6 ms·

> If a developer isn't using that infrastructure, they don't owe anything. How would a developer build an iOS app without using any system calls or OS framewor

• peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  IMO it's not that blurry. The real point is if Apple wants (or should have the right) to collect taxes on their infrastructure and act like a Government - think about VAT - or they are only selling consumer devices instead. If I buy a tractor from John Deere and make money out of the products I can grow using that tractor I don't have to pay a fee to John Deere, even thought without the JD my fields would probably be much less profitable or plainly unprofitable. So the question is: has Apple built a digital Nation? And in that case, should they be the only monopolistic option?
  • gjsman-1000 5y ago
    However, what makes it even blurrier is that, in the US, being a monopoly (despite what you may have heard) is actually NOT illegal. What is illegal is the monopoly using its monopoly power to perpetuate its monopoly power. However, historically, this was almost always because the monopoly did something like change the rules to benefit themselves after they became a monopoly. From the law's perspective, Apple didn't do anything like that. Apple didn't raise the commission to, say, 50%. Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This makes proving an illegal monopoly case against Apple (because monopolies are not intrinsically illegal) more difficult.
    • rebelos 5y ago
      > Apple hasn't changed the rules since, like, 2009 before they had the theoretical "monopoly" status. This couldn't be further from the truth. They have carved out many exceptions to the 30% commission over the years - often as part of sweetheart deals to attract larger entities that have negotiating leverage, such as Netflix and Amazon.
      • gjsman-1000 5y ago
        Yes, but in monopoly law, the rules haven't changed from the perspective that Apple hasn't raised prices. Apple can lower them all they want, but if they raise them when they got their monopoly status so as to take advantage of their market, that would be illegal. However, that relies on the idea that Apple is even a monopoly to begin with, and that really depends on what you define "the market" as. Is the product an iPhone and the whole cohesive experience with it (IAP and App Store included) in which case it's a duopoly at best, or are these separate markets that it is possible to have a monopoly in?
        • peoplefromibiza 5y ago
          As a non American this is very interesting knowledge. I have a question: in USA could Tesla force Tesla Powerwall owners to only buy electricity from Tesla approved suppliers and when they sell their product through Tesla store, Tesla gets a 30% cut?
          • gjsman-1000 5y ago
            In theory, if they sold you the product with that restriction out of the box and didn't change it later to do this, so you bought the product knowing with basic research that it would be restricted in this way, yes they could.
        • rebelos 5y ago
          > Yes, but in monopoly law, the rules haven't changed from the perspective that Apple hasn't raised prices. Apple can lower them all they want, but if they raise them when they got their monopoly status so as to take advantage of their market, that would be illegal. Once again you're wrong and you should really stop commenting on business law. There are a wide range of legal precedents that have bearing here and these specific dealings could absolutely be ruled as anticompetitive in court.
    • jcranmer 5y ago
      One of the illegal things under US monopoly law is tying--using your monopoly power in one market to enter another market by bundling the two products together and undercutting the competition. Apple's push into payment processing here smacks very heavily of illegal tying to me, especially given how broadly Apple interprets competitor payment processing methods. In effect, the specific sin that got Fortnite kicked off was charging a lower price for using a company-specific gift card instead of using Apple's payment method. I don't see how that's not abusive tying.
      • gjsman-1000 5y ago
        Tying is actually not illegal and is common business practice if you don't have a monopoly. Apple started doing this all the way back in 2009, before they had a monopoly even from Epic's perspective. Therefore, the argument is that they aren't tying monopolistically because they were tying before they were even close to monopoly status. In which case, they haven't changed the rules, and also in which case the current antitrust law doesn't really address. If you are following Apple vs Epic, even Epic admits this and says they can't pinpoint when Apple became a supposed monopoly, and argues that the tying is illegal because Apple is so large, not that it was illegal to begin with (because Epic admits that it would not have been illegal when Apple started). This is also why many legal experts say Epic has an uphill battle, because antitrust really only addresses abuses in monopoly power, not so much on what got you to that monopoly power.
• Clewza313 5y ago
  Apple already charges developers for the privilege of developing on/for its platform. And notably, Android seems to do fine both a) letting devs use the Android ecosystem for free, and b) allowing sideloading apps outside the Play Store.
  • iosjunkie 5y ago
    The argument goes that then the consumer pays with their privacy. Ie Google foots the R&D bill to get the end user data and to keep users in the Google ecosystem.
• jhgb 5y ago
  How is infrastructure "a blurry concept"? If it doesn't touch Apple's servers, it's none of Apple's business.
  • 0xEFF 5y ago
    The system call to run an app touches apples servers to verify the app for example.
    • jhgb 5y ago
      Every time you launch it? That sounds like Apple's problem to fix, not anyone else's problem.