7 ms·

I yield to the arguments in the comments emphasizing the requirement of defining "the market" in the case of an antitrust case. Sure. I still think that Apple

I yield to the arguments in the comments emphasizing the requirement of defining "the market" in the case of an antitrust case. Sure. I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition. That's not a monopolistic issue, that's just the systemic underregulation we have come to expect from the US.

brookst 4y ago
So here's the paradox: if more open platforms promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Apple so dominant, and why aren't the more innovative, open platforms running circles around Apple?
- animatethrow 4y ago
  Several billion dollars is the minimum initial investment cost to compete in this space, to deal with all the patents and legal and regulatory to make your own phone with its own marketplace. If I don't use an iPhone my non-technical family members can't conveniently share photos with me the only way they know how. My friends can't AirDrop me videos. Apple has ensured its products won't interop well with non-Apple products.
  - pb7 4y ago
    It's not abusive to build really good experiences for your customers and it's not a mystery why they don't waste their resources developing for the competition.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    It doesn’t take “billions” of dollars to become an Android OEM and use AOSP.
    - techdragon 4y ago
      How much does it take? I’ve pondered this a few times over the years for various business ideas, so yeah, I’m genuinely asking in a non snarky way… what does it cost to do an OEM phone ?
      - brookst 4y ago
        Millions, if you're willing to work with a Chinese manufacturer and just load your firmware on a relatively generic phone.
        techdragon 4y ago
        Still pretty pricy, but it’s a lower bar than most people probably think it is if the comments here are anything to go by. Does make me wonder if there’s anyone out there playing middleman and doing a white label service at an even lower price point, they eyeball the market for design trends and OEM some generic phone designs and then sell them on to smaller shops like small MVNOs that don’t have a few million to spare doing a complete OEM phone of their own.
        scarface74 4y ago
        There have been white label phone manufactures since the original Windows CE based phones. HTC use to manufacture close to 80% of Windows CE phones sold by different brands. https://www.fiercewireless.com/developer/htc-to-shed-white-label https://www.fiercewireless.com/developer/htc-to-shed-white-l...
      - scarface74 4y ago
        I guess more precisely I should say it doesn’t take “much” money to be an Android ODM/OEM and ship with AOSP. https://us.nuumobile.com/android-oems-vs-odms-5-things-you-should-know/ https://us.nuumobile.com/android-oems-vs-odms-5-things-you-s... I’m referring to the millions and of course cost per unit go down depending on how many units you commit to. The hardest part is dealing with manufacturers and suppliers. In the US, building phones this way is not as popular as building vertical market hardware for kiosks and special putouse devices. You choose your screen size. memory, SOC etc. It’s been awhile. But I spent a few years working in field services during the transition from companies using Windows CE to Android for industrial ruggedized devices.
    - Spivak 4y ago
      But the result will suck. Sure you can do it but you'll be competing against Apple and Samsung who have invested billions and have the results to show for it. And you'll also end up as a system integrator because millions doesn't buy you your own chips so you'll be at the whim of the other companies investing billions like Qualcomm.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        Everyone is at the whim of Qualcomm - including Apple. The only two companies that aren’t just integrators are Apple and Samsung yet there are dozens of Android Manufacturers.
  - brookst 4y ago
    ...and it hasn't occurred to you to wonder why all of your friends want Apple devices? There'a a lot to dislike about Apple. But your friends know that airdrop will always work between each other. If Merlin appeared and made airdrop interoperable with your device... Your friends would leave Apple, because all of those experiences would become as fragmented and unreliable as open ecosystems are. 100% cool to hate Apple and wish regulatory doom on them. But don't think that Apple customers will be thankful. They will move to the next closed ecosystem that offers vertical integration and better UX. Because that's what they want.
    - danparsonson 4y ago
      I think it has a lot to do with costly signalling - Apple has focused on being the luxury option. That's what a lot of people really want; the closed ecosystem and UX are secondary concerns.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        How is something a “luxury” that is owned by over 50% of the American market? Since it is easy to pay for a phone on an installment plan, anyone making $15-$20 a hour can pay for one with two hours a month. Even your typical fast food restaurant has to pay that much these days to attract workers.
