3 ms·
> Apple's claim is simple: The monopoly was from the very beginning, when the iPhone had 0.0% market share. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would have fa
by jncfhnb 2y ago
> Apple's claim is simple: The monopoly was from the very beginning, when the iPhone had 0.0% market share. If it was anti-competitive, the iPhone would have failed. If developers didn't like it, the iPhone would have failed. Has Apple unfairly done anything new now that they have a monopoly? No. Did Apple raise their 30% royalty to 70% when they had a monopoly? No.
The problem is not a monopoly on hardware. The problem is gatekeeping access to software markets.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago> The problem is gatekeeping access to software markets However, it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. This is easily demonstrable - customers would not have bought devices without apps, and vice versa. Very hard to show, in a court of law, that the terms which were once acceptable now magically aren't. The law isn't interested in people who say, "yes, it was a perfectly fine contract, 10 years ago, but now it's a problem even though it hasn't changed." Imagine what would happen to mortgages.
- talldayo 2y ago> it started out this way, from the beginning, and developers accepted it. Developers did not accept it. Some did, but any amount does not constitute complete acceptance. From the very beginning, iOS had people developing alternatives to the App Store a-la Cydia. Apple's terms were always controversial. Apple's constituent of app developers does not even remotely reflect the attitude (or assent) of the development community as a whole. It certainly doesn't represent a competitive or regulated market of software comparable to the web, the Mac, Android or Windows.
- gjsman-1000 2y agoThe legal agreement, and the fact developers signed it, even if begrudgingly, back when iOS did not have a monopoly in any way, is the only assent the law needs to consider. Student loans certainly don't have much assent 5 years after graduation.
- talldayo 2y agoNot everyone has student loans. Non-signatory parties aren't beholden to other people's terms, and even then their agreement doesn't inherently prove the legality of a particular loan provider. Apple's de-facto control of iPhone software can be illegally abusive without violating the terms of their developer agreements. If that wasn't true then I don't know why the FTC would be actively investigating them.
- immibis 2y agoAnd most sane people despise the indentured servitude system known as student loans.
- rezonant 2y agoIf any of this were remotely true, then I have a contract for you-- it involves a small loan for relocation, no big deal. You'll just have to work for me exclusively for the next 20 years, and if you can't pay it off, no problem, we'll assign the remainder to your kids.
- jncfhnb 2y agoYou seem be under the delusional understanding that a contract, if agreed to, must be legal and enforceable.
- jncfhnb 2y agoThat is laughably incorrect. Like… not even close.
- clhodapp 2y agoThe logical consequence of this argument is that there is no such thing as a business practice which is illegal for a monopoly, but which is legal for a startup. As long as you start doing it when you're small, it must be OK. I don't think that holds water. The standards should definitely get higher as you gain more market share.