9 ms·

This is the great irony of a free market: that it includes the creation of closed, private markets which are decidedly un-free. (Apple's the biggest jerk about

by lukifer 14y ago

This is the great irony of a free market: that it includes the creation of closed, private markets which are decidedly un-free. (Apple's the biggest jerk about it, but there are many others, such as the game console manufacturers, or Amazon's app store). And as evidenced by the App Store's enormous success, the market does not inherently select in favor of open markets versus closed ones. Apple of the 2010s is much more deserving of DoJ investigation than 1990s Microsoft ever was. And if I had my druthers, ecosystem monopoles of this type would be blatantly illegal, and manufacturers would be obligated to include jailbreak capability in every single device. (Not holding my breath.)

junto 14y ago
Your comments are absolutely spot on.
Pewpewarrows 14y ago
People tend to conveniently forget that it's the consumers in an economy who define a monopoly. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. The market has and will continue to regulate itself without legislative interference. I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace. Edit: I'll put it this way: You don't like Apple's closed market because they can define arbitrary rules that makes it hard to compete. How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace?
- cooldeal 14y ago
  > If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. Wish it were so simple, but the problem is the ecosystem. A new business will not start out with 500K apps and developers won't develop apps till a platform has a lot of users, a chicken-and-egg problem. Users don't like buying devices with only a few apps available. Looks at WebOS, it was a good platform but died. This is not even mentioning the real costs of switching, like not having access to already purchased apps and content because they're locked down(music, movie, ebook purchases). It was a big problem with Windows in the 90s, you had to get a Windows computer to run software needed to be compatible with others.
  - jwallaceparker 14y ago
    > Wish it were so simple The process takes time, but it is that simple. Granted, it would take an enormous effort to start a new company that competes against Apple, but one could do it. But just because it takes an enormous effort that doesn't nullify the fact that consumers would indeed turn to other products if Apple products failed to satisfy. I think a big issue to consider is that people are very satisfied with the quality of Apple's products at this point. If somehow the government decided that people could only buy Apple products, then we'd have monopoly, and then we should be angry. But they haven't. So we should relax.
    - astrodust 14y ago
      Apple is in a very strong position, they have an amazing product that people will literally line up to buy. What they don't have is a lock on the market, though, and they know it. They either innovate, keep pushing themselves, or they'll end up steamrollered by someone else. Remember that in 1995 people did line up to buy Windows 95 and while future launches weren't met with as much fanfare, people would actively seek out computers with Windows on it and had no time for side-show attractions like MacOS or Linux. Amazing how that can come collapsing down just because of a few mis-steps. You have Vista, you have a near decade of focusing aggressively on the server market and leaving the consumer side to twist in the wind, neglecting their important and dominant Internet Explorer product for the better part of six years. In other words, Apple is just one Steve Ballmer away from total irrelevance. The company best situated to take down Apple doesn't exist yet, not in the form it will ultimately be. Maybe Samsung will finally go beyond emulating and will build their own platform that resonates with consumers as well as they'd have you believe in the marketing... Maybe Microsoft will hire new leadership and straighten out the train-wreck that Windows Phone 7 is... As much as Apple is doing a great job, it's frustrating when there really isn't any competition. We need a market where there are two or three very good choices. Like Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii where each have their merits. What will the world be like if that's reduced to just one?
  - nraynaud 14y ago
    Wait, when Apple started the iPhone they had no 3rd party application, people begged them to allow that. They got to that number from zero. They are not preventing anyone to create a phone so compelling that everybody is asking for a SDK. moreover hundreds of mobile allowed 3rd party apps before the iPhone was there(I remember those cheesy java apps). They sold a very expensive phone that had less feature than the others and everybody wanted one. I don't know exactly what more proof we can get than the market is free than that. It was more expensive and had less feature than the other. The only extra stuff was Steve Jobs, sorry but the marked for that was destroyed a few month ago.
- wslh 14y ago
  > People tend to conveniently forget that it's the consumers in an economy who define a monopoly. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Yes there are issues with monopolies. This is why new laws must be created to protect against these monopolies.
  - FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
    I'd also say that the GP's statement isn't wholly true. Inorganic growth is a different road to monopoly power. Vertical integration, another. As is abuse of existing monopoly power to gain a monopoly in a different market (see Internet Explorer). The consumer isn't accountable for the actions of a monopoly. The main problem is that the monopoly becomes less accountable as a whole. Hence legislation and regulation.
- lukifer 14y ago
