4 ms·

The perversity of this can be seen by the thought experiment of Android not existing. What would happen? Apple would ironically have less power to abuse their p

The perversity of this can be seen by the thought experiment of Android not existing. What would happen? Apple would ironically have less power to abuse their platform because regulators would gain authority to police many of the abuses.

foobarding 4y ago
If Android didn’t exist, some other OS would take its place. Samsung would have developed its own most likely, which would at this stage probably resemble something very similar to what we have today. Only difference is that Google would have been in a position more similar to the one it faces with Apple. I agree also the point you are making. If Apple somehow commanded 90+% of the smartphone market then they would likely face much regulation.
simondotau 4y ago
Epic couldn’t point to any new “abusive” behaviour between when Apple was a ~1% market share minnow to when they became a ~50% market share behemoth. This is critical. In order to abuse a monopoly, you need to have abused your monopoly.
- MBCook 4y ago
  As much as so many hate how Apple acts, they’ve gotten better since day 1. They let developers choose more price points. They offer only a 15% cut of subscriptions in a number of circumstances instead of always taking 30%. IAPs and subscriptions have given developers more choices of how to monetize their apps. At no point did they ever use their position to squeeze more money from developers. Even the yearly developer fee is still $99 despite the HUGE increase in App Store revenue. It’s understandable people want Apple’s cut to shrink, but that doesn’t appear to be legally required. They didn’t make things worse so it seems they’re in the clear. (They still lost on the alternate payment method thing)
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    > At no point did they ever use their position to squeeze more money from developers. Except the entire time they required a 30% cut and you weren't allowed to point to other payment methods.
    - pb7 4y ago
      It was 30% from the beginning. By definition, it was the same cut throughout, not more.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - MBCook 4y ago
        Right. I had never thought about it but I wonder if this is why they’ve never tried to raise rates. It would certainly be a PR nightmare. But would it also immediately open them up to the “iOS monopoly abuse” case so many think this case was/wanted it to be?
      - illiarian 4y ago
        People are also forgetting it was better than the status quo at the time (IIRC 70% cut to telecom companies)
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        You could run whatever apps you wanted on phones.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Nope, on J2ME and Symbian phones, unless you had a developer kit, you would run what the telecom provider made available on their stores, reachable via WAP or SMS download links.
        seventhtiger 4y ago

foobarding 4y ago

If Android didn’t exist, some other OS would take its place. Samsung would have developed its own most likely, which would at this stage probably resemble something very similar to what we have today. Only difference is that Google would have been in a position more similar to the one it faces with Apple. I agree also the point you are making. If Apple somehow commanded 90+% of the smartphone market then they would likely face much regulation.

simondotau 4y ago

Epic couldn’t point to any new “abusive” behaviour between when Apple was a ~1% market share minnow to when they became a ~50% market share behemoth. This is critical. In order to abuse a monopoly, you need to have abused your monopoly.

MBCook 4y ago
As much as so many hate how Apple acts, they’ve gotten better since day 1. They let developers choose more price points. They offer only a 15% cut of subscriptions in a number of circumstances instead of always taking 30%. IAPs and subscriptions have given developers more choices of how to monetize their apps. At no point did they ever use their position to squeeze more money from developers. Even the yearly developer fee is still $99 despite the HUGE increase in App Store revenue. It’s understandable people want Apple’s cut to shrink, but that doesn’t appear to be legally required. They didn’t make things worse so it seems they’re in the clear. (They still lost on the alternate payment method thing)
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  > At no point did they ever use their position to squeeze more money from developers. Except the entire time they required a 30% cut and you weren't allowed to point to other payment methods.
  - pb7 4y ago
    It was 30% from the beginning. By definition, it was the same cut throughout, not more.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - MBCook 4y ago
      Right. I had never thought about it but I wonder if this is why they’ve never tried to raise rates. It would certainly be a PR nightmare. But would it also immediately open them up to the “iOS monopoly abuse” case so many think this case was/wanted it to be?
    - illiarian 4y ago
      People are also forgetting it was better than the status quo at the time (IIRC 70% cut to telecom companies)
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        You could run whatever apps you wanted on phones.
        pjmlp 4y ago
        Nope, on J2ME and Symbian phones, unless you had a developer kit, you would run what the telecom provider made available on their stores, reachable via WAP or SMS download links.
      - seventhtiger 4y ago