4 ms·

"They just want to be the gatekeeper for lucrative applications/functions so they can charge for it."...on the platforms that they have developed, invested in a

"They just want to be the gatekeeper for lucrative applications/functions so they can charge for it."...on the platforms that they have developed, invested in and are maintaining, which also don't hold a market majority around the world. "...they somehow convinced apple users..."...by making a product that fits Apple users' needs in a market that always had lots of competition, meaning that those who for whatever reason didn't want to use Apple products could always pick anything else.

Closi 4y ago
You don’t have to be the market majority for your actions to be anti-competitive.
- caramelcustard 4y ago
  That's not the point. "Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market.". The point of me mentioning that Apple is not the market majority was to emphasize that even with their current positions, Apple isn't capable of effectively reducing competition in the market of electronic devices, as is already proven not by legislative bodies but the market.
  - hamandcheese 4y ago
    Just because there is someone with more market share than you does not mean that your actions can't squeeze smaller players than you (or, more commonly for apple, squeeze players in adjacent markets. See: Spotify vs Apple Music).
    - caramelcustard 4y ago
      True that. "See: Spotify vs Apple Music". Considering that Google has their own streaming services and takes same 30% cut, i truly wonder why Spotify didn't address their "anticompetitive practices".
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        Looks like Google has been offering concessions: https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-billing-system-subscription-deal-1235212772/ https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-billing... And previously Spotify and Netflix had a loophole on the Play Store: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-cut-on-in-app-purchases-next-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I thought Apple was the more profitable platform however, also to develop for, which would imply that anti-competitive practices could deform the market because developers would be forced to bow to Apple since that is where the largest part of their profits would be coming from?
    - caramelcustard 4y ago
      Considering that the definition of "anti competitive practices" is beyond stretched at this point, it's safe to say that those very practices are one of the reasons iOS is profitable for developers: they don't need to worry about piracy as much as they do on Android, because Apple learned the key lessons of phone manufacturers of the past.
      - justinclift 4y ago
        > ... one of the reasons iOS is profitable for developers. Is it profitable for many developers? Was under the impression that making decent money was possible years ago, but in recent years it's not real profitable for the vast majority of devs.
        caramelcustard 4y ago
        For those who still serve "premium" apps it is (e.g gaming or industry specific applications.).
  - svnt 4y ago
    They don’t want to reduce competition in the market of electronic devices. They are in the business of service relationships with people with lots of disposable income.

Closi 4y ago

You don’t have to be the market majority for your actions to be anti-competitive.

caramelcustard 4y ago
That's not the point. "Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market.". The point of me mentioning that Apple is not the market majority was to emphasize that even with their current positions, Apple isn't capable of effectively reducing competition in the market of electronic devices, as is already proven not by legislative bodies but the market.
- hamandcheese 4y ago
  Just because there is someone with more market share than you does not mean that your actions can't squeeze smaller players than you (or, more commonly for apple, squeeze players in adjacent markets. See: Spotify vs Apple Music).
  - caramelcustard 4y ago
    True that. "See: Spotify vs Apple Music". Considering that Google has their own streaming services and takes same 30% cut, i truly wonder why Spotify didn't address their "anticompetitive practices".
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      Looks like Google has been offering concessions: https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-billing-system-subscription-deal-1235212772/ https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/spotify-google-billing... And previously Spotify and Netflix had a loophole on the Play Store: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-cut-on-in-app-purchases-next-year.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/google-to-enforce-30percent-...
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  I thought Apple was the more profitable platform however, also to develop for, which would imply that anti-competitive practices could deform the market because developers would be forced to bow to Apple since that is where the largest part of their profits would be coming from?
  - caramelcustard 4y ago
    Considering that the definition of "anti competitive practices" is beyond stretched at this point, it's safe to say that those very practices are one of the reasons iOS is profitable for developers: they don't need to worry about piracy as much as they do on Android, because Apple learned the key lessons of phone manufacturers of the past.
    - justinclift 4y ago
      > ... one of the reasons iOS is profitable for developers. Is it profitable for many developers? Was under the impression that making decent money was possible years ago, but in recent years it's not real profitable for the vast majority of devs.
      - caramelcustard 4y ago
        For those who still serve "premium" apps it is (e.g gaming or industry specific applications.).
- svnt 4y ago
  They don’t want to reduce competition in the market of electronic devices. They are in the business of service relationships with people with lots of disposable income.