        lexhart 4y ago
        It's luxury in the financial sense because it's one of the expensive options compared to the competition. Someone making 20 dollar can also afford to eat caviar, that doesn't make it mainstream. Apple just made sure that it's spoons, forks and plates only accept caviar and not cereal or lasagna.
        scarface74 4y ago
        If I walk into a store and buy the average Android phone for $300 on a no interest 24 month installment plan from T-mobile , I will be paying $12/month. If I buy a midrange iPhone 13, it’s $24.95 a month. That’s not even mentioning an iPhone SE that is still faster than high end Android phones for $429 or $17.95 a month. And that “luxury” iPhone 8 (circa 2018) will have a better resale value and will get OS update for years still runs the latest OS and the iPhone 5s (circa 2013) has had a security update in the last year.
  - ubermonkey 4y ago
    >My friends can't AirDrop me videos. So? There are ample ways to share a video that aren't based on single-platform features. If Apple invents a way to do some thing X between two of its users, that's great. That's a platform advantage. There's no legal or moral standing that allows us to insist that they open that to other platforms.
- adev_ 4y ago
  Because network and chicken / egg effect obviously ? Because an open platform would need first to convince hundred millions of developper to port their App on their platform just to exist. And the cost does not justify the benefits of that "an open platform" brings. Apple and Google knows that very well and abuse of it. Just as a side note I would add: There were a time where Internet explorer was a de-facto (shitty) Monopoly everywhere with terrible consequences. Technological Freedom and the ability to have the choice brought us Firefox. It tools 10 years of competition to get there. And The result was a better web for everybody. Apple with its App store makes a Firefox style scenario impossible: they do decide of the life and death of everything on their platform. Including, ironically, the Web browser.
  - pc86 4y ago
    You're right, it couldn't possibly be that Apple has a superior product (iPhone/iOS) compared to Android's fragmented, poorly supported, borderline bad implementations.
    - adev_ 4y ago
      How is that even challenging the fact Apple and Google have a de-facto duopoly and that it is close to impossible to compete against them currently ? Your point just a subjective opinion about Android that does not bring anything to the debate.
      - pc86 4y ago
        The original question was "why is Apple so dominant?" and the response was basically "they have a lot of network effects helping them" which, while true, ignores the possibility that they are so dominant because they have great products that people want to use and will pay a large premium to use.
- MBCook 4y ago
  If anything I feel like this is Google’s fault. Apple did what they do, but their stuff is locked to their phones. Google made their OS free for everyone. So now a phone maker can spend a HUGE amount of money building an OS and getting apps, or they can just use Android. Spending the money to not use Android looks like a folly. Except Google trained everyone Android comes with the Play Store. So either a phone maker has to contribute to Google’s stranglehold on the non-Apple smartphone market, making themselves a commodity, or skip including Google services and consumers won’t accept it. So we’re now at a place where even if an alternate OS could get applications somehow, I can’t imagine any company being willing to put the money into developing it. Only a state like China could in an attempt to force Android out of their market.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - anaganisk 4y ago
    Huh? Apple is a hardware company that built an OS, Google was a software company, that wanted devices to run its OS. There is no comparison here with origins, since they formed an alliance to actually bring out the OS to multiple devices.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  So here's the paradox: if smaller oil companies promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Standard Oil so dominate, and why aren't the more innovative, smaller firms running circles around them? Repeat ad nasuium for your favorite monopoly/duopoly. Currently. one of the big dogs needs to make a big misstep in order for a smaller company to come in and win. Like car companies being complacent and Tesla seizing the opportunity. Electric cars had been around for a while, hobbyist putting them together but no capital to compete with Ford/GM. Now that Tesla has shown there is a path forward, look at all the capital that has gone to create new car companies. Apple is not a phone or computer company. They are a luxury brand that is functional. Trying to compete with Apple is like trying to compete with Disney; you cant just be putting out a cartoon movie, you have to have the theme parks, the toys, the cruises. Maybe you can pull it off, but not very likely.
