4 ms·

It’s still difficult to argue that Apple refusing to subsidize Epic store is anti competitive

kbenson 6y ago
In isolation, maybe. When you consider that they control the whole stack, and you can't run other operating system software on their phones and nor can you run their software on other hardware, and that the operating system is what's ensuring that only their store is allowed, that given them full control of hardware, operating system, store, (and because of store) third party software that runs on it. There is no competition in hardware for their operating system because of them locking it down. There is no competition in operating systems for their hardware because of them locking it down. There is no competition in application delivery for their systems because of locking it down. There is no competition in some applications and/or functionality (webview/safari) for their systems because of them locking it down. Each of these rely on and in turn reinforce the others. Taken together they all Apple to control absolutely all competition to do with their devices. Some aspects of this are fairly normalized and we're used to, but others less so (the complete hardware/OS lockdown, which in turn feeds into problems with repair). Whether some aspects seem normal or not, they all deserve a look with fresh eyes, as the world and how we use devices like this is changing, and old models of thinking may or may not work best for us. The bottom line is whether consumers are harmed by their actions or not, and that's what we should use to measure this, not whether it seems okay, or matches our way of thinking about what a company should be able to control. At the base level, I think a useful question to ask is "why is the store cut for managing and distributing apps 30%, and why hasn't it changed with the emergence of other stores?" One answer might be that it really takes about 30% of revenues to provide store functionality. Common public sources seem to indicate this is not the case. Another answer might be that for some reason, the market is resistant to change. I think this is because one large market member, Apple, is insulated from competition to a large degree, and didn't feel any pressure to change. Other market members match this number because the market is distorted by Apple's resistance to change. I think the fact that as soon as congress started making noises about investigating app market pricing Apple was able to immediately drop their cut for certain store items significantly points towards them knowing this, and wanting to get ahead of the problem so the status quo isn't changed too much to their detriment.
- jevgeni 6y ago
  All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. The only claim one could make is “hey, 30% seems a bit high to do business there”. Yet Apple can claim that you pay a premium to get access to millions of consumers which they’ve cultivated a strong relationship with. Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    > All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so. > Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right. > This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple. What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store. This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. Can you install a BMW engine into a Mercedes? As much as you can install macOS on a Lenovo laptop. Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.

In isolation, maybe. When you consider that they control the whole stack, and you can't run other operating system software on their phones and nor can you run their software on other hardware, and that the operating system is what's ensuring that only their store is allowed, that given them full control of hardware, operating system, store, (and because of store) third party software that runs on it. There is no competition in hardware for their operating system because of them locking it down. There is no competition in operating systems for their hardware because of them locking it down. There is no competition in application delivery for their systems because of locking it down. There is no competition in some applications and/or functionality (webview/safari) for their systems because of them locking it down. Each of these rely on and in turn reinforce the others. Taken together they all Apple to control absolutely all competition to do with their devices. Some aspects of this are fairly normalized and we're used to, but others less so (the complete hardware/OS lockdown, which in turn feeds into problems with repair). Whether some aspects seem normal or not, they all deserve a look with fresh eyes, as the world and how we use devices like this is changing, and old models of thinking may or may not work best for us. The bottom line is whether consumers are harmed by their actions or not, and that's what we should use to measure this, not whether it seems okay, or matches our way of thinking about what a company should be able to control. At the base level, I think a useful question to ask is "why is the store cut for managing and distributing apps 30%, and why hasn't it changed with the emergence of other stores?" One answer might be that it really takes about 30% of revenues to provide store functionality. Common public sources seem to indicate this is not the case. Another answer might be that for some reason, the market is resistant to change. I think this is because one large market member, Apple, is insulated from competition to a large degree, and didn't feel any pressure to change. Other market members match this number because the market is distorted by Apple's resistance to change. I think the fact that as soon as congress started making noises about investigating app market pricing Apple was able to immediately drop their cut for certain store items significantly points towards them knowing this, and wanting to get ahead of the problem so the status quo isn't changed too much to their detriment.

jevgeni 6y ago
All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. The only claim one could make is “hey, 30% seems a bit high to do business there”. Yet Apple can claim that you pay a premium to get access to millions of consumers which they’ve cultivated a strong relationship with. Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple.
- kbenson 6y ago
  > All of this also applies to BMW or, say, Tesla cars, but nobody is claiming that they have absolutely no competition. What? You can put a BMW engine in another car, you can put another engine in a BMW. BMW does not make it so that you can't use other engines or parts. This is nothing like BMW. I don't know about Tesla, but I suspect it's more a matter of others not making engines that fit the spec than it being explicitly designed to not allow other engines, but I really don't know enough about them to so. > Running an App Store isn’t hard. Running a successful App Store is very hard. The running of it is always easy. Getting to the point it's successful is hard, because it requires many other things to go right. > This is why Epic doesn’t want to do it themselves, but rather sue it out of Apple. What are you talking about? Epic is specifically bringing suit so they can run their own app store. Not only that, but they already run their own app store. Epic already has the infrastructure and inventory to be a credible alternative for games, because they have hundreds of games they already deliver on Windows, at a smaller cut than Apple charges in their app store. This isn't about Epic wanting to cash in on Apple's app store it's about them outgrowing it and wanting to open their own store when Apple won't let them (they might also be fine with a lower cut from Apple, but they would rather run their own store. They're keen to spend those Fortnite billions to expand as quickly as possible. They already opened their alternative to Steam on Windows, they would be happy to be the alternative to the App Store on iPhones for games).
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    Can you install a Mercedes OS on BMW board computers? No. Can you install a BMW engine into a Mercedes? As much as you can install macOS on a Lenovo laptop. Car manufacturers have their own part standards and their own tools specifically designed to be incompatible with each other and needing special tools that are only available to the manufacturers and certified service partners. This is nothing about Epic “outgrowing” Apple App Store. They had quite a bit of growth, but compared to Apple or even more directly to Steam they are still small. This is mostly about trying to get Apple to give them access to their platform for free or close to free. Nothing prevents them to build their market with Apple’s cut in place.