4 ms·

> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can b

> enable "developer mode" without paying a subscription fee just to run your own app on your own device Apple actually doesn’t charge a fee for this. You can build an app in Xcode and install it on your own device. You can’t distribute that app publicly though. > G execs were in the position of having to buy off people There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is.

ElectroNomad 3y ago
It only works for around 10 days…
- jahewson 3y ago
  1 year if you have a developer account, otherwise yeah 7 days?
  - bpye 3y ago
    There are also entitlements you still can’t use and a 3 app limit with a free account, at the very least.
    - jahewson 3y ago
      That’s true!
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. But tying (e.g. of an app store to a platform) is classic monopoly abuse.
- junofan 3y ago
  Tying means forcing people to buy an undesired good when they buy a desired good. Is anybody buying an iPhone who doesn’t want the App Store?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Of course there are. There are people who like the hardware, or the OS, or don't want a green bubble, but would be happy to have F-Droid or Steam on iOS, or get a discount on existing apps by buying them through someone who charges a lower fee. Or just have the competition to Apple's store which could cause Apple to charge a lower fee themselves.
    - askonomm 3y ago
      As if Apple was some government provided service that you are entitled to because you pay taxes. It's not. It's a for-profit company of which you are not a board member. If you want F-droid, use Android. If you want App Store, use iPhone. If you want both at the same time, well, buy both phones then. People who want a Ferrari and a minivan don't ask Ferrari to make minivans, they buy both, because both together is ridiculous.
  - summerlight 3y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-5 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... Your interpretation on tying is not well aligned with usual legal interpretation. Unless the App Store is considered not to be a separate product (which had been Apple's argument for a long time on App Store and Safari by designating them as "system services of iOS"), this is clearly tying. The question is if Apple's current practice is illegal tying or not. Whether the customer wants it or not is not important here; you can give them freely to gain market dominance then reap profits later on whenever the competitors are all gone.
    - TheCycoONE 3y ago
      On that note, how is Microsoft getting away with it with respect to the office apps which use to be available independently but now can only be purchased in bundles; adding Teams on top of that?
      - 3y ago
- ben_w 3y ago
  I remember when the iPhone was new, and it didn't have an App Store at all and everything 3rd party was supposed to be a web app. Lots of people were really pleased when Apple finally did what all the other phone companies were doing and let people sell directly through them. It's a separate question if Apple has been monopolistic or abusive with the terms of that app store, a question I couldn't possible judge; but the app store in and of itself isn't the problem.
mmanfrin 3y ago
> having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. Having a monopoly should be case enough.
- catach 3y ago
  Maybe, but that's not US law.

ElectroNomad 3y ago

It only works for around 10 days…

jahewson 3y ago
1 year if you have a developer account, otherwise yeah 7 days?
- bpye 3y ago
  There are also entitlements you still can’t use and a 3 app limit with a free account, at the very least.
  - jahewson 3y ago
    That’s true!

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> There’s your answer - having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. But tying (e.g. of an app store to a platform) is classic monopoly abuse.

junofan 3y ago
Tying means forcing people to buy an undesired good when they buy a desired good. Is anybody buying an iPhone who doesn’t want the App Store?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Of course there are. There are people who like the hardware, or the OS, or don't want a green bubble, but would be happy to have F-Droid or Steam on iOS, or get a discount on existing apps by buying them through someone who charges a lower fee. Or just have the competition to Apple's store which could cause Apple to charge a lower fee themselves.
  - askonomm 3y ago
    As if Apple was some government provided service that you are entitled to because you pay taxes. It's not. It's a for-profit company of which you are not a board member. If you want F-droid, use Android. If you want App Store, use iPhone. If you want both at the same time, well, buy both phones then. People who want a Ferrari and a minivan don't ask Ferrari to make minivans, they buy both, because both together is ridiculous.
- summerlight 3y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-5 https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopol... Your interpretation on tying is not well aligned with usual legal interpretation. Unless the App Store is considered not to be a separate product (which had been Apple's argument for a long time on App Store and Safari by designating them as "system services of iOS"), this is clearly tying. The question is if Apple's current practice is illegal tying or not. Whether the customer wants it or not is not important here; you can give them freely to gain market dominance then reap profits later on whenever the competitors are all gone.
  - TheCycoONE 3y ago
    On that note, how is Microsoft getting away with it with respect to the office apps which use to be available independently but now can only be purchased in bundles; adding Teams on top of that?
    - 3y ago
ben_w 3y ago
I remember when the iPhone was new, and it didn't have an App Store at all and everything 3rd party was supposed to be a web app. Lots of people were really pleased when Apple finally did what all the other phone companies were doing and let people sell directly through them. It's a separate question if Apple has been monopolistic or abusive with the terms of that app store, a question I couldn't possible judge; but the app store in and of itself isn't the problem.

mmanfrin 3y ago

> having a monopoly is not problem, abusing it is. Having a monopoly should be case enough.

catach 3y ago
Maybe, but that's not US law.