  - xcdzvyn 4y ago
    > if smaller oil companies promote innovation that benefits everyone, They didn't. Standard Oil was cheaper, faster, easier, higher quality, more consistent.. why use anybody else? They weren't being manipulative, they weren't strongarming competition, they just made the best product and everybody wanted it. What's wrong with that?
    - dguest 4y ago
      > What's wrong with that? I'm not really sure what is wrong with that, but the US Supreme Court seemed a bit troubled by it. There's a reasonably well cited summary on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...
      - SllX 4y ago
        More accurately it was the United States government which was troubled by it and prosecuted Standard Oil under the Sherman Antitrust act. Their case before the Supreme Court would have been Standard Oil’s final appeal (note how the prior is United States vs Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey but it flips when it comes before the Supreme Court). In an adversarial court system, it’s worth keeping in mind that while the Court is who you need to convince, the Court is not your adversary.
- Drew_ 4y ago
  Well the web is a much more open platform that surely promotes innovation and benefits everyone. In aggregate, the web and it's myriad of open and free protocols is indeed running circles around Apple. So much so, Apple cannot exist without them.
- jayd16 4y ago
  Not sure what this is arguing besides 'might makes right.' Google's Play Store is more open and more dominant, anyhow. Apple succeeds on the strength of their exclusive hardware.
- elliotec 4y ago
  The answer is that we are in a market economy. Money wins, period.
  - vlunkr 4y ago
    And yet Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have all tried to compete. There’s no shortage of money there.
    - elliotec 4y ago
      … yeah exactly. You just named the most valuable companies in the world, after the subject of this article. They do this too, and win way more often than not.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Vertical integration, including hardware production. Apple has the capital to buy Foxconn's and the rest of their supplier's exclusive output on the new process for years. Open source just doesn't have the money to compete in kind with those kind of exclusivity agreements in place. Not enough people want a 3 year old phone with shittier specs that costs more than a new phone, with incomplete software that can't be used as a daily driver.
- ajvs 4y ago
  Android is more dominant across the world, and it turns out that it's just open enough that even more open platforms like mobile Linux have not retained comparable developer mindshare. In the US however as a result of differing strategy behind text and data costs by telecom providers in the 2000s Apple were lucky that it disincentivised using data for messages, so there wasn't the same internet-based messaging app uptake that took place elsewhere globally and basic SMS remained dominant. Then when iMessage launched in 2011 telecom providers plans had changed enough so that data wasn't as expensive, so it became seamless to keep using the default iPhone messaging app to talk to everyone.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  A combination of network effect, and apple successfully marketing their product as a veblen good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
- zirgs 4y ago
  Apple isn't really dominating outside of the USA. I have no Apple products and have no need for them. Google, Amazon and Microsoft are much harder to avoid.
- npteljes 4y ago
  That's not a paradox at all. Healthy food also benefits everyone, yet fast food dominates.
scarface74 4y ago
> I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition. If that’s the case, where is all of the “innovation” on Android that average consumers would care about?
- apatheticonion 4y ago
  Consider that for an experience to exist _at all_ on iOS, the developer must pay an additional 30% tax to Apple - that's on top of other cost burdens. It's not simply an advertising premium for the App Store - it's a license to run your software on their platform period (not dissimilar to console games). If someone wanted to produce a competitor to Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, Uber and the like - their startups could never be cost competitive on iOS because they wouldn't operate at the same scale as competitors. The argument of "what more could you want from your device that the mega corps don't already provide" ignores the fact that you'll never know what you're missing out on because those products never got off the ground. I'm not saying iOS is bad, it's that Apple isn't incentivised to create a marketplace that encourages competition, instead they actively hinder things that would make their platform richer for the user. The market has demonstrated that success is contingent on such practices. Without regulators stepping in to change the rules of play, it's unlikely we will see an environment less hostile towards competition in digital products/services.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > If someone wanted to produce a competitor to Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, Uber and the like - their startups could never be cost competitive on iOS because they wouldn't operate at the same scale as competitors. Netflix and Spotify haven’t allowed in app purchases for years and don’t give Apple any “cut”. Uber doesn’t use in app purchases. It gives you the option of using Apple Pay which charges standard credit card rates. Again, if it’s only Apple, why wouldn’t all of these “innovations” be happening on Android.
