little decent alternatives to run Photoshop and Illustrator (without shelling out thousands on a Mac computer of course).
- andreareina 6y ago
  I as a consumer am free to choose alternative devices, and I have. A vendor is constrained to go where the money is, and on mobile devices, Apple serves as the sole gatekeeper to a lot of money. And the vendors pay a usurious 30% cut to Apple because there is no alternative. And high prices like that are absolutely indicative of a monopoly. Do you think Hey would still be in the app store if Basecamp didn't raise a huge stink and Apple didn't have a pending antitrust hearing? For a monetization strategy that's identical to Netflix? If alternative processors were allowed for in-app purchases is 30% really the natural commission they would all charge? If it were allowed to say, "hey, if you subscribe through the website it'll be 25% cheaper because we don't have to pay the App Store commission", how many people do you think would take the cheaper option? We can argue about technical definitions of what constitutes monopoly until the cows come home. But look at the behavior of vendors and the knock-on detrimental effects on consumers (high prices, lack of choice): these are the effects of monopoly, and the harms that that antitrust legislation is meant to prevent. Stripe is successful without being a monopoly. Nokia phones had the market share to be called a monopoly, but they didn't wield monopoly power. Shimano is absolutely dominant in bicycle drivetrains, but if they tried anything from the monopolist's playbook bicycle vendors would laugh at them and SRAM would eat their lunch.

saagarjha 6y ago

In this case, of course, the software could have been distributed outside of the store since the platform was macOS. As such, much of the issue was that Apple claims to apply their rules fairly and sanely on their store, and it was clear that this was not happening.

andreareina 6y ago
Missed that it was macOS, thanks for pointing that out. Agreed that in that case it's more an issue of inconsistency.

null_object 6y ago

> capriciously decide what may run on the device that I bought, paying upwards of a thousand dollars for But aren't there alternative phone devices that you or anyone else is free to choose? There are even phones that can install open-source operating systems. So an Apple device isn't strictly a 'monopoly' is it? In fact, the high price of the device could be said to operate against it being a monopoly: unlike (say) Amazon, that squeezes out local competition by strategically under-pricing until all other alternatives are unable to remain economically viable. For me, these contentions seem to conflate a company's success with monopoly power.

LeoNatan25 6y ago
There is no realistic way to move between these giant platforms. As a consumer, once you’ve purchased services and applications, you are pretty much locked to the ecosystem. This is another aspect that requires legislation. Taking this problem into account, it is monopoly power. Allowing this party software installation is the only solution. In this case, since it’s on macOS, the problem is moot. But on iOS, that is the only solution that will benefit consumers.
- null_object 6y ago
  Oh well, as the downvotes have started I may as well say that I'm genuinely not convinced by any of these arguments. And I'm not in any way an Apple 'fan-boy' - I'm very much opposed to how deceptive the app-subscription system can be, and hate the monetized apps aimed at children (and have written to Apple many times about these matters). But pretty much the only substantive argument in favor of using legislation to attack Apple's 'monopoly' always seems to boil down to "their system is so much better than the alternatives that the user is locked-in". If that's the best HN has got, then I think the standard stance is basically sour grapes. Anyway, as others have pointed out, Amphetamine could totally have been distributed outside the supposed 'monopoly' store environment - so the app-developers bleating was especially egregious.
koluna 6y ago
It absolutely is a monopoly. They control the distribution within an OS that a good chunk of the population uses. Phones are not commodity devices that one can build in a shack - they require significant effort and investment, and it’s not realistic to say that PinePhone is going to be a viable alternative to Android and iOS anytime soon. This is akin to Microsoft becoming the gatekeeper of every single application you run on Windows under the guise of “it’s for your own good” - it would be infringing on your consumer rights, and you would have little decent alternatives to run Photoshop and Illustrator (without shelling out thousands on a Mac computer of course).
andreareina 6y ago
I as a consumer am free to choose alternative devices, and I have. A vendor is constrained to go where the money is, and on mobile devices, Apple serves as the sole gatekeeper to a lot of money. And the vendors pay a usurious 30% cut to Apple because there is no alternative. And high prices like that are absolutely indicative of a monopoly. Do you think Hey would still be in the app store if Basecamp didn't raise a huge stink and Apple didn't have a pending antitrust hearing? For a monetization strategy that's identical to Netflix? If alternative processors were allowed for in-app purchases is 30% really the natural commission they would all charge? If it were allowed to say, "hey, if you subscribe through the website it'll be 25% cheaper because we don't have to pay the App Store commission", how many people do you think would take the cheaper option? We can argue about technical definitions of what constitutes monopoly until the cows come home. But look at the behavior of vendors and the knock-on detrimental effects on consumers (high prices, lack of choice): these are the effects of monopoly, and the harms that that antitrust legislation is meant to prevent. Stripe is successful without being a monopoly. Nokia phones had the market share to be called a monopoly, but they didn't wield monopoly power. Shimano is absolutely dominant in bicycle drivetrains, but if they tried anything from the monopolist's playbook bicycle vendors would laugh at them and SRAM would eat their lunch.