  > If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. "Deserving" is subjective, and that attitude doesn't seem far from "might makes right". Beta was better than VHS (or so I hear), but the consumers went where the content was, and the better format lost. > I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace. Except it already is involved: the government issues currency and defends copyrights and patents, all backed by (heavily abstracted) violence. In fact, remove the threat of prosecuting NDAs alone, and I guarantee that Apple as we know it would collapse within a year. > How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace? In theory, the rules are not arbitrary, but driven by democratic processes. In practice, such rules might as well be arbitrary, if not openly hostile, and I will stipulate this as unfixable (for now). But we already have marketplace rules all over the place, whether by law or by convention: don't false advertise, don't market poison as candy, etc. I don't see why "you're not allowed to encrypt everything so you're the only game in town" can't be one of them. Moreover, I don't see a difference between a tyrannical Apple and a tyrannical government, except in details and scale, and I'm not willing to settle for either. For the record: I am typing this on a MacBook Pro. I think curtailing Apple's monopolistic tendencies would be not only be good for users and the ecosystem, but in the long run, good for Apple itself. For instance: if users are allowed to side-load any old app, they can curate their App Store to their heart's content, including only the best of the best, and regular users would be more satisfied their experience as a result.
  - mgkimsal 14y ago
    they might be more satisfied, but use it less, and provide less revenue. "highly satisfied" users of a system that is optional to use will most likely provide less revenue than a system people are forced to use, but provides less overall satisfaction to the users.
- efsavage 14y ago
  You're right in that there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. There's only things wrong with how you got it, and more importantly, how you use it. When you use collusion to build one (or a cartel), that's a problem. When you start using it to preclude people from turning to an alternative, that's a problem. Right now Apple is the dominant player in the mobile phone space, but it's definitely not a monopoly, and AFAICT they aren't really doing anything that is preventing competitors from entering the market. iCloud is a step in that direction, but it's not very good right now so we'll have to wait and see. Android basically lets Apple do whatever they want, and is the credible competitor that Microsoft was lacking. Where Apple was a monopoly was in mp3 players, and where they were abusing it was with their DRM, by also having the dominant music store, and not allowing other devices to get music from it, or to let other stores sell DRM music for the iPod. They removed it, and I don't think it had anything to do with consumers, it was simply an anti-trust target that was growing larger by the day. They were smart and fixed that.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "Where Apple was a monopoly was in mp3 players, and where they were abusing it was with their DRM.... They removed it, and I don't think it had anything to do with consumers, it was simply an anti-trust target that was growing larger by the day." You seem to have gotten the history wrong. DRM on itunes was mandated by the music companies. After a very public push from Steve Jobs, the music companies tested DRM free with Amazon and after that they gave Apple the green light.
    - efsavage 14y ago
      DRM may have been mandated, but Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to other manufacturers, and refusal to allow the iPod to support any other DRM, was not. Jobs' spinning this into a victory for the little guy rather than an anti-trust dodge is just another example of his PR prowess.
      - X-Istence 14y ago
        I don't see why I should be required to license my IP to anyone, let alone companies that may compete with me. I also don't see how a product I design would need to support a format that is licensed by a competitor and is something I'd have to pay money for. You want content for your iPod, you can purchase it from iTunes, which will be DRM'ed according to the music industry, or you can purchase your music on a CD and rip it to MP3 and transfer it to your iPod that way. There is no rule that any company should be required to license their IP, nor is there a rule that a company should be required to purchase a license to someone else's IP.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I must disagree. Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor. Apple are beginning to show all these signs. I would suggest that given enough instances of incidents like these that the US DOJ would be within their rights to start another anti-trust case.
  - jwallaceparker 14y ago
    > Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor. I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly. Government-granted monopolies (US post office, some energy utilities, many transportation companies and so on) have little incentive to innovate and generally deliver poor service to consumers. But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time.
    - beagle3 14y ago
      > I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly. That's demonstrably wrong; e.g., once Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market (somewhere around IE5-IE6), they stopped innovating, whereas before that point (IE2-IE5) they made great efforts to innovate. > But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time. That's true. Despite what many people in this thread feel, Apple does not have a monopoly in any market: Macs are ~15% of all PCs. iphones aren't event 30% of the phone smartphone market. What Apple did manage to do is dominate the lucrative parts of most markets -- but that doesn't make them a monopoly more than it makes Louis Vutton a monopoly on lucrative handbags.
    - emptyaccount 14y ago
      Its important to note that many government granted monopolies are created to provide important services to all areas, not just those that are profitable. For example, USPS delivers mail to all addresses. Competitors use USPS to deliver to remote locations. They have their problems of course, but they also have their share of burdens competitors don't.
