41 ms·

They do have competition. Most phones aren't iPhones.

jmole 3y ago
Considering this case is in the USA, iPhones have a >53% market share and iPads >55%. But regardless of that, they have no competition in iOS app distribution. Keeping my fingers crossed that the EU will help solve that problem.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I doubt the EU has the mindset or ability to cultivate companies that are able to compete with Apple.
  - Jyaif 3y ago
    The companies that offer alternative (and likely cheaper) appstores could be american or asian for all the EU cares. The point is to allow competition.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      What I mean is that this is regulating at the wrong level, or perhaps that regulation is a poor substitute for what might be more useful. If there were more competitors in the phone side of things, then mono app stores would matter less, and if people cared about them, eventually get competed out. The problem I'm highlighting is that the EU itself hasn't created any phone OSes that have survived to this point. If it were more conducive to that, then regulation, which is a very poor substitute for actual competition, wouldn't be needed.
    - tekknik 3y ago
      Will the EU also dictate customer experience so when they force apple to allow others i don’t have to use 10 different websites to manage subscriptions and store my payment information on who knows who’s servers? i’d personally rather have security and peace of mind that the company holding my information will not use it nefariously. is the EU thinking of the consumer in that regard or just focused on the simple minded “more competition is more better”?
heavyset_go 3y ago
Most phones in the US are iPhones, and I wouldn't call a duopoly healthy competition.
asadotzler 3y ago
The relevant market is iOS app distribution, not smartphones.
- nodamage 3y ago
  No, US antitrust law does not allow a single company's product to be considered a relevant market unless very specific criteria are met. Epic attempted to make this very argument in court and failed. "iOS app distribution" is not a valid relevant market for antitrust purposes.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    You haven't been following Google's case closely enough.
    - nodamage 3y ago
      The details of the two cases are very different and here, details matter. The courts have already rejected "iOS app distribution" as a valid antitrust market. Edit: In case you're wondering why "Android app distribution" can be considered a relevant market whereas "iOS app distribution" was rejected even though they both sound like the same thing, the key difference is "iOS app distribution" is a single-brand aftermarket, and single-brand aftermarkets have stricter requirements in order to be accepted by the courts.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jeremyjh 3y ago
  There isn't a public market for iOS app distribution, and I don't see how you can force a business to create a public market inside its own products, or call it a monopoly when it doesn't. Does Disneyworld have a monopoly on food carts within its park?
MerManMaid 3y ago
Just because most consumers outside the US use android instead of apple doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help protect hundreds of millions of users. There is a large enough portion of market along with all the businesses built around catering to this market that are unfairly being taken advantage of.
- tekknik 3y ago
  You know one of the techniques to rip off consumers is to hide in their transaction log. Get them to sign up for a subscription and help them forget they’re paying, that way they’re less likely to cancel. Apple handles this quite well, having all your subscriptions in one place easily canceled and non of this shenanigans about losing access if you cancel mid subscription. Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? If apple were abusing their position, you may have a point. But you’re preemptively regulating them when they’ve been nothing but pro consumer. It’s clear this has nothing to do with the consumer.
  - MerManMaid 3y ago
    >Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? Hey there friend, I really don't appreciate your assumptions and negative tone. I never once mentioned alternative app stores as they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I believe a 30% fee for other developers to innovate on their platform ultimately bad for everyone but Apple. Either the developer eats the cost and thus has less resources to work with or they offload this cost onto their consumers which results in artificially high costs for the consumer, the only one that truly benefits here is Apple. Here you have a market used by hundreds of millions of people controlled by one company with practically zero government oversight. Even if we take the optimistic view that no one in Apple is currently taking advantage of these people (unlikely as that may be) what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage? (Let a fox into the hey pen as it were) To me it's ridiculous that consumers don't have any meaningful financial protections in this market given the sheer size, scale, and daily activity it sees.

