4 ms·

About time. Never understood how apple seemed immune to this when the likes of Google and Microsoft were targeted for their monopolistic behaviour.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is even worse (if Apple didn't get a cut, would they be as willing to push the increasingly ad-infested google search?)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Google's thing is just a default, no? Consumers can change it?
  - colonwqbang 3y ago
    Yes it is, so it isn't really comparable to what Apple is doing.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Apple is doing it. Google is paying Apple to set a default.
  - 728ee0f3 3y ago
    but most dont
  - threeseed 3y ago
    Except this has all played out before. Consumers do what they are told to do. If a website says install this app in order to use it they will. If an app says approve this permission to use this app they will. And so you will inevitably end up with websites that only support Chrome which will increase its market share up until the point it is an IE style monopoly. And aspects like the cost of testing apps/sites on multiple diverging browsers will further entrench this monopoly. People go on about how this is great for competition as they can finally install Firefox etc. No. This is going to cement Google's control over the browser market and wipe out third party browsers like Firefox for good. And then we will end up with pro-advertising features that are built into the browser that you can't block.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Sorry - I don't see how this relates to Google paying Apple to be the default search engine.
      - jjoonathan 3y ago
        Kickbacks cause enshittification. Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as Apple's cut is greater than ad-driven UX degradation. No Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as result quality is greater than ad-driven UX degradation.
evilduck 3y ago
Because Apple holds no monopolies unless you trivialize the definition to include virtually everything.
- treyd 3y ago
  Virtually every consumer tech product sector is a segmented monopoly.
- kwanbix 3y ago
  Doesn't Apple hold a monopoly on the iPhone/iPad ecosystem? Why am I not allowed to install Firefox or Chrome (real Firefox or Chrome)?
  - dogma1138 3y ago
    Not anymore than Honda or Ford hold a monopoly on their cars…
    - Barrin92 3y ago
      the monopoly car companies have on their cars is one of the ways they fleece consumers. It's why they have pricing power on repairs, can charge whatever they want for their self driving solutions etc. There's a reason why almost all of them are trying to turn their cars from mechanical vehicles into glorified software/service platforms, it's a way to lock people in. In a world where hardware and software is open and interoperable and you can say, buy a self driving solution from any vendor (which is essentially what comma does in a hacky way), consumers benefit. Same is true for phones or laptops.
      - dogma1138 3y ago
        Fine then apply rules equally, I want to be able to use Nissan parts in my BMW and play Xbox and Steam games on my PlayStation… There are advantages to having a walled garden and I would want to have some assurance that I would be able to block side loading and that it would never be applied without it being clearly and constantly visible to the user. I also want to be sure that no 3rd party can compel me to install their own App Store to get their app which is a quite possible and likely scenario due to the DMA.
nostromo 3y ago
Because Apple isn't a monopoly.
- tristan957 3y ago
  Apple is 100% a monopoly. They have a monopoly over software which can run on iOS. You either pay 30% of all revenue, or you lose out on half the North American market. Please explain how that is not a monopoly.
theshrike79 3y ago
I'm still waiting for the DMA to apply to Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo Switch. If Apple is forced to allow third party stores, I can't fathom a reason why Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo wouldn't have to do the same.
ribosometronome 3y ago
Microsoft controlled >90% of the entire desktop computing market when they ran into anti-trust issues with the EU. I suppose I'm not old enough to remember, but I don't recall the argument at the time being "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was? Comparatively, it looks like Apple has marketshare in the EU is somewhere between 25 and 40% of the mobile phone market, depending on your source.
- ghusto 3y ago
  > "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was? Kind of. The argument was that since they controlled 100% of Windows, and "coerced" people into using IE (and "coerced" is a kind way of putting it), and Windows was 90% of the desktop market, that shit was bad for everyone. 40% of the mobile market is significant, when you consider that the other 60% isn't held by a single company.
musictubes 3y ago
Google and Microsoft got into trouble because they used their dominance in services and OS to strong arm manufacturers to only use their stuff. They used their clout to hurt competition. Apple does very little of this IMO. No one is forced to use Apple equipment and no one is forced to work with them. It is trivially easy to avoid Apple either as a consumer or developer. If you don’t think you can make enough money publishing to the App Store then you can code for some other purpose. If you want a phone that allows apps that Apple doesn’t allow you can get an Android. I do not understand the argument that Apple has to sell devices that work the way you want them to. There is no false advertising, nobody is getting fooled, and nobody is being forced to work with Apple or pursue their customers. Apple has made a very popular system, why do so many people feel entitled to change what they do?

