7 ms·

And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?

by ravetcofx 3y ago

HDThoreaun 3y ago
Apple has global dominance on market profits
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        > D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted. I could not disagree more. > B. Android also charges 30%. It's actually better on iPhone, because developers making under $1M per year pay only 15%. On Android, everyone pays 30%. So you'd be paying more to Google on Android than on iPhone. Android is bad too but at least you can get an app store without the fee. > C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. Will I get refunded for the apps I bought? What about the macbook I bought because I entered the apple ecosystem? > A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. How could I have known to look this up before it became a story?
        gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > I could not disagree more. Well, we can agree to disagree, but call it a prediction - in three years, prices will be exactly the same as they are now. No business, especially in this economy, gets an opportunity like this to raise margins without affecting sales. > Android is bad too but at least you can get an app store without the fee. Yes, and literally nobody will install it. And the few app stores that are available - Aurora will get your Google account banned, while F-Droid re-signs all apps with itself, meaning you are opening your device to serious security risks. A middleman in F-Droid would mean every app you install from them could be compromised with fake developer signatures. Fun. > How could I have known to look this up before it became a story? How about paying attention since the 30% commission was announced at the iPhone App Store launch in 2008, literally by Steve Jobs on stage when iPhoneOS 2.0 was announced? There's no legal requirement to advertise every possible detail to cover every possible person's perspective - especially when it's old hat announced a decade and a half ago with fanfare. https://youtu.be/WUrzjLjP4UQ?t=217 https://youtu.be/WUrzjLjP4UQ?t=217 Edit for the comment below about iPhone being anti-competitive (because I'm "posting too fast"): Well, here's the problem with trying to investigate the iPhone. Remember how I showed that announcement in 2008? iPhone market share, at the time, was less than 5%. Almost the entire smartphone market was split between BlackBerry and Windows Mobile. Now look at where iPhone is now, despite the fee. That demonstrates, to a regulator, that it is a competitive product, and the market preferred it, despite the fee which was implemented at the beginning. Apple didn't build the iPhone to where it is now and then lock it down - developers signed up right when it was beginning and didn't care then, so they can't care now that it's a success. Apple has basically an ironclad argument for competitiveness. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would've died at birth. Nobody would have supported an anti-competitive product if they actually cared at a time when it could have easily been ignored. This came up in the argument with Epic - Apple argued, successfully, that the market chose them and their "anti-competitive practices" despite them having almost no clout, which can only be the result of market support for being a competitive product. Edit 2 (same issue, thanks @dang): > What makes you say that? A product being anti competitive has little to do with whether consumers will buy it. You dont see how you can have the best product on the market and also stifle competition? The iPhone took off because of third-party support, any market analyst will tell you that. If it didn't have third-party support from the App Store, it would have died. Why was that third-party support there? Previously, on almost all other cellphones, every carrier had their own App Store. With their own policies. And a 50/50 split at best. Some only gave the developer 30% with the carrier taking 70%. With the developer paying for your own credit card fees and hosting fees. Many carriers had severe upfront costs of tens of thousands of dollars to get a half-functioning SDK. The 70/30 deal with one App Store was revolutionarily competitive for the time. Developers flooded Apple's scene because it was, by far, the cheapest and most profitable App Store available at the time. They can't claim, high on the success that Apple gave them, that Apple's the problem now when Apple did not even change the deal that they initially signed for. At least, not legally easily.
    - Someone 3y ago
      Hurting consumers? Apps are dirt cheap. If anything, they’re hurting developers, but even that may be hard to argue. Developers still flock to the platform. Even if those developers can’t make a living doing that (and many likely can’t), that’s not an argument for Apple’s fee being too high. There’s no right to be able to make a living in the way you want.
      - HDThoreaun 3y ago
        Yes, they are hurting consumers by banning competing app stores. Just because they offer an acceptable product doesnt mean they can hamstring competitors. There is a right to be allowed to compete.
        skydhash 3y ago
        > There is a right to be allowed to compete. You can always build your own phone and setup your own app store. Samsung does.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        How is this different from telling people to move to a different town when their town bans walmart? I've invested considerably money into the apple ecosystem. I have a bunch of media on their cloud. Switching is a pain in the ass, why cant the gov just enforce anti competitive laws?
        skydhash 3y ago
        If you want Walmart products, you better follow Walmart.
        kelnos 3y ago
        > How is this different from telling people to move to a different town when their town bans walmart? I generally agree with your point, but this is a weird argument: towns can and do ban big-box stores, and yes, "move to a different town" is exactly the only remedy people have, if they want to live close to those kinds of stores. And frankly we generally see that as a good thing! Big-box stores tend to kill downtowns. > I've invested considerably money into the apple ecosystem. This confuses your Walmart analogy quite a bit, because there's no such thing as "investing money into the Walmart ecosystem". Walmart doesn't have an ecosystem. If your Walmart closes down and other stores pop up to replace it, you just start shopping at those other stores, and likely don't really notice much of a difference. And that's precisely the point of the issue with Apple. If I've been an iOS user for years and years, and suddenly Apple changes the terms to something I really don't like, it'll cost me a lot to switch to another platform.
    - musictubes 3y ago
      Locked in? You can't buy another phone? Would you have been able to buy the apps you use without Google taking 30% as well?
      - kelnos 3y ago
        Sure, they can buy an Android phone, and then have to re-buy all those apps again, probably at considerable expense. And yeah, Google taking 30% as well also sucks. Just because Google does it, it doesn't mean it's fine Apple does too.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Which isn't really "a thing" legally. The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market in a broader sense. A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market No, the opposite, it is evidence that Apple is a monopoly, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with taking 30% with no repercussions. It should have driven their profits to 0 in the appstore market since why would users pay such a massive markup for everything? But it didn't due to their anti-competitive measures. > A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero No, that isn't how it works, they weren't anti competitive towards other apps, just towards other app stores. Their massive tax on those apps is the result, you can still be profitable even with a massive tax.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
LordKeren 3y ago
No, this was not a court case about if Google has a phone OS monopoly. This was about if Google has a monopoly within the android ecosystem when it comes to app distribution. The jury ruled that they have a monopoly within android, and that they used this monopoly to stifle competition. They cited that Google used its influence as the makers of android to get phone manufacturers to not preinstall third party app stores, and paid off companies to not compete with Google Play
- hackernewds 3y ago
  um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled
  - LordKeren 3y ago
    Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is the arbiter of android and anything but extremely anti competitive
    - deepsun 3y ago
      > ... anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        If other manufacturers were licensing the OS. Like Microsoft and Internet Explorer back in the day
      - bee_rider 3y ago