Considering this case is in the USA, iPhones have a >53% market share and iPads >55%. But regardless of that, they have no competition in iOS app distribution. Keeping my fingers crossed that the EU will help solve that problem.

robertlagrant 3y ago
I doubt the EU has the mindset or ability to cultivate companies that are able to compete with Apple.
- Jyaif 3y ago
  The companies that offer alternative (and likely cheaper) appstores could be american or asian for all the EU cares. The point is to allow competition.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    What I mean is that this is regulating at the wrong level, or perhaps that regulation is a poor substitute for what might be more useful. If there were more competitors in the phone side of things, then mono app stores would matter less, and if people cared about them, eventually get competed out. The problem I'm highlighting is that the EU itself hasn't created any phone OSes that have survived to this point. If it were more conducive to that, then regulation, which is a very poor substitute for actual competition, wouldn't be needed.
  - tekknik 3y ago
    Will the EU also dictate customer experience so when they force apple to allow others i don’t have to use 10 different websites to manage subscriptions and store my payment information on who knows who’s servers? i’d personally rather have security and peace of mind that the company holding my information will not use it nefariously. is the EU thinking of the consumer in that regard or just focused on the simple minded “more competition is more better”?

heavyset_go 3y ago

Most phones in the US are iPhones, and I wouldn't call a duopoly healthy competition.

asadotzler 3y ago

The relevant market is iOS app distribution, not smartphones.

nodamage 3y ago
No, US antitrust law does not allow a single company's product to be considered a relevant market unless very specific criteria are met. Epic attempted to make this very argument in court and failed. "iOS app distribution" is not a valid relevant market for antitrust purposes.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  You haven't been following Google's case closely enough.
  - nodamage 3y ago
    The details of the two cases are very different and here, details matter. The courts have already rejected "iOS app distribution" as a valid antitrust market. Edit: In case you're wondering why "Android app distribution" can be considered a relevant market whereas "iOS app distribution" was rejected even though they both sound like the same thing, the key difference is "iOS app distribution" is a single-brand aftermarket, and single-brand aftermarkets have stricter requirements in order to be accepted by the courts.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jeremyjh 3y ago
There isn't a public market for iOS app distribution, and I don't see how you can force a business to create a public market inside its own products, or call it a monopoly when it doesn't. Does Disneyworld have a monopoly on food carts within its park?

MerManMaid 3y ago

Just because most consumers outside the US use android instead of apple doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help protect hundreds of millions of users. There is a large enough portion of market along with all the businesses built around catering to this market that are unfairly being taken advantage of.

tekknik 3y ago
You know one of the techniques to rip off consumers is to hide in their transaction log. Get them to sign up for a subscription and help them forget they’re paying, that way they’re less likely to cancel. Apple handles this quite well, having all your subscriptions in one place easily canceled and non of this shenanigans about losing access if you cancel mid subscription. Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? If apple were abusing their position, you may have a point. But you’re preemptively regulating them when they’ve been nothing but pro consumer. It’s clear this has nothing to do with the consumer.
- MerManMaid 3y ago
  >Have you app store social justice warrior types thought of this and how to protect consumers against that type of scumbaggery? Or is it more likely you don’t care about the consumer at all and just want alternative app stores for your own desires? Hey there friend, I really don't appreciate your assumptions and negative tone. I never once mentioned alternative app stores as they have nothing to do with what I am talking about. I believe a 30% fee for other developers to innovate on their platform ultimately bad for everyone but Apple. Either the developer eats the cost and thus has less resources to work with or they offload this cost onto their consumers which results in artificially high costs for the consumer, the only one that truly benefits here is Apple. Here you have a market used by hundreds of millions of people controlled by one company with practically zero government oversight. Even if we take the optimistic view that no one in Apple is currently taking advantage of these people (unlikely as that may be) what protections do we have should Apple ever start taking advantage? (Let a fox into the hey pen as it were) To me it's ridiculous that consumers don't have any meaningful financial protections in this market given the sheer size, scale, and daily activity it sees.