jjoonathan 3y ago

Yes, but we need more anti-trust for all of them. Edge has been repeating the old Explorer tricks and Google pay-for-play is even worse (if Apple didn't get a cut, would they be as willing to push the increasingly ad-infested google search?)

robertlagrant 3y ago
Google's thing is just a default, no? Consumers can change it?
- colonwqbang 3y ago
  Yes it is, so it isn't really comparable to what Apple is doing.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Apple is doing it. Google is paying Apple to set a default.
- 728ee0f3 3y ago
  but most dont
- threeseed 3y ago
  Except this has all played out before. Consumers do what they are told to do. If a website says install this app in order to use it they will. If an app says approve this permission to use this app they will. And so you will inevitably end up with websites that only support Chrome which will increase its market share up until the point it is an IE style monopoly. And aspects like the cost of testing apps/sites on multiple diverging browsers will further entrench this monopoly. People go on about how this is great for competition as they can finally install Firefox etc. No. This is going to cement Google's control over the browser market and wipe out third party browsers like Firefox for good. And then we will end up with pro-advertising features that are built into the browser that you can't block.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Sorry - I don't see how this relates to Google paying Apple to be the default search engine.
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      Kickbacks cause enshittification. Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as Apple's cut is greater than ad-driven UX degradation. No Kickbacks: Apple chooses Google so long as result quality is greater than ad-driven UX degradation.

evilduck 3y ago

Because Apple holds no monopolies unless you trivialize the definition to include virtually everything.

treyd 3y ago
Virtually every consumer tech product sector is a segmented monopoly.
kwanbix 3y ago
Doesn't Apple hold a monopoly on the iPhone/iPad ecosystem? Why am I not allowed to install Firefox or Chrome (real Firefox or Chrome)?
- dogma1138 3y ago
  Not anymore than Honda or Ford hold a monopoly on their cars…
  - Barrin92 3y ago
    the monopoly car companies have on their cars is one of the ways they fleece consumers. It's why they have pricing power on repairs, can charge whatever they want for their self driving solutions etc. There's a reason why almost all of them are trying to turn their cars from mechanical vehicles into glorified software/service platforms, it's a way to lock people in. In a world where hardware and software is open and interoperable and you can say, buy a self driving solution from any vendor (which is essentially what comma does in a hacky way), consumers benefit. Same is true for phones or laptops.
    - dogma1138 3y ago
      Fine then apply rules equally, I want to be able to use Nissan parts in my BMW and play Xbox and Steam games on my PlayStation… There are advantages to having a walled garden and I would want to have some assurance that I would be able to block side loading and that it would never be applied without it being clearly and constantly visible to the user. I also want to be sure that no 3rd party can compel me to install their own App Store to get their app which is a quite possible and likely scenario due to the DMA.

nostromo 3y ago

Because Apple isn't a monopoly.

tristan957 3y ago
Apple is 100% a monopoly. They have a monopoly over software which can run on iOS. You either pay 30% of all revenue, or you lose out on half the North American market. Please explain how that is not a monopoly.

theshrike79 3y ago

I'm still waiting for the DMA to apply to Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo Switch. If Apple is forced to allow third party stores, I can't fathom a reason why Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo wouldn't have to do the same.

ribosometronome 3y ago

Microsoft controlled >90% of the entire desktop computing market when they ran into anti-trust issues with the EU. I suppose I'm not old enough to remember, but I don't recall the argument at the time being "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was? Comparatively, it looks like Apple has marketshare in the EU is somewhere between 25 and 40% of the mobile phone market, depending on your source.

ghusto 3y ago
> "They control 100% of the Windows market". Perhaps it was? Kind of. The argument was that since they controlled 100% of Windows, and "coerced" people into using IE (and "coerced" is a kind way of putting it), and Windows was 90% of the desktop market, that shit was bad for everyone. 40% of the mobile market is significant, when you consider that the other 60% isn't held by a single company.

musictubes 3y ago

Google and Microsoft got into trouble because they used their dominance in services and OS to strong arm manufacturers to only use their stuff. They used their clout to hurt competition. Apple does very little of this IMO. No one is forced to use Apple equipment and no one is forced to work with them. It is trivially easy to avoid Apple either as a consumer or developer. If you don’t think you can make enough money publishing to the App Store then you can code for some other purpose. If you want a phone that allows apps that Apple doesn’t allow you can get an Android. I do not understand the argument that Apple has to sell devices that work the way you want them to. There is no false advertising, nobody is getting fooled, and nobody is being forced to work with Apple or pursue their customers. Apple has made a very popular system, why do so many people feel entitled to change what they do?