And is it possibly because Android has a global dominance in market share well apple does not?

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Apple has global dominance on market profits

gjsman-1000 3y ago
The government does not (and legally cannot) give a darn on "dominance in market profits." If it isn't hurting consumers or illegally propping up market share, that's just called good business. As it should be, otherwise you end up with very bad incentives. For example, what's stopping Samsung then from using the world's most inefficient and old manufacturing techniques, and then complaining Apple's more efficient (but expensive to research) techniques are propping up their profits? Nothing. It would even be easier for Samsung to do that, and then use their competitor's own cost-cutting innovations to take them down.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Ok but apple is hurting consumers with their 30% fee. I would not have bought an iPhone if I knew about that. Now Im locked in.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. B. Android also charges 30%. Developers making under $1M per year pay only 15% (initially announced by Apple, copied by Google). You can't argue you'd save a penny going to Android. C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      > D. It is no secret that the 30% fee has nothing to do with consumers, but will instead be used to increase the developer's profit margins. Expect to pay the exact same after the fees are lifted. I could not disagree more. > B. Android also charges 30%. It's actually better on iPhone, because developers making under $1M per year pay only 15%. On Android, everyone pays 30%. So you'd be paying more to Google on Android than on iPhone. Android is bad too but at least you can get an app store without the fee. > C. You can always sell your iPhone, if it matters to you now, and buy an Android. Will I get refunded for the apps I bought? What about the macbook I bought because I entered the apple ecosystem? > A. That's not exactly secret information, so your ignorance is not an excuse when you could have easily found that information if you cared. It's not a secret contract. How could I have known to look this up before it became a story?
      - gjsman-1000 3y ago
        > I could not disagree more. Well, we can agree to disagree, but call it a prediction - in three years, prices will be exactly the same as they are now. No business, especially in this economy, gets an opportunity like this to raise margins without affecting sales. > Android is bad too but at least you can get an app store without the fee. Yes, and literally nobody will install it. And the few app stores that are available - Aurora will get your Google account banned, while F-Droid re-signs all apps with itself, meaning you are opening your device to serious security risks. A middleman in F-Droid would mean every app you install from them could be compromised with fake developer signatures. Fun. > How could I have known to look this up before it became a story? How about paying attention since the 30% commission was announced at the iPhone App Store launch in 2008, literally by Steve Jobs on stage when iPhoneOS 2.0 was announced? There's no legal requirement to advertise every possible detail to cover every possible person's perspective - especially when it's old hat announced a decade and a half ago with fanfare. https://youtu.be/WUrzjLjP4UQ?t=217 https://youtu.be/WUrzjLjP4UQ?t=217 Edit for the comment below about iPhone being anti-competitive (because I'm "posting too fast"): Well, here's the problem with trying to investigate the iPhone. Remember how I showed that announcement in 2008? iPhone market share, at the time, was less than 5%. Almost the entire smartphone market was split between BlackBerry and Windows Mobile. Now look at where iPhone is now, despite the fee. That demonstrates, to a regulator, that it is a competitive product, and the market preferred it, despite the fee which was implemented at the beginning. Apple didn't build the iPhone to where it is now and then lock it down - developers signed up right when it was beginning and didn't care then, so they can't care now that it's a success. Apple has basically an ironclad argument for competitiveness. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would've died at birth. Nobody would have supported an anti-competitive product if they actually cared at a time when it could have easily been ignored. This came up in the argument with Epic - Apple argued, successfully, that the market chose them and their "anti-competitive practices" despite them having almost no clout, which can only be the result of market support for being a competitive product. Edit 2 (same issue, thanks @dang): > What makes you say that? A product being anti competitive has little to do with whether consumers will buy it. You dont see how you can have the best product on the market and also stifle competition? The iPhone took off because of third-party support, any market analyst will tell you that. If it didn't have third-party support from the App Store, it would have died. Why was that third-party support there? Previously, on almost all other cellphones, every carrier had their own App Store. With their own policies. And a 50/50 split at best. Some only gave the developer 30% with the carrier taking 70%. With the developer paying for your own credit card fees and hosting fees. Many carriers had severe upfront costs of tens of thousands of dollars to get a half-functioning SDK. The 70/30 deal with one App Store was revolutionarily competitive for the time. Developers flooded Apple's scene because it was, by far, the cheapest and most profitable App Store available at the time. They can't claim, high on the success that Apple gave them, that Apple's the problem now when Apple did not even change the deal that they initially signed for. At least, not legally easily.