- no_more_death 14y ago
  Yes, you can choose from multiple options. Android, Meego, Boot2Gecko (soon). Windows Mobile, Blackberry, iOS, Bada, etc. So: some people choose Apple for its advantages, and others choose Android for its advantages. As a matter of fact, openness was the whole purpose of Android, way back when the G1 was released. Android is an incredible success story for open source cooperating with commercial interests and gaining huge public mind share.
- gizzlon 14y ago
  > If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. Why exactly? The argument works if you make it circular (they deserve it because they get it), but so what? It's not like consumers always do whats best for them, especially in the long run. Even if if the consumer did what was best for him or herself, that might not be what's best for everyone. Honestly, I don't get where this seemingly naive faith, that everything will just take care of it self, comes from. Personally I can't see any evidence of that.
wmeredith 14y ago
You may want to be careful who you sick the DoJ on, the less they do in tech, the better. Additionally, Apple is far from a monopoly. The App store is where everyone wants to be so it can seem that way, but it's not.
- lukifer 14y ago
  In the strict legal sense, Apple is not a monopoly. However, they do have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. While they're not the only game in town for users, they are for developers (who will go where the users go). We would all cry foul if the government shut down your business because it conflicts with interests of state. Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests? I'm not sure that Apple has violated any existing laws (IANAL). But even so, I think the rules need re-thinking when we talk about not just technical platforms, but their marriage to business platforms. At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the very purpose of capitalism.
  - Steko 14y ago
    "We would all cry foul if the government shut down your business because it conflicts with interests of state." This is a bit of a straw man. If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul if the government comes in and shuts down your business. "Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests?" Maybe because that business signed up for it? If I operate a hot dog stand at Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium decides to close I guess I'm out of business? "At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the to very purpose of capitalism." I'm not sure how you've turned RA's app removal into a bad soliloquy from an Ayn Rand novel but what you're actually suggesting here is a massive intrusion into private markets by the government... the Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch like that. If Apple doesn't stock my new app we get to sue them? If Macy's doesn't stock my new line of clothes do we get to sue them too? Methinks where this train of thought goes is not "the very purpose of capitalism" that you're seeking...
wslh 14y ago
> Apple of the 2010s is much more deserving of DoJ investigation than 1990s Microsoft ever was. Not only that. Google, Twitter, Facebook et al are in the same situation. I am always arguing that with Microsoft you can reverse engineer their software. No more support for DOS? you can find a way to have a working application. You can't reverse engineer the cloud.
rimantas 14y ago
> And if I had my druthers, ecosystem monopoles of this type > would be blatantly illegal, Good thing you don't, because you don't know what monopoly is not to mention knowing what's legal and what's not.
- lukifer 14y ago
  I do know what it is; I was speaking broadly, not intending the strict legal definition. And I'm aware that Apple may not be guilty of violating existing anti-trust laws. However, that doesn't mean Apple hasn't violated their spirit or intent, and if so, I believe those laws need rethinking.
shinratdr 14y ago
> Apple of the 2010s is much more deserving of DoJ investigation than 1990s Microsoft ever was. Except Apple is nowhere even close to a monopoly in any of the markets it participates in. Also, if you're including console manufacturers and gaming then Apple is nowhere close to the biggest jerk. Getting a game listed in Steam, WiiWare, PSN or XBLA is more expensive and way more of a crapshoot than getting your iOS app listed in the App Store.
- lukifer 14y ago
  In my comparison, WiiWare is guilty, and Steam is not. If WiiWare kicks me out because they think I'm a jerk, I have no recourse: their store, their console, their rules. If Steam does the same, I'm free to sell a PC game on my own website, or whatever other stores there are. Perhaps we need a new term beside "monopoly". Obviously it's not a monopoly to consumers. Rather, they are the sole gatekeeper to thousands of businesses. The closest analogy I can see is company towns, or as many others have said, plantations.
a3d6g2f7 14y ago
Maybe the ecosystem just isn't big enough yet. Too much of the market is still not yet using Apple's products. Maybe when Apple reaches Microsoft-level penetration, and of course that is their goal (Exhbit A: Apple pricing trends), you might get your druthers. It really should not be necessary to "jailbreak" a device in the first instance. The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. If you want to install Apple's software, you can. If you do not want to install their software, you can install something else. Simple.
- jodrellblank 14y ago
  The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. Why should they? You don't get to easily put any ingredient of your choice in packaged food, or any instrument of your choice in finished songs, or any cloth of your choice in premade clothing, or any engine you like in a car.
  - a3d6g2f7 14y ago
