2 ms·

I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules

by shkkmo 5y ago

I have a feeling this is a facetious question, but: Take a look at the history of Apple's efforts to block jailbreaking in combination with the AppStore rules that disallow 3rd party app stores. It is quite clear that Apple has use multiple methods to successfully fighr off the arisal of any alternative stores. Apple openly admits to doing this, it really isn't a controversial claim.

tshaddox 5y ago
This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse). McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)
- akiselev 5y ago
  McDonald's pays the rent for their storefronts and owns all the food it cooks for its customers - McDonald's carries all of the inventory risk. It doesn't try to exert any control on the food after the customer has bought it and left the premises and the deals it makes with Coca Cola are about payment terms, branding, and cost of inventory. If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. I certainly did not say it was. Your whole comment reads like you are replying to someone else. The best I can tell, you agree that Apple is engaged in anti-competive behavior by preventing developers from selling "lemonade" in other stores (because they prevent those stores from existing.) Not only that, but users aren't even allowed to buy "lemonade" in their own driveway, they are forced to go buy "lemonade" through Apple.

by shkkmo 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. Coca-Cola can be sold in McDonald’s because the two parties have an explicit business arrangement. But they’ll kick you out if you set up a lemonade stand in their store (they still probably won’t destroy your property, they’ll likely ask you to leave and call the police if you refuse). McDonald’s will probably, however, make no effort to prevent you from selling lemonade from your driveway, or even prevent Coca-Cola (or Coca-Cola’s direct competitors) from selling soda at McDonald’s direct competitors. (If they did do this, I would agree that it’s anti-competitive behavior that ought to be opposed.)

akiselev 5y ago
McDonald's pays the rent for their storefronts and owns all the food it cooks for its customers - McDonald's carries all of the inventory risk. It doesn't try to exert any control on the food after the customer has bought it and left the premises and the deals it makes with Coca Cola are about payment terms, branding, and cost of inventory. If Apple wanted to take on development risk for all of the apps on the app store by paying for all that developer time, then we'd be talking about something that is sorta kinda not really the same thing.
shkkmo 5y ago
> This is nothing like destroying competitors’ property. I certainly did not say it was. Your whole comment reads like you are replying to someone else. The best I can tell, you agree that Apple is engaged in anti-competive behavior by preventing developers from selling "lemonade" in other stores (because they prevent those stores from existing.) Not only that, but users aren't even allowed to buy "lemonade" in their own driveway, they are forced to go buy "lemonade" through Apple.