  - Someone 3y ago
    Hurting consumers? Apps are dirt cheap. If anything, they’re hurting developers, but even that may be hard to argue. Developers still flock to the platform. Even if those developers can’t make a living doing that (and many likely can’t), that’s not an argument for Apple’s fee being too high. There’s no right to be able to make a living in the way you want.
    - HDThoreaun 3y ago
      Yes, they are hurting consumers by banning competing app stores. Just because they offer an acceptable product doesnt mean they can hamstring competitors. There is a right to be allowed to compete.
      - skydhash 3y ago
        > There is a right to be allowed to compete. You can always build your own phone and setup your own app store. Samsung does.
        HDThoreaun 3y ago
        How is this different from telling people to move to a different town when their town bans walmart? I've invested considerably money into the apple ecosystem. I have a bunch of media on their cloud. Switching is a pain in the ass, why cant the gov just enforce anti competitive laws?
        skydhash 3y ago
        If you want Walmart products, you better follow Walmart.
        kelnos 3y ago
        > How is this different from telling people to move to a different town when their town bans walmart? I generally agree with your point, but this is a weird argument: towns can and do ban big-box stores, and yes, "move to a different town" is exactly the only remedy people have, if they want to live close to those kinds of stores. And frankly we generally see that as a good thing! Big-box stores tend to kill downtowns. > I've invested considerably money into the apple ecosystem. This confuses your Walmart analogy quite a bit, because there's no such thing as "investing money into the Walmart ecosystem". Walmart doesn't have an ecosystem. If your Walmart closes down and other stores pop up to replace it, you just start shopping at those other stores, and likely don't really notice much of a difference. And that's precisely the point of the issue with Apple. If I've been an iOS user for years and years, and suddenly Apple changes the terms to something I really don't like, it'll cost me a lot to switch to another platform.
  - musictubes 3y ago
    Locked in? You can't buy another phone? Would you have been able to buy the apps you use without Google taking 30% as well?
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Sure, they can buy an Android phone, and then have to re-buy all those apps again, probably at considerable expense. And yeah, Google taking 30% as well also sucks. Just because Google does it, it doesn't mean it's fine Apple does too.
Spivak 3y ago
Which isn't really "a thing" legally. The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market in a broader sense. A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > The fact that there's so much money to be made on iOS for 3rd party app developers and more than Android is evidence of a competitive market No, the opposite, it is evidence that Apple is a monopoly, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with taking 30% with no repercussions. It should have driven their profits to 0 in the appstore market since why would users pay such a massive markup for everything? But it didn't due to their anti-competitive measures. > A company employing anticompetitive practices would drive those profits to zero No, that isn't how it works, they weren't anti competitive towards other apps, just towards other app stores. Their massive tax on those apps is the result, you can still be profitable even with a massive tax.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

LordKeren 3y ago

No, this was not a court case about if Google has a phone OS monopoly. This was about if Google has a monopoly within the android ecosystem when it comes to app distribution. The jury ruled that they have a monopoly within android, and that they used this monopoly to stifle competition. They cited that Google used its influence as the makers of android to get phone manufacturers to not preinstall third party app stores, and paid off companies to not compete with Google Play

hackernewds 3y ago
um but does Apple not have a monopoly on the iOS distribution system? if anything, Android is open to competition against Google. I'm baffled
- LordKeren 3y ago
  Google lost this lawsuit because they were engaging in anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores (like Riot) and paying phone manufacturers to not ship third party stores Google, as evidenced by their own internal docs and company deals, had no interest in having any real competition for the Google Play store. It’s really hard to see these deals when Google is the arbiter of android and anything but extremely anti competitive
  - deepsun 3y ago
    > ... anticompetitive behavior on android by paying off companies to not produce third party app stores What if they didn't just pay off, but forcefully forbid it, wouldn't it be anticompetitive? Basically, as Apple does on iOS.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      If other manufacturers were licensing the OS. Like Microsoft and Internet Explorer back in the day
    - bee_rider 3y ago