    What is the product? Is it the hardware? Or the software? Are you saying they are one product, not two? We've been through this countless times. Microsoft and the OEM's. Apple and their locked down hardware. Consumers are not fools. They know the difference between a software company and a hardware company. Does your packaged food come with silverware? Do your finished songs come with an mp3 player? Does your premade clothing come with laundry detergent? I find these type of comparsions (e.g. of computers and software to food, music, clothing) very strange. We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.
    - dpark 14y ago
      Should Honda be obliged to support installing custom engine control software? Overwriting the radio firmware? Reprogramming the odometer? Should GE obligated to support installing new firmware on your dishwasher? There's a long history of integrated devices. It may be the case that consumers know the difference between hardware and software. It's also the case, though, that they often do not care, and don't want to see with the difference.
quotemstr 14y ago
Maybe Apple has a monopoly; maybe it doesn't. Regardless, what Apple is doing is _wrong_ and needs to be stopped. There are more antisocial business practices than are dreamt of in the Sherman Antitrust Act.
- Steko 14y ago
  Those are strong words without a lot of strong arguments or facts behind them. I'm curious what exactly is Apple accused of doing that is so much worse then what every other store in the world does? What should Apple be stopped from doing? Making awesome devices people want? Making APIs for developers? Having standards for their store? Do we want Apple to never remove an App after approval? Are we ok with higher fees for developers to pay for more/better app screeners and a higher bar to clear for initial approval for everyone?
  - lukifer 14y ago
    Apple should be stopped from creating an artificial barrier towards people selling apps to consumers without Apple's approval. There's no reason they couldn't separate the store APIs from the App Store itself, allowing the creation of third-party stores and direct sales. This would allow them to curate more, they way they do with the Mac App Store. And for the record: Apple is merely the most obnoxious offender. I would happily apply to the same standard to Amazon, Nintendo, etc.
    - lnguyen 14y ago
      Go develop your app and sell it on the Cydia App Store. It's possible and Apple is clearly allowing it to exist. That doesn't mean Apple has to make it easy for you to switch over to it or support it in any way.
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        Apple's triennial opposition to the jailbreaking DMCA exception makes it clear that they want jailbreaking (and Cydia with it) to be illegal. They kick companies do anything with Cydia out of their app store (IIRC, Toyota ran into this). They are harsh with jailbreaking and warranties and have released at least one update that bricked jailbroken phones, possibly intentionally. Apple's behavior doesn't say they're allowing Cydia to exist, it says there are limits to the tools they can use to shut it down.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
astrodust 14y ago
Microsoft in the 1990s controlled the only mass-market desktop operating system and there was a very real concern that they were going to take over every operating system, period, something they might've accomplished if Windows NT gained even more traction in the server space. Apple is still a niche player. They just happen to absolutely own the most profitable end of the market and leave the majority, over 80% of it, to the rest. They're only a monopoly in a subset of the market. Nobody is going to cry because you only have one choice for an expensive product when there's hundreds of choices in the low end of the market.
idspispopd 14y ago
I agree they're being dicks(even though we have famously never received a straight-story from Rogue Amoeba), but this is not anti-trust/anti-competitive or monopolistic. To get into the hot water that Microsoft did, you need to have a monopoly on an open market, which requires that there is no reasonable choice in the market. Android proves every day that there is indeed choice - and it's actually cheaper and easier to get involved with Android. Android is 56% of the market in comparison to iOS's 23% market share. iOS is only a revenue leader, which is like saying DM Chrysler has a monopoly on rich people. Secondly the monopolistic abuses need to influence situations that would normally be out of their control. Anyone can choose to stop selling Brand X in their own store for example, it doesn't matter how popular the store is/or how much revenue they earn. Once those are satisfied they need to do things which leverage their position to trample competition. E.g. Microsoft deliberately changed the function of their APIs to make quicktime unstable. Microsoft deliberately fragmented Java with their own flavour to stifle Sun and the cross platform movement, Microsoft deliberately enforced a web browser on their users as a way to prevent Netscape innovating the web-app scene. Microsoft deliberately forced vendors to sell Windows-only systems by threatening them with severe price hikes if they packaged OS/2. That is anticompetitive, and they were excellent at it. Apple always wanted a curated store and have deliberately structured their store for this reason.
- lukifer 14y ago
  My comparison to Microsoft may be a bad analogy: while they did act anti-competitively, it's different than what Apple is doing now. As bad as Windows lock-in was, they never set themselves up as the only store in town, and they were seldom hostile to developers building a business on their platform (if anything, it was the opposite). I know Apple doesn't hold even the majority of the market, and they won't be king forever, as the MS story demonstrates. What concerns me is that they're defining the new norm (the Windows 8 store follows heavily in their footsteps). If the next OS vendor to take the crown successfully practices the same "our way or the highway" approach, it will be bad for the marketplace, consumers, and society. Maybe it's a self-correcting problem. But make no mistake: it is a problem.
  - idspispopd 14y ago

