6 ms·

I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.

by sesteel 11y ago

jimrandomh 11y ago
If the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit proved anything, it's that the US government is not powerful enough to bring meaningful enforcement action against a corporation of that size.
gabeio 11y ago
They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.
- sesteel 11y ago
  It is still anticompetitive, suppressing information about a competitor's product helps the consumer in 0 ways.
  - gabeio 11y ago
    Not disagreeing they are only helping themselves here. At least the support for the watch is not removed (which is a plus for now).
  - gambiter 11y ago
    You start up movie theater. You sell ads to marketing companies for before the movie. One of those ads is pushing a competing movie theater. Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'? Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.
    - sesteel 11y ago
      I understand that is how that the market works. It may not be a "problem" in people's current understanding of the law, but I certainly think a problem is being exposed here. I am arguing that Apple has created something different with the AppStore; a privileged sub-market. Because the burden of changing markets is heavily in Apple's favor they should, as a large public company, be required to serve the public good and manage it in the consumer's best interest, not their own.
      - gambiter 11y ago
        I can understand what you mean, but isn't the consumer's best interest sort of... subjective? Apple has obviously gone to great lengths to make their walled garden a reliable and safe place for consumers who have chosen to buy their products. If you talked to Tim Cook or Jony Ive, I bet they would make a case that the best thing for consumers is to be entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem. After all, it DOES give you the most consistent experience. So if you look at it from that perspective, who's right is it to go into a company and say, "No, that's not what's best for the consumer!" Obviously people like what they are getting, otherwise they would be defecting to Android in droves. Contrary to what some people are saying here, they DO have a choice. Thinking through it logically, I just can't see any scenario where a company, no matter how large, should be forced to push a competitor's products.
    - yellowapple 11y ago
      That's not quite comparable to what Apple's doing. Here's a better analogy: Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts. All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference. All is well in the world. But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products. Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"? This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor. In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.
      - gambiter 11y ago
        First of all, Apple isn't PULLING apps now that the Apple Watch is released. The Pebble app is still there, and you can still use it. This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied by a specific reviewer at Apple for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store. The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs. Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic. Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN. I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  Seems like it might be hard to build a UI for Pebble support without mentioning the name Pebble, but I guess it's possible. It would make it a lot harder for users to discover the feature, which is sort of like saying support has to be removed. > Specifically, -> your app <- and app description declare support for thePebble Smartwatch.
icebraining 11y ago
iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.
- learnstats2 11y ago
  Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
  - jonhohle 11y ago
    may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. You need to have a monopoly first.
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    Not really, even the Wikipedia article you sourced doesn't see it that way. > Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. It's anticompetitive behaviour that suddenly becomes relevant if you're a monopoly.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    Monopolistic behaviour != has a monopoly.
    - Touche 11y ago
      They have a monopoly on the sale of iPhone apps, no?
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Doesn't count. Microsoft has a monopoly on the sale of games sold through Xbox Live.
    - monocasa 11y ago
      And having a monopoly isn't illegal. Monopolistic behavior is.
cma 11y ago
Do they have a phone monopoly, when they don't even have a plurality?
higherpurpose 11y ago
And why is Apple still allowed to monopolize the core browser technologies? Imagine if Microsoft said in the late 90's that only IE is accepted on Windows, but you're free to put your on UI on top. Would that have been acceptable?
jonhohle 11y ago
Apple has no monopoly in any market. Their platform terms and conditions may (or may not) be draconian, but what antitrust concerns can be taken seriously? Apple owns a small (but profitable) share of every market in which they operate.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  They have a total monopoly on the software market for iDevices. Even if the way they got that monopoly wasn't abusive, they are abusing it now.
  - zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
    I don't think you understand anti-trust laws nor the meaning of "abusing a monopoly".
  - CPLX 11y ago
    That's not what monopoly means.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  What about laws against abuse of vertical integration? What they're doing seems like anti-competitive use of vertical integration to me. Whether it's actually illegal is a question for a lawyer though.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Apple has no monopoly in any market. Antitrust "monopolies" aren't monopolies in the sense of no other players, they are monopolies in the sense of practical lack of competitive pressure displayed through market power (also known as pricing power) which is the ability, within some -- potentially narrow -- range to raise prices without losing sales to competitors (hence "pricing power", but market power could perhaps also be demonstrated by being able to make other adverse changes without driving sales from the party with market power to competitors.) In a sense, this does match the "no competition" definition, in that having market power indicates that while there may be other players -- or even bigger players -- in a named market, they aren't in a practical sesne actually acting as competitors in the sense of economic theory, because the goods are revealed by market behavior not to be substitutes.
7Z7 11y ago
In what way? They aren't rejecting the app, they're rejecting the use of the trademark "Pebble" in the app's description.
- mavdi 11y ago
  Erm... Wouldn't that be similar to Google rejecting the trademark "Apple" from their search results? You're making it sound like Apple owns Pebble trademark and aren't happy for it to be used.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    Google does prevent you from using other trademarks in your Play Store copy.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      > Google does prevent you from using other trademarks in your Play Store copy Can you point where it is stated or the related point in the policy? Thanks
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Look for any story where someone said they had their app taken down because they had copyrighted material in the promo pictures or used a trademarked name in the title or copy. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2986098?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
        Oletros 11y ago
        Those stories and policies is for using copyrighted material without permission or using trademarks without authorisation, totally different thing from not able to use trademarked names.
- sesteel 11y ago
  They are suppressing information which could help a customer make a decision. Users can no longer search for or discover apps that support their watch via the AppStore. I view this behavior as anti-competitive and does not serve the greater public good. Apple is a corporation.
loumf 11y ago
Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right now, have control over what is on their shelves? Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.? iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition). The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't have that choice and it is considered a free-market failure that we want regulated.
- sesteel 11y ago
  This is actually a great analogy. If the AppStore was a physical store, I would agree; but I still don't agree and that actually surprises me. The freedom of the internet has shaped my expectations around this issue.
  - loumf 11y ago
    Can Amazon decide what you can buy on Amazon.com? Can Netflix decide what movies you see in their app? (not trying to troll you -- but I think you'd agree that they do, so it's not the freedom of the Internet. I do agree that there is a difference -- but I am having a hard time justifying it for myself)
    - kedean 11y ago
      This isn't about deciding whats in their store, its the justification given. In the US, an at-will employee can be fired for any reason, excluding special cases like sexism, racism, or homophobia in some states. A store can decide to not stock a product for any reason, except for a set of special cases. I think that 'because you are also friendly with a competitor' is one of those special cases. I would definitely have a problem if amazon refused to stock books that are also on B&N, or if Netflix refused to provide a movie only because its also on HBO right now (note that this obviously doesn't apply if there were exclusivity agreements made with the consent of the content maker).
      - yellowapple 11y ago

