3 ms·

Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market sha

Developers are not forced into using Apple's distribution and payment systems because there are a multitude of other competing devices (with a higher market share mind you) they can and do develop for. If users and developers prefer other systems they can simply use those.

ghusto 1y ago
Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in. If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.
- _benton 1y ago
  I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
  - Mattified 1y ago
    When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.
  - staunton 1y ago
    Leaving a region means they would give up market share, investments and a lot of staff. This is huge. It's not just about quarterly profit, even if it might sometimes feel like it is. Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.
  - ClaraForm 1y ago
    Never. The Apple bet, the North Star, is that personal computing is both the present and the future. The minute an exception gets carved out, like “personal computing but not in Europe” then Apple enters a death spiral. They’ll deal with each blow that comes their way because it will come for everyone else in the market too, but they’ll still be in the lead.
  - jjani 1y ago
    A point we're still lightyears away from. The lengths they go to in order to operate in China are magnitudes greater than to operate in the EU, yet EU makes them $10+ billion more profit than China. What would actually happen is that the US would start seriously threatening (blackmailing) the EU to a degree where it's forced to relent long before Apple would pull out. Apple's estimated operating profit from the EU is around $40 billion dollars. If the US government wouldn't get involved, they could force Tim Apple himself to live on top of the Alps and he'd happily do it rather than lose that $40 billion, or shareholders would vote him out ASAP.
    - BlueTemplar 1y ago
      Why are you assuming that not only this kind of blackmail is even going to work, but that the EU isn't just going to kick out ALL of US infocoms instead ? (Because of this or because of other issues related to Trump or even Bush (Patriot Act).)
      - redeeman 1y ago
        rofl, people would never accept not having their locked down iphones or facebook. this would be a very losing battle for politicians
        ghusto 1y ago
        You don't have a good feel for the anti-American-corporation sentiment here. Politicians in fact pay lip-service to "data sovereignty", for the points it gets them.
        redeeman 1y ago
        yeah, true, because then people think the government is solving it for them without them doing ANYTHING. Take their facebook/whatsapp away, and you'll see consequences. hell, we have several people on HN that claims its simply not possible with live without whatsapp. Take their whatsapp away and they may aswell go lie down in a ditch and die.
nulbyte 1y ago
Except that developers are forced to use Apple's distribution and payment systems to reach users with a native experience on Apple devices. This ability to limit or control competition within a market is called market capture, a key consideration of antitrust.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  It's not a market, it's a product within a market.
fsflover 1y ago
> multitude of other competing devices You mean, the Google system that collects 20 times more telemetry than the iPhones? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261
fauigerzigerk 1y ago
This argument doesn't make sense. Many developers are de facto forced to distribute their apps on iOS. There are only two mobile platforms globally. Deciding not to support one of them would be economically (and in some cases functionally) unviable for a very large number of apps. However, the counter argument that opening iOS to other stores and payment methods would not affect users who prefer the App Store is not necessarily true either. If developers can choose not to distribute via Apple's store to avoid restrictions that are unfavourable to their business model then users would no longer be able to buy those apps in the App Store. This is the dilemma that needs to be solved. One solution could be to adopt a rule similar to the one for social logins. If an app supports any social logins at all then it must also support Sign in with Apple. Unfortunately, adopting a similar rule for the App Store is a lot more complex. If an app rejected by Apple is then not allowed to be installed via an alternative app store either, Apple would once again be able to veto apps for whatever reason they want. And if developers were free to set a any price they want for each store, they could effectively make the App Store unviable. I still feel that there is a set of rules that could make this work. The complexity is unfortunate though.

ghusto 1y ago

Apple is not forced into doing business in Europe, because there are a multitude of other anticompetitive tolerant regions (much larger than Europe mind you) they can do business in. If Apple prefers anticompetitive practices, it can simply only do business in those regions.

_benton 1y ago
I'm curious what becomes the breaking point for them to pull out of a region. Obviously it's about profit but at what point (if any) does it make profitable sense for them to leave?
- Mattified 1y ago
  When there is no more profit and only loss, I reckon. Shareholders would not be happy if they pulled out of a region because they can only make $1 over $10. If that $1 is profit, they'll want it.
- staunton 1y ago
  Leaving a region means they would give up market share, investments and a lot of staff. This is huge. It's not just about quarterly profit, even if it might sometimes feel like it is. Presumably, before they take such a drastic measure, they would first spend massive amounts on lobbying, which would most likely succeed.
- ClaraForm 1y ago
  Never. The Apple bet, the North Star, is that personal computing is both the present and the future. The minute an exception gets carved out, like “personal computing but not in Europe” then Apple enters a death spiral. They’ll deal with each blow that comes their way because it will come for everyone else in the market too, but they’ll still be in the lead.
- jjani 1y ago
  A point we're still lightyears away from. The lengths they go to in order to operate in China are magnitudes greater than to operate in the EU, yet EU makes them $10+ billion more profit than China. What would actually happen is that the US would start seriously threatening (blackmailing) the EU to a degree where it's forced to relent long before Apple would pull out. Apple's estimated operating profit from the EU is around $40 billion dollars. If the US government wouldn't get involved, they could force Tim Apple himself to live on top of the Alps and he'd happily do it rather than lose that $40 billion, or shareholders would vote him out ASAP.
  - BlueTemplar 1y ago
    Why are you assuming that not only this kind of blackmail is even going to work, but that the EU isn't just going to kick out ALL of US infocoms instead ? (Because of this or because of other issues related to Trump or even Bush (Patriot Act).)
    - redeeman 1y ago
      rofl, people would never accept not having their locked down iphones or facebook. this would be a very losing battle for politicians
      - ghusto 1y ago
        You don't have a good feel for the anti-American-corporation sentiment here. Politicians in fact pay lip-service to "data sovereignty", for the points it gets them.
        redeeman 1y ago
        yeah, true, because then people think the government is solving it for them without them doing ANYTHING. Take their facebook/whatsapp away, and you'll see consequences. hell, we have several people on HN that claims its simply not possible with live without whatsapp. Take their whatsapp away and they may aswell go lie down in a ditch and die.

nulbyte 1y ago

Except that developers are forced to use Apple's distribution and payment systems to reach users with a native experience on Apple devices. This ability to limit or control competition within a market is called market capture, a key consideration of antitrust.

robertlagrant 1y ago
It's not a market, it's a product within a market.

fsflover 1y ago

> multitude of other competing devices You mean, the Google system that collects 20 times more telemetry than the iPhones? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261

fauigerzigerk 1y ago

This argument doesn't make sense. Many developers are de facto forced to distribute their apps on iOS. There are only two mobile platforms globally. Deciding not to support one of them would be economically (and in some cases functionally) unviable for a very large number of apps. However, the counter argument that opening iOS to other stores and payment methods would not affect users who prefer the App Store is not necessarily true either. If developers can choose not to distribute via Apple's store to avoid restrictions that are unfavourable to their business model then users would no longer be able to buy those apps in the App Store. This is the dilemma that needs to be solved. One solution could be to adopt a rule similar to the one for social logins. If an app supports any social logins at all then it must also support Sign in with Apple. Unfortunately, adopting a similar rule for the App Store is a lot more complex. If an app rejected by Apple is then not allowed to be installed via an alternative app store either, Apple would once again be able to veto apps for whatever reason they want. And if developers were free to set a any price they want for each store, they could effectively make the App Store unviable. I still feel that there is a set of rules that could make this work. The complexity is unfortunate though.