by lukifer 14y ago

junto 14y ago

Your comments are absolutely spot on.

Pewpewarrows 14y ago

People tend to conveniently forget that it's the consumers in an economy who define a monopoly. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. The market has and will continue to regulate itself without legislative interference. I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace. Edit: I'll put it this way: You don't like Apple's closed market because they can define arbitrary rules that makes it hard to compete. How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace?

cooldeal 14y ago
> If enough people are dissatisfied with the quality, they'll turn to new business, and the monopoly will cease to exist. Wish it were so simple, but the problem is the ecosystem. A new business will not start out with 500K apps and developers won't develop apps till a platform has a lot of users, a chicken-and-egg problem. Users don't like buying devices with only a few apps available. Looks at WebOS, it was a good platform but died. This is not even mentioning the real costs of switching, like not having access to already purchased apps and content because they're locked down(music, movie, ebook purchases). It was a big problem with Windows in the 90s, you had to get a Windows computer to run software needed to be compatible with others.
- jwallaceparker 14y ago
  > Wish it were so simple The process takes time, but it is that simple. Granted, it would take an enormous effort to start a new company that competes against Apple, but one could do it. But just because it takes an enormous effort that doesn't nullify the fact that consumers would indeed turn to other products if Apple products failed to satisfy. I think a big issue to consider is that people are very satisfied with the quality of Apple's products at this point. If somehow the government decided that people could only buy Apple products, then we'd have monopoly, and then we should be angry. But they haven't. So we should relax.
  - astrodust 14y ago
    Apple is in a very strong position, they have an amazing product that people will literally line up to buy. What they don't have is a lock on the market, though, and they know it. They either innovate, keep pushing themselves, or they'll end up steamrollered by someone else. Remember that in 1995 people did line up to buy Windows 95 and while future launches weren't met with as much fanfare, people would actively seek out computers with Windows on it and had no time for side-show attractions like MacOS or Linux. Amazing how that can come collapsing down just because of a few mis-steps. You have Vista, you have a near decade of focusing aggressively on the server market and leaving the consumer side to twist in the wind, neglecting their important and dominant Internet Explorer product for the better part of six years. In other words, Apple is just one Steve Ballmer away from total irrelevance. The company best situated to take down Apple doesn't exist yet, not in the form it will ultimately be. Maybe Samsung will finally go beyond emulating and will build their own platform that resonates with consumers as well as they'd have you believe in the marketing... Maybe Microsoft will hire new leadership and straighten out the train-wreck that Windows Phone 7 is... As much as Apple is doing a great job, it's frustrating when there really isn't any competition. We need a market where there are two or three very good choices. Like Xbox 360 or PS3 or Wii where each have their merits. What will the world be like if that's reduced to just one?
- nraynaud 14y ago
  Wait, when Apple started the iPhone they had no 3rd party application, people begged them to allow that. They got to that number from zero. They are not preventing anyone to create a phone so compelling that everybody is asking for a SDK. moreover hundreds of mobile allowed 3rd party apps before the iPhone was there(I remember those cheesy java apps). They sold a very expensive phone that had less feature than the others and everybody wanted one. I don't know exactly what more proof we can get than the market is free than that. It was more expensive and had less feature than the other. The only extra stuff was Steve Jobs, sorry but the marked for that was destroyed a few month ago.
wslh 14y ago
> People tend to conveniently forget that it's the consumers in an economy who define a monopoly. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Yes there are issues with monopolies. This is why new laws must be created to protect against these monopolies.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
  I'd also say that the GP's statement isn't wholly true. Inorganic growth is a different road to monopoly power. Vertical integration, another. As is abuse of existing monopoly power to gain a monopoly in a different market (see Internet Explorer). The consumer isn't accountable for the actions of a monopoly. The main problem is that the monopoly becomes less accountable as a whole. Hence legislation and regulation.
lukifer 14y ago
> If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. "Deserving" is subjective, and that attitude doesn't seem far from "might makes right". Beta was better than VHS (or so I hear), but the consumers went where the content was, and the better format lost. > I see no reason for the government to get involved with Apple's private marketplace. Except it already is involved: the government issues currency and defends copyrights and patents, all backed by (heavily abstracted) violence. In fact, remove the threat of prosecuting NDAs alone, and I guarantee that Apple as we know it would collapse within a year. > How is that any different than a Government defining arbitrary rules on the national marketplace? In theory, the rules are not arbitrary, but driven by democratic processes. In practice, such rules might as well be arbitrary, if not openly hostile, and I will stipulate this as unfixable (for now). But we already have marketplace rules all over the place, whether by law or by convention: don't false advertise, don't market poison as candy, etc. I don't see why "you're not allowed to encrypt everything so you're the only game in town" can't be one of them. Moreover, I don't see a difference between a tyrannical Apple and a tyrannical government, except in details and scale, and I'm not willing to settle for either. For the record: I am typing this on a MacBook Pro. I think curtailing Apple's monopolistic tendencies would be not only be good for users and the ecosystem, but in the long run, good for Apple itself. For instance: if users are allowed to side-load any old app, they can curate their App Store to their heart's content, including only the best of the best, and regular users would be more satisfied their experience as a result.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  they might be more satisfied, but use it less, and provide less revenue. "highly satisfied" users of a system that is optional to use will most likely provide less revenue than a system people are forced to use, but provides less overall satisfaction to the users.