I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.

by sesteel 11y ago

I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.

jimrandomh 11y ago

If the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit proved anything, it's that the US government is not powerful enough to bring meaningful enforcement action against a corporation of that size.

gabeio 11y ago

They didn't say the support had to be removed just the mentioning of the other platform.

sesteel 11y ago
It is still anticompetitive, suppressing information about a competitor's product helps the consumer in 0 ways.
- gabeio 11y ago
  Not disagreeing they are only helping themselves here. At least the support for the watch is not removed (which is a plus for now).
- gambiter 11y ago
  You start up movie theater. You sell ads to marketing companies for before the movie. One of those ads is pushing a competing movie theater. Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'? Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.
  - sesteel 11y ago
    I understand that is how that the market works. It may not be a "problem" in people's current understanding of the law, but I certainly think a problem is being exposed here. I am arguing that Apple has created something different with the AppStore; a privileged sub-market. Because the burden of changing markets is heavily in Apple's favor they should, as a large public company, be required to serve the public good and manage it in the consumer's best interest, not their own.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      I can understand what you mean, but isn't the consumer's best interest sort of... subjective? Apple has obviously gone to great lengths to make their walled garden a reliable and safe place for consumers who have chosen to buy their products. If you talked to Tim Cook or Jony Ive, I bet they would make a case that the best thing for consumers is to be entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem. After all, it DOES give you the most consistent experience. So if you look at it from that perspective, who's right is it to go into a company and say, "No, that's not what's best for the consumer!" Obviously people like what they are getting, otherwise they would be defecting to Android in droves. Contrary to what some people are saying here, they DO have a choice. Thinking through it logically, I just can't see any scenario where a company, no matter how large, should be forced to push a competitor's products.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    That's not quite comparable to what Apple's doing. Here's a better analogy: Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts. All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference. All is well in the world. But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products. Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"? This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor. In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.
    - gambiter 11y ago
      First of all, Apple isn't PULLING apps now that the Apple Watch is released. The Pebble app is still there, and you can still use it. This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied by a specific reviewer at Apple for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store. The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs. Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic. Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN. I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world. As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.
erikpukinskis 11y ago
Seems like it might be hard to build a UI for Pebble support without mentioning the name Pebble, but I guess it's possible. It would make it a lot harder for users to discover the feature, which is sort of like saying support has to be removed. > Specifically, -> your app <- and app description declare support for thePebble Smartwatch.

