5 ms·

Whether something's a monopoly depends on context. If I live in a country with only one phone provider, is that a monopoly? To someone living in that country,

Whether something's a monopoly depends on context. If I live in a country with only one phone provider, is that a monopoly? To someone living in that country, yes. But, I could live in another country, and use another phone provider. See, I have choice, therefore it's not a monopoly, right? If you buy an Apple device, your only choice for where to get apps from is from Apple's store. Within that market, they are a monopoly. They control what stores run on that platform, and they choose not to permit competition. What rationale they use for not permitting alternative stores, what terms they set for apps to be on their platform, those are all different issues. I can choose not to use Apple's devices, sure, but that doesn't alter that Apple is a monopoly on their own platform.

throwaway3699 6y ago
Thinking about this as "App Stores" doesn't make sense for Apple. Forget App Stores. They tax more than half of the app revenue(!) just via iPhone alone. General purpose computing is something special and it needs to be defended, because it touches on almost all our civil rights discussions today. Global freedom of speech, privacy, etc... are all in the hands of less than a dozen companies. Which should start with forcing these devices open (everything from bootloader keys, basic information needed to get Linux running, etc...). I can tolerate Android like I tolerate Windows 10, but the iOS situation is just especially awful.
hwbehrens 6y ago
In technical terms, this situation is referred to as a monopsony [0]; the customer can, at any time, go out and purchase apps from other sources. However, app developers cannot choose to "sell" their apps to other retailers, since there are basically only 2. It's a distinction without a difference in terms of the power they exert, but legally speaking, the distinction is relevant because the types of behaviors that are proscribed (in the U.S., at least) are relatively narrowly defined. This is not the first time these laws would have to be modified to account for shifts in market exploitation practices, nor will it be last. For a recent discussion of the topic, see [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-economy-monopoly-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-eco...
parasubvert 6y ago
There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. The argument is about whether forcing open channel reseller participation is beneficial to consumers. This was done with the American car franchise dealership, which was legally enforced across most states to protect dealers from being competed with by direct sales, and also to prevent pricing and quality shenanigans with repairs in the old days when cars needed constant repairs and there were more car companies that might pull out of a market and leave consumers without a proper repair facility . But this model has been falling apart from a consumer POV who largely prefer direct sales and repairs these days (see Tesla), and direct sales largely save the customers money (the $ of vehicles is higher with a dealership model). I suspect folks need to be careful what they wish for. The 30% cut (or near it) will almost certainly be retained in an open store model if the store isn’t otherwise subsidized.
- genuine_smiles 6y ago
  > There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. I don’t think this holds. I shop at multiple grocery stores, but only one mobile app store. Apple has a monopoly on sales of apps to iPhone users. If I sell fruit I can distribute it through multiple channels. If business though one channel sours I can take my business elsewhere. If I’m an iOS app maker with a popular app I can only distribute it on Apple’s store. If I can no longer distribute my app through Apple’s store then I’m screwed. Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps.
  - valparaiso 6y ago
    Have you followed September's Epic vs Apple hearing? Your statement with grocery store vs app store already doesn't work since for example judge stated to Epic lawyers that Fortnite can be distributed on every platform - iOS, Android, Windows/macOS/Linux, Web and consoles. If you made an app solely for iOS it was your decision and investment. You could just make it for the Web so every person could access it from any platform. Closed platforms, as stated by judge to Epic lawyers, are legal types of vertical business. You have Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo with same rules. If Apple made their way with closed platform from the beginning on mature mobile market the question is why you decided to go to that market (and everyone else) in the first place? The answer is very simple - on Android most of users are pirating apps, so as developer you won't make a lot of money. Also, in 2008 Apple's 30% tax was unprecedented since in other places it was 50-80%. Now you, as iOS developer want not to pay Apple's tax but have everything they created - user install base which pays money, push notification services, support and everything else. Just don't want to pay for those services in which Apple invested tens of billions through the years. From security standpoint - just two weeks ago Android well known third part App Store named APKMirror was installing trojans on user's devices. Do we, Apple users, want same experience? No. That's why most of Google employees/engineers in California and other parts of the world use iPhones and Macbooks.