efsavage 14y ago
You're right in that there's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. There's only things wrong with how you got it, and more importantly, how you use it. When you use collusion to build one (or a cartel), that's a problem. When you start using it to preclude people from turning to an alternative, that's a problem. Right now Apple is the dominant player in the mobile phone space, but it's definitely not a monopoly, and AFAICT they aren't really doing anything that is preventing competitors from entering the market. iCloud is a step in that direction, but it's not very good right now so we'll have to wait and see. Android basically lets Apple do whatever they want, and is the credible competitor that Microsoft was lacking. Where Apple was a monopoly was in mp3 players, and where they were abusing it was with their DRM, by also having the dominant music store, and not allowing other devices to get music from it, or to let other stores sell DRM music for the iPod. They removed it, and I don't think it had anything to do with consumers, it was simply an anti-trust target that was growing larger by the day. They were smart and fixed that.
- Steko 14y ago
  "Where Apple was a monopoly was in mp3 players, and where they were abusing it was with their DRM.... They removed it, and I don't think it had anything to do with consumers, it was simply an anti-trust target that was growing larger by the day." You seem to have gotten the history wrong. DRM on itunes was mandated by the music companies. After a very public push from Steve Jobs, the music companies tested DRM free with Amazon and after that they gave Apple the green light.
  - efsavage 14y ago
    DRM may have been mandated, but Apple's refusal to license FairPlay to other manufacturers, and refusal to allow the iPod to support any other DRM, was not. Jobs' spinning this into a victory for the little guy rather than an anti-trust dodge is just another example of his PR prowess.
    - X-Istence 14y ago
      I don't see why I should be required to license my IP to anyone, let alone companies that may compete with me. I also don't see how a product I design would need to support a format that is licensed by a competitor and is something I'd have to pay money for. You want content for your iPod, you can purchase it from iTunes, which will be DRM'ed according to the music industry, or you can purchase your music on a CD and rip it to MP3 and transfer it to your iPod that way. There is no rule that any company should be required to license their IP, nor is there a rule that a company should be required to purchase a license to someone else's IP.
chris_wot 14y ago
I must disagree. Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor. Apple are beginning to show all these signs. I would suggest that given enough instances of incidents like these that the US DOJ would be within their rights to start another anti-trust case.
- jwallaceparker 14y ago
  > Except in a few cases, monopolies cause problems with deincentivization of innovation, uncompetitive behaviour, poorer outcomes for consumers and often higher prices than there would be otherwise were there a competitor. I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly. Government-granted monopolies (US post office, some energy utilities, many transportation companies and so on) have little incentive to innovate and generally deliver poor service to consumers. But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time.
  - beagle3 14y ago
    > I think you'll only find this is the case with government-granted monopoly. That's demonstrably wrong; e.g., once Microsoft had a monopoly on the browser market (somewhere around IE5-IE6), they stopped innovating, whereas before that point (IE2-IE5) they made great efforts to innovate. > But how can you argue this about Apple? They're incredible innovators, they deliver great products that consumers love and the prices of those products generally fall over time. That's true. Despite what many people in this thread feel, Apple does not have a monopoly in any market: Macs are ~15% of all PCs. iphones aren't event 30% of the phone smartphone market. What Apple did manage to do is dominate the lucrative parts of most markets -- but that doesn't make them a monopoly more than it makes Louis Vutton a monopoly on lucrative handbags.
  - emptyaccount 14y ago
    Its important to note that many government granted monopolies are created to provide important services to all areas, not just those that are profitable. For example, USPS delivers mail to all addresses. Competitors use USPS to deliver to remote locations. They have their problems of course, but they also have their share of burdens competitors don't.
no_more_death 14y ago
Yes, you can choose from multiple options. Android, Meego, Boot2Gecko (soon). Windows Mobile, Blackberry, iOS, Bada, etc. So: some people choose Apple for its advantages, and others choose Android for its advantages. As a matter of fact, openness was the whole purpose of Android, way back when the G1 was released. Android is an incredible success story for open source cooperating with commercial interests and gaining huge public mind share.
gizzlon 14y ago
> If a monopoly occurs because the majority of consumers are giving that product/service their money, then it must be deserving of it. Why exactly? The argument works if you make it circular (they deserve it because they get it), but so what? It's not like consumers always do whats best for them, especially in the long run. Even if if the consumer did what was best for him or herself, that might not be what's best for everyone. Honestly, I don't get where this seemingly naive faith, that everything will just take care of it self, comes from. Personally I can't see any evidence of that.