pb7 4y ago
Without the US there wouldn't be anything to regulate. Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if Europe was capable of producing innovative companies that would compete with Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft. Instead, it's all copies of ideas pioneered in the US built for the local market.
- nikitaga 4y ago
  Pretty arrogant to assume that if the US wasn't available as the most fertile ground for tech companies, then there would be "anything". That's like saying that without China no electronics would be manufactured. Profit-seeking companies flocking to the most profitable jurisdiction is natural. If that jurisdiction was not available, most of them would simply go to the next most profitable one.
  - pb7 4y ago
    Pretty embarrassing to admit that the only way Europe can compete is if the US didn’t exist. That’s the whole point, Europe is a hostile place for innovation. Even China found its place in the global market and it was dirt poor just 50 years ago.
- anthk 4y ago
  The US it's a political and sociological copy of Europe. We created you. You were developed around the industrial revolution from the Brits. Without them, you would be a lesser UK with no prosperity points. Also, not Brits, but without the European hardware and hard as fuck to build components in the 60's, 70's and the 80's, you would be doing... nothing today. No comms, no teleco hardware, no modern Arpanet and Internet, nothing at all. Have a look on Siemens, or Ericsson. Or ARM. A lot of low-level teleco and electronics has an European development.
  - pb7 4y ago
    The US was born out of escaping what Europe was and then eclipsed it in a mere 300 years because Europe is stagnant and spends more time passing laws protecting “culture” than developing the future. What political similarity are you referring to? What has Europe created in the last 30 years during the Internet age and arguably the greatest period of technological advancement? Not much at all compared to the US. For every company of note, the US has a match, plus 50x more with the best in AI, self-driving, space, consumer, cloud, silicon, and so much more.
dclowd9901 4y ago
I actually don’t yield. What is the point of antitrust law? Of policing anticompetitive behavior? My naive hope is that it is a service of our government to protect consumers from companies who use their considerable power and influence to otherwise abuse or extort money from them. The way the App Store and apple’s ecosystem is structured, they are able to extort as much money out of their users as they care to. Let’s suppose they get crazy and jack their fees up to 100%. Will people stop buying iPhones? Not likely — many people now have a lot of their life stored on iCloud. Will they stop buying their apps? I guess they could, but where the hell else are they going to get apps for their phone? Will developers switch platforms or ignore iOS altogether? Probably not, since really their bottom line wouldn’t be affected. They’d just pass the fees on. This is yet another big blow to the consumer. And I can’t understand why _populace_ isn’t the primary focus of these decisions. Companies don’t need protection. Epic is not threatening apple’s position in any way and whatever resultant requirement from the court wouldn’t have substantially hurt Apple, only made them work a bit harder. I know, boo hoo for the $3 trillion company.
- teolandon 4y ago
  What do you mean their (developers') bottom line wouldn't be affected? Their revenue from iOS would go to 0. They would definitely jump ship, and users would follow. If you think Apple could do increase their fees to 100% without any consequences why are they not doing it? Do they not like money?
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  You don't yield, but neither do you understand antitrust law. Apple has no monopoly. Apple is not abusing its market dominance. It doesn't have enough of the market to come CLOSE to the kinds of chicanery that has typically generated antitrust interest from DOJ. Think back to Microsoft in the 1990s, or read up on it if it was before your time. They had a stranglehold on computing. You literally couldn't buy a PC without paying for a Windows license, even if you didn't want it. All this grousing about Apple's closed platform is just grousing. If you want what Apple has built in their garden, work to make YOUR garden better. Most people use something else.