throwaway3699 6y ago

Thinking about this as "App Stores" doesn't make sense for Apple. Forget App Stores. They tax more than half of the app revenue(!) just via iPhone alone. General purpose computing is something special and it needs to be defended, because it touches on almost all our civil rights discussions today. Global freedom of speech, privacy, etc... are all in the hands of less than a dozen companies. Which should start with forcing these devices open (everything from bootloader keys, basic information needed to get Linux running, etc...). I can tolerate Android like I tolerate Windows 10, but the iOS situation is just especially awful.

hwbehrens 6y ago

In technical terms, this situation is referred to as a monopsony [0]; the customer can, at any time, go out and purchase apps from other sources. However, app developers cannot choose to "sell" their apps to other retailers, since there are basically only 2. It's a distinction without a difference in terms of the power they exert, but legally speaking, the distinction is relevant because the types of behaviors that are proscribed (in the U.S., at least) are relatively narrowly defined. This is not the first time these laws would have to be modified to account for shifts in market exploitation practices, nor will it be last. For a recent discussion of the topic, see [1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-economy-monopoly-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/opinion/joan-robinson-eco...

parasubvert 6y ago

There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. The argument is about whether forcing open channel reseller participation is beneficial to consumers. This was done with the American car franchise dealership, which was legally enforced across most states to protect dealers from being competed with by direct sales, and also to prevent pricing and quality shenanigans with repairs in the old days when cars needed constant repairs and there were more car companies that might pull out of a market and leave consumers without a proper repair facility . But this model has been falling apart from a consumer POV who largely prefer direct sales and repairs these days (see Tesla), and direct sales largely save the customers money (the $ of vehicles is higher with a dealership model). I suspect folks need to be careful what they wish for. The 30% cut (or near it) will almost certainly be retained in an open store model if the store isn’t otherwise subsidized.

genuine_smiles 6y ago
> There is no “Apple market” and “Google market”, there is just one market for apps. The respective app stores are direct sales channels. This direct sales exclusivity (ie. no resellers) exists in many other industries. I don’t think this holds. I shop at multiple grocery stores, but only one mobile app store. Apple has a monopoly on sales of apps to iPhone users. If I sell fruit I can distribute it through multiple channels. If business though one channel sours I can take my business elsewhere. If I’m an iOS app maker with a popular app I can only distribute it on Apple’s store. If I can no longer distribute my app through Apple’s store then I’m screwed. Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps.
- valparaiso 6y ago
  Have you followed September's Epic vs Apple hearing? Your statement with grocery store vs app store already doesn't work since for example judge stated to Epic lawyers that Fortnite can be distributed on every platform - iOS, Android, Windows/macOS/Linux, Web and consoles. If you made an app solely for iOS it was your decision and investment. You could just make it for the Web so every person could access it from any platform. Closed platforms, as stated by judge to Epic lawyers, are legal types of vertical business. You have Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo with same rules. If Apple made their way with closed platform from the beginning on mature mobile market the question is why you decided to go to that market (and everyone else) in the first place? The answer is very simple - on Android most of users are pirating apps, so as developer you won't make a lot of money. Also, in 2008 Apple's 30% tax was unprecedented since in other places it was 50-80%. Now you, as iOS developer want not to pay Apple's tax but have everything they created - user install base which pays money, push notification services, support and everything else. Just don't want to pay for those services in which Apple invested tens of billions through the years. From security standpoint - just two weeks ago Android well known third part App Store named APKMirror was installing trojans on user's devices. Do we, Apple users, want same experience? No. That's why most of Google employees/engineers in California and other parts of the world use iPhones and Macbooks.