wmeredith 14y ago

You may want to be careful who you sick the DoJ on, the less they do in tech, the better. Additionally, Apple is far from a monopoly. The App store is where everyone wants to be so it can seem that way, but it's not.

lukifer 14y ago
In the strict legal sense, Apple is not a monopoly. However, they do have a monopoly on iOS app distribution. While they're not the only game in town for users, they are for developers (who will go where the users go). We would all cry foul if the government shut down your business because it conflicts with interests of state. Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests? I'm not sure that Apple has violated any existing laws (IANAL). But even so, I think the rules need re-thinking when we talk about not just technical platforms, but their marriage to business platforms. At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the very purpose of capitalism.
- Steko 14y ago
  "We would all cry foul if the government shut down your business because it conflicts with interests of state." This is a bit of a straw man. If your business is disposing of toxic waste or printing dollars or forming a private army then no, we will not all cry foul if the government comes in and shuts down your business. "Why should we not also cry foul for a corporation to de-facto shut down your business because it violates their interests?" Maybe because that business signed up for it? If I operate a hot dog stand at Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium decides to close I guess I'm out of business? "At the end of the day, it makes little difference to Rogue Amoeba whether they were shut down by government tyranny or by corporate whim: it matters that they were shut down at all, and we all suffer for the economic output which they (and others) are unable to create for themselves and society. It's antithetical to the to very purpose of capitalism." I'm not sure how you've turned RA's app removal into a bad soliloquy from an Ayn Rand novel but what you're actually suggesting here is a massive intrusion into private markets by the government... the Law of Unintended Consequences is a bitch like that. If Apple doesn't stock my new app we get to sue them? If Macy's doesn't stock my new line of clothes do we get to sue them too? Methinks where this train of thought goes is not "the very purpose of capitalism" that you're seeking...

wslh 14y ago

> Apple of the 2010s is much more deserving of DoJ investigation than 1990s Microsoft ever was. Not only that. Google, Twitter, Facebook et al are in the same situation. I am always arguing that with Microsoft you can reverse engineer their software. No more support for DOS? you can find a way to have a working application. You can't reverse engineer the cloud.

rimantas 14y ago

> And if I had my druthers, ecosystem monopoles of this type > would be blatantly illegal, Good thing you don't, because you don't know what monopoly is not to mention knowing what's legal and what's not.

lukifer 14y ago
I do know what it is; I was speaking broadly, not intending the strict legal definition. And I'm aware that Apple may not be guilty of violating existing anti-trust laws. However, that doesn't mean Apple hasn't violated their spirit or intent, and if so, I believe those laws need rethinking.

shinratdr 14y ago

> Apple of the 2010s is much more deserving of DoJ investigation than 1990s Microsoft ever was. Except Apple is nowhere even close to a monopoly in any of the markets it participates in. Also, if you're including console manufacturers and gaming then Apple is nowhere close to the biggest jerk. Getting a game listed in Steam, WiiWare, PSN or XBLA is more expensive and way more of a crapshoot than getting your iOS app listed in the App Store.

lukifer 14y ago
In my comparison, WiiWare is guilty, and Steam is not. If WiiWare kicks me out because they think I'm a jerk, I have no recourse: their store, their console, their rules. If Steam does the same, I'm free to sell a PC game on my own website, or whatever other stores there are. Perhaps we need a new term beside "monopoly". Obviously it's not a monopoly to consumers. Rather, they are the sole gatekeeper to thousands of businesses. The closest analogy I can see is company towns, or as many others have said, plantations.

a3d6g2f7 14y ago

Maybe the ecosystem just isn't big enough yet. Too much of the market is still not yet using Apple's products. Maybe when Apple reaches Microsoft-level penetration, and of course that is their goal (Exhbit A: Apple pricing trends), you might get your druthers. It really should not be necessary to "jailbreak" a device in the first instance. The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. If you want to install Apple's software, you can. If you do not want to install their software, you can install something else. Simple.