brookst 4y ago

So here's the paradox: if more open platforms promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Apple so dominant, and why aren't the more innovative, open platforms running circles around Apple?

animatethrow 4y ago
Several billion dollars is the minimum initial investment cost to compete in this space, to deal with all the patents and legal and regulatory to make your own phone with its own marketplace. If I don't use an iPhone my non-technical family members can't conveniently share photos with me the only way they know how. My friends can't AirDrop me videos. Apple has ensured its products won't interop well with non-Apple products.
- pb7 4y ago
  It's not abusive to build really good experiences for your customers and it's not a mystery why they don't waste their resources developing for the competition.
- scarface74 4y ago
  It doesn’t take “billions” of dollars to become an Android OEM and use AOSP.
  - techdragon 4y ago
    How much does it take? I’ve pondered this a few times over the years for various business ideas, so yeah, I’m genuinely asking in a non snarky way… what does it cost to do an OEM phone ?
    - brookst 4y ago
      Millions, if you're willing to work with a Chinese manufacturer and just load your firmware on a relatively generic phone.
      - techdragon 4y ago
        Still pretty pricy, but it’s a lower bar than most people probably think it is if the comments here are anything to go by. Does make me wonder if there’s anyone out there playing middleman and doing a white label service at an even lower price point, they eyeball the market for design trends and OEM some generic phone designs and then sell them on to smaller shops like small MVNOs that don’t have a few million to spare doing a complete OEM phone of their own.
        scarface74 4y ago
        There have been white label phone manufactures since the original Windows CE based phones. HTC use to manufacture close to 80% of Windows CE phones sold by different brands. https://www.fiercewireless.com/developer/htc-to-shed-white-label https://www.fiercewireless.com/developer/htc-to-shed-white-l...
    - scarface74 4y ago
      I guess more precisely I should say it doesn’t take “much” money to be an Android ODM/OEM and ship with AOSP. https://us.nuumobile.com/android-oems-vs-odms-5-things-you-should-know/ https://us.nuumobile.com/android-oems-vs-odms-5-things-you-s... I’m referring to the millions and of course cost per unit go down depending on how many units you commit to. The hardest part is dealing with manufacturers and suppliers. In the US, building phones this way is not as popular as building vertical market hardware for kiosks and special putouse devices. You choose your screen size. memory, SOC etc. It’s been awhile. But I spent a few years working in field services during the transition from companies using Windows CE to Android for industrial ruggedized devices.
  - Spivak 4y ago
    But the result will suck. Sure you can do it but you'll be competing against Apple and Samsung who have invested billions and have the results to show for it. And you'll also end up as a system integrator because millions doesn't buy you your own chips so you'll be at the whim of the other companies investing billions like Qualcomm.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      Everyone is at the whim of Qualcomm - including Apple. The only two companies that aren’t just integrators are Apple and Samsung yet there are dozens of Android Manufacturers.
- brookst 4y ago
  ...and it hasn't occurred to you to wonder why all of your friends want Apple devices? There'a a lot to dislike about Apple. But your friends know that airdrop will always work between each other. If Merlin appeared and made airdrop interoperable with your device... Your friends would leave Apple, because all of those experiences would become as fragmented and unreliable as open ecosystems are. 100% cool to hate Apple and wish regulatory doom on them. But don't think that Apple customers will be thankful. They will move to the next closed ecosystem that offers vertical integration and better UX. Because that's what they want.
  - danparsonson 4y ago
    I think it has a lot to do with costly signalling - Apple has focused on being the luxury option. That's what a lot of people really want; the closed ecosystem and UX are secondary concerns.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      How is something a “luxury” that is owned by over 50% of the American market? Since it is easy to pay for a phone on an installment plan, anyone making $15-$20 a hour can pay for one with two hours a month. Even your typical fast food restaurant has to pay that much these days to attract workers.
      - lexhart 4y ago
        It's luxury in the financial sense because it's one of the expensive options compared to the competition. Someone making 20 dollar can also afford to eat caviar, that doesn't make it mainstream. Apple just made sure that it's spoons, forks and plates only accept caviar and not cereal or lasagna.
        scarface74 4y ago
        If I walk into a store and buy the average Android phone for $300 on a no interest 24 month installment plan from T-mobile , I will be paying $12/month. If I buy a midrange iPhone 13, it’s $24.95 a month. That’s not even mentioning an iPhone SE that is still faster than high end Android phones for $429 or $17.95 a month. And that “luxury” iPhone 8 (circa 2018) will have a better resale value and will get OS update for years still runs the latest OS and the iPhone 5s (circa 2013) has had a security update in the last year.
- ubermonkey 4y ago
  >My friends can't AirDrop me videos. So? There are ample ways to share a video that aren't based on single-platform features. If Apple invents a way to do some thing X between two of its users, that's great. That's a platform advantage. There's no legal or moral standing that allows us to insist that they open that to other platforms.
adev_ 4y ago
Because network and chicken / egg effect obviously ? Because an open platform would need first to convince hundred millions of developper to port their App on their platform just to exist. And the cost does not justify the benefits of that "an open platform" brings. Apple and Google knows that very well and abuse of it. Just as a side note I would add: There were a time where Internet explorer was a de-facto (shitty) Monopoly everywhere with terrible consequences. Technological Freedom and the ability to have the choice brought us Firefox. It tools 10 years of competition to get there. And The result was a better web for everybody. Apple with its App store makes a Firefox style scenario impossible: they do decide of the life and death of everything on their platform. Including, ironically, the Web browser.