jodrellblank 14y ago
The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. Why should they? You don't get to easily put any ingredient of your choice in packaged food, or any instrument of your choice in finished songs, or any cloth of your choice in premade clothing, or any engine you like in a car.
- a3d6g2f7 14y ago
  What is the product? Is it the hardware? Or the software? Are you saying they are one product, not two? We've been through this countless times. Microsoft and the OEM's. Apple and their locked down hardware. Consumers are not fools. They know the difference between a software company and a hardware company. Does your packaged food come with silverware? Do your finished songs come with an mp3 player? Does your premade clothing come with laundry detergent? I find these type of comparsions (e.g. of computers and software to food, music, clothing) very strange. We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.
  - dpark 14y ago
    Should Honda be obliged to support installing custom engine control software? Overwriting the radio firmware? Reprogramming the odometer? Should GE obligated to support installing new firmware on your dishwasher? There's a long history of integrated devices. It may be the case that consumers know the difference between hardware and software. It's also the case, though, that they often do not care, and don't want to see with the difference.

quotemstr 14y ago

Maybe Apple has a monopoly; maybe it doesn't. Regardless, what Apple is doing is _wrong_ and needs to be stopped. There are more antisocial business practices than are dreamt of in the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Steko 14y ago
Those are strong words without a lot of strong arguments or facts behind them. I'm curious what exactly is Apple accused of doing that is so much worse then what every other store in the world does? What should Apple be stopped from doing? Making awesome devices people want? Making APIs for developers? Having standards for their store? Do we want Apple to never remove an App after approval? Are we ok with higher fees for developers to pay for more/better app screeners and a higher bar to clear for initial approval for everyone?
- lukifer 14y ago
  Apple should be stopped from creating an artificial barrier towards people selling apps to consumers without Apple's approval. There's no reason they couldn't separate the store APIs from the App Store itself, allowing the creation of third-party stores and direct sales. This would allow them to curate more, they way they do with the Mac App Store. And for the record: Apple is merely the most obnoxious offender. I would happily apply to the same standard to Amazon, Nintendo, etc.
  - lnguyen 14y ago
    Go develop your app and sell it on the Cydia App Store. It's possible and Apple is clearly allowing it to exist. That doesn't mean Apple has to make it easy for you to switch over to it or support it in any way.
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Apple's triennial opposition to the jailbreaking DMCA exception makes it clear that they want jailbreaking (and Cydia with it) to be illegal. They kick companies do anything with Cydia out of their app store (IIRC, Toyota ran into this). They are harsh with jailbreaking and warranties and have released at least one update that bricked jailbroken phones, possibly intentionally. Apple's behavior doesn't say they're allowing Cydia to exist, it says there are limits to the tools they can use to shut it down.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

astrodust 14y ago

Microsoft in the 1990s controlled the only mass-market desktop operating system and there was a very real concern that they were going to take over every operating system, period, something they might've accomplished if Windows NT gained even more traction in the server space. Apple is still a niche player. They just happen to absolutely own the most profitable end of the market and leave the majority, over 80% of it, to the rest. They're only a monopoly in a subset of the market. Nobody is going to cry because you only have one choice for an expensive product when there's hundreds of choices in the low end of the market.

idspispopd 14y ago

I agree they're being dicks(even though we have famously never received a straight-story from Rogue Amoeba), but this is not anti-trust/anti-competitive or monopolistic. To get into the hot water that Microsoft did, you need to have a monopoly on an open market, which requires that there is no reasonable choice in the market. Android proves every day that there is indeed choice - and it's actually cheaper and easier to get involved with Android. Android is 56% of the market in comparison to iOS's 23% market share. iOS is only a revenue leader, which is like saying DM Chrysler has a monopoly on rich people. Secondly the monopolistic abuses need to influence situations that would normally be out of their control. Anyone can choose to stop selling Brand X in their own store for example, it doesn't matter how popular the store is/or how much revenue they earn. Once those are satisfied they need to do things which leverage their position to trample competition. E.g. Microsoft deliberately changed the function of their APIs to make quicktime unstable. Microsoft deliberately fragmented Java with their own flavour to stifle Sun and the cross platform movement, Microsoft deliberately enforced a web browser on their users as a way to prevent Netscape innovating the web-app scene. Microsoft deliberately forced vendors to sell Windows-only systems by threatening them with severe price hikes if they packaged OS/2. That is anticompetitive, and they were excellent at it. Apple always wanted a curated store and have deliberately structured their store for this reason.

lukifer 14y ago
My comparison to Microsoft may be a bad analogy: while they did act anti-competitively, it's different than what Apple is doing now. As bad as Windows lock-in was, they never set themselves up as the only store in town, and they were seldom hostile to developers building a business on their platform (if anything, it was the opposite). I know Apple doesn't hold even the majority of the market, and they won't be king forever, as the MS story demonstrates. What concerns me is that they're defining the new norm (the Windows 8 store follows heavily in their footsteps). If the next OS vendor to take the crown successfully practices the same "our way or the highway" approach, it will be bad for the marketplace, consumers, and society. Maybe it's a self-correcting problem. But make no mistake: it is a problem.
- idspispopd 14y ago