- pc86 4y ago
  You're right, it couldn't possibly be that Apple has a superior product (iPhone/iOS) compared to Android's fragmented, poorly supported, borderline bad implementations.
  - adev_ 4y ago
    How is that even challenging the fact Apple and Google have a de-facto duopoly and that it is close to impossible to compete against them currently ? Your point just a subjective opinion about Android that does not bring anything to the debate.
    - pc86 4y ago
      The original question was "why is Apple so dominant?" and the response was basically "they have a lot of network effects helping them" which, while true, ignores the possibility that they are so dominant because they have great products that people want to use and will pay a large premium to use.
MBCook 4y ago
If anything I feel like this is Google’s fault. Apple did what they do, but their stuff is locked to their phones. Google made their OS free for everyone. So now a phone maker can spend a HUGE amount of money building an OS and getting apps, or they can just use Android. Spending the money to not use Android looks like a folly. Except Google trained everyone Android comes with the Play Store. So either a phone maker has to contribute to Google’s stranglehold on the non-Apple smartphone market, making themselves a commodity, or skip including Google services and consumers won’t accept it. So we’re now at a place where even if an alternate OS could get applications somehow, I can’t imagine any company being willing to put the money into developing it. Only a state like China could in an attempt to force Android out of their market.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- anaganisk 4y ago
  Huh? Apple is a hardware company that built an OS, Google was a software company, that wanted devices to run its OS. There is no comparison here with origins, since they formed an alliance to actually bring out the OS to multiple devices.
themaninthedark 4y ago
So here's the paradox: if smaller oil companies promote innovation that benefits everyone, why is Standard Oil so dominate, and why aren't the more innovative, smaller firms running circles around them? Repeat ad nasuium for your favorite monopoly/duopoly. Currently. one of the big dogs needs to make a big misstep in order for a smaller company to come in and win. Like car companies being complacent and Tesla seizing the opportunity. Electric cars had been around for a while, hobbyist putting them together but no capital to compete with Ford/GM. Now that Tesla has shown there is a path forward, look at all the capital that has gone to create new car companies. Apple is not a phone or computer company. They are a luxury brand that is functional. Trying to compete with Apple is like trying to compete with Disney; you cant just be putting out a cartoon movie, you have to have the theme parks, the toys, the cruises. Maybe you can pull it off, but not very likely.
- xcdzvyn 4y ago
  > if smaller oil companies promote innovation that benefits everyone, They didn't. Standard Oil was cheaper, faster, easier, higher quality, more consistent.. why use anybody else? They weren't being manipulative, they weren't strongarming competition, they just made the best product and everybody wanted it. What's wrong with that?
  - dguest 4y ago
    > What's wrong with that? I'm not really sure what is wrong with that, but the US Supreme Court seemed a bit troubled by it. There's a reasonably well cited summary on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey...
    - SllX 4y ago
      More accurately it was the United States government which was troubled by it and prosecuted Standard Oil under the Sherman Antitrust act. Their case before the Supreme Court would have been Standard Oil’s final appeal (note how the prior is United States vs Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey but it flips when it comes before the Supreme Court). In an adversarial court system, it’s worth keeping in mind that while the Court is who you need to convince, the Court is not your adversary.
Drew_ 4y ago
Well the web is a much more open platform that surely promotes innovation and benefits everyone. In aggregate, the web and it's myriad of open and free protocols is indeed running circles around Apple. So much so, Apple cannot exist without them.
jayd16 4y ago
Not sure what this is arguing besides 'might makes right.' Google's Play Store is more open and more dominant, anyhow. Apple succeeds on the strength of their exclusive hardware.
elliotec 4y ago
The answer is that we are in a market economy. Money wins, period.
- vlunkr 4y ago
  And yet Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have all tried to compete. There’s no shortage of money there.
  - elliotec 4y ago
    … yeah exactly. You just named the most valuable companies in the world, after the subject of this article. They do this too, and win way more often than not.
zamnos 4y ago
Vertical integration, including hardware production. Apple has the capital to buy Foxconn's and the rest of their supplier's exclusive output on the new process for years. Open source just doesn't have the money to compete in kind with those kind of exclusivity agreements in place. Not enough people want a 3 year old phone with shittier specs that costs more than a new phone, with incomplete software that can't be used as a daily driver.
ajvs 4y ago
Android is more dominant across the world, and it turns out that it's just open enough that even more open platforms like mobile Linux have not retained comparable developer mindshare. In the US however as a result of differing strategy behind text and data costs by telecom providers in the 2000s Apple were lucky that it disincentivised using data for messages, so there wasn't the same internet-based messaging app uptake that took place elsewhere globally and basic SMS remained dominant. Then when iMessage launched in 2011 telecom providers plans had changed enough so that data wasn't as expensive, so it became seamless to keep using the default iPhone messaging app to talk to everyone.
RobotToaster 4y ago
A combination of network effect, and apple successfully marketing their product as a veblen good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
zirgs 4y ago
Apple isn't really dominating outside of the USA. I have no Apple products and have no need for them. Google, Amazon and Microsoft are much harder to avoid.
npteljes 4y ago
That's not a paradox at all. Healthy food also benefits everyone, yet fast food dominates.

scarface74 4y ago

> I still think that Apple's dictatorial grip on their platforms broadly stifles innovation and has a negative impact on competition. If that’s the case, where is all of the “innovation” on Android that average consumers would care about?

apatheticonion 4y ago
Consider that for an experience to exist _at all_ on iOS, the developer must pay an additional 30% tax to Apple - that's on top of other cost burdens. It's not simply an advertising premium for the App Store - it's a license to run your software on their platform period (not dissimilar to console games). If someone wanted to produce a competitor to Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, Uber and the like - their startups could never be cost competitive on iOS because they wouldn't operate at the same scale as competitors. The argument of "what more could you want from your device that the mega corps don't already provide" ignores the fact that you'll never know what you're missing out on because those products never got off the ground. I'm not saying iOS is bad, it's that Apple isn't incentivised to create a marketplace that encourages competition, instead they actively hinder things that would make their platform richer for the user. The market has demonstrated that success is contingent on such practices. Without regulators stepping in to change the rules of play, it's unlikely we will see an environment less hostile towards competition in digital products/services.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > If someone wanted to produce a competitor to Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, Uber and the like - their startups could never be cost competitive on iOS because they wouldn't operate at the same scale as competitors. Netflix and Spotify haven’t allowed in app purchases for years and don’t give Apple any “cut”. Uber doesn’t use in app purchases. It gives you the option of using Apple Pay which charges standard credit card rates. Again, if it’s only Apple, why wouldn’t all of these “innovations” be happening on Android.

pb7 4y ago

Without the US there wouldn't be anything to regulate. Maybe we wouldn't be in this situation if Europe was capable of producing innovative companies that would compete with Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft. Instead, it's all copies of ideas pioneered in the US built for the local market.

nikitaga 4y ago
Pretty arrogant to assume that if the US wasn't available as the most fertile ground for tech companies, then there would be "anything". That's like saying that without China no electronics would be manufactured. Profit-seeking companies flocking to the most profitable jurisdiction is natural. If that jurisdiction was not available, most of them would simply go to the next most profitable one.
- pb7 4y ago
  Pretty embarrassing to admit that the only way Europe can compete is if the US didn’t exist. That’s the whole point, Europe is a hostile place for innovation. Even China found its place in the global market and it was dirt poor just 50 years ago.
anthk 4y ago
The US it's a political and sociological copy of Europe. We created you. You were developed around the industrial revolution from the Brits. Without them, you would be a lesser UK with no prosperity points. Also, not Brits, but without the European hardware and hard as fuck to build components in the 60's, 70's and the 80's, you would be doing... nothing today. No comms, no teleco hardware, no modern Arpanet and Internet, nothing at all. Have a look on Siemens, or Ericsson. Or ARM. A lot of low-level teleco and electronics has an European development.
- pb7 4y ago
  The US was born out of escaping what Europe was and then eclipsed it in a mere 300 years because Europe is stagnant and spends more time passing laws protecting “culture” than developing the future. What political similarity are you referring to? What has Europe created in the last 30 years during the Internet age and arguably the greatest period of technological advancement? Not much at all compared to the US. For every company of note, the US has a match, plus 50x more with the best in AI, self-driving, space, consumer, cloud, silicon, and so much more.

dclowd9901 4y ago

I actually don’t yield. What is the point of antitrust law? Of policing anticompetitive behavior? My naive hope is that it is a service of our government to protect consumers from companies who use their considerable power and influence to otherwise abuse or extort money from them. The way the App Store and apple’s ecosystem is structured, they are able to extort as much money out of their users as they care to. Let’s suppose they get crazy and jack their fees up to 100%. Will people stop buying iPhones? Not likely — many people now have a lot of their life stored on iCloud. Will they stop buying their apps? I guess they could, but where the hell else are they going to get apps for their phone? Will developers switch platforms or ignore iOS altogether? Probably not, since really their bottom line wouldn’t be affected. They’d just pass the fees on. This is yet another big blow to the consumer. And I can’t understand why _populace_ isn’t the primary focus of these decisions. Companies don’t need protection. Epic is not threatening apple’s position in any way and whatever resultant requirement from the court wouldn’t have substantially hurt Apple, only made them work a bit harder. I know, boo hoo for the $3 trillion company.

teolandon 4y ago
What do you mean their (developers') bottom line wouldn't be affected? Their revenue from iOS would go to 0. They would definitely jump ship, and users would follow. If you think Apple could do increase their fees to 100% without any consequences why are they not doing it? Do they not like money?
ubermonkey 4y ago
You don't yield, but neither do you understand antitrust law. Apple has no monopoly. Apple is not abusing its market dominance. It doesn't have enough of the market to come CLOSE to the kinds of chicanery that has typically generated antitrust interest from DOJ. Think back to Microsoft in the 1990s, or read up on it if it was before your time. They had a stranglehold on computing. You literally couldn't buy a PC without paying for a Windows license, even if you didn't want it. All this grousing about Apple's closed platform is just grousing. If you want what Apple has built in their garden, work to make YOUR garden better. Most people use something else.