icebraining 11y ago

iOS is far from having a monopoly in the market (smartphones and tablets). No, monopoly over their devices doesn't count.

learnstats2 11y ago
Vendor lock-in does count as monopolistic behaviour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in
- jonhohle 11y ago
  may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. You need to have a monopoly first.
- mynameisvlad 11y ago
  Not really, even the Wikipedia article you sourced doesn't see it that way. > Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly. It's anticompetitive behaviour that suddenly becomes relevant if you're a monopoly.
- k-mcgrady 11y ago
  Monopolistic behaviour != has a monopoly.
  - Touche 11y ago
    They have a monopoly on the sale of iPhone apps, no?
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Doesn't count. Microsoft has a monopoly on the sale of games sold through Xbox Live.
  - monocasa 11y ago
    And having a monopoly isn't illegal. Monopolistic behavior is.

cma 11y ago

Do they have a phone monopoly, when they don't even have a plurality?

higherpurpose 11y ago

And why is Apple still allowed to monopolize the core browser technologies? Imagine if Microsoft said in the late 90's that only IE is accepted on Windows, but you're free to put your on UI on top. Would that have been acceptable?

jonhohle 11y ago

Apple has no monopoly in any market. Their platform terms and conditions may (or may not) be draconian, but what antitrust concerns can be taken seriously? Apple owns a small (but profitable) share of every market in which they operate.

marcosdumay 11y ago
They have a total monopoly on the software market for iDevices. Even if the way they got that monopoly wasn't abusive, they are abusing it now.
- zak_mc_kracken 11y ago
  I don't think you understand anti-trust laws nor the meaning of "abusing a monopoly".
- CPLX 11y ago
  That's not what monopoly means.
humanrebar 11y ago
What about laws against abuse of vertical integration? What they're doing seems like anti-competitive use of vertical integration to me. Whether it's actually illegal is a question for a lawyer though.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Apple has no monopoly in any market. Antitrust "monopolies" aren't monopolies in the sense of no other players, they are monopolies in the sense of practical lack of competitive pressure displayed through market power (also known as pricing power) which is the ability, within some -- potentially narrow -- range to raise prices without losing sales to competitors (hence "pricing power", but market power could perhaps also be demonstrated by being able to make other adverse changes without driving sales from the party with market power to competitors.) In a sense, this does match the "no competition" definition, in that having market power indicates that while there may be other players -- or even bigger players -- in a named market, they aren't in a practical sesne actually acting as competitors in the sense of economic theory, because the goods are revealed by market behavior not to be substitutes.

7Z7 11y ago

In what way? They aren't rejecting the app, they're rejecting the use of the trademark "Pebble" in the app's description.

mavdi 11y ago
Erm... Wouldn't that be similar to Google rejecting the trademark "Apple" from their search results? You're making it sound like Apple owns Pebble trademark and aren't happy for it to be used.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Google does prevent you from using other trademarks in your Play Store copy.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    > Google does prevent you from using other trademarks in your Play Store copy Can you point where it is stated or the related point in the policy? Thanks
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Look for any story where someone said they had their app taken down because they had copyrighted material in the promo pictures or used a trademarked name in the title or copy. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/2986098?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
      - Oletros 11y ago
        Those stories and policies is for using copyrighted material without permission or using trademarks without authorisation, totally different thing from not able to use trademarked names.
sesteel 11y ago
They are suppressing information which could help a customer make a decision. Users can no longer search for or discover apps that support their watch via the AppStore. I view this behavior as anti-competitive and does not serve the greater public good. Apple is a corporation.

loumf 11y ago

Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right now, have control over what is on their shelves? Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.? iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition). The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't have that choice and it is considered a free-market failure that we want regulated.

sesteel 11y ago
This is actually a great analogy. If the AppStore was a physical store, I would agree; but I still don't agree and that actually surprises me. The freedom of the internet has shaped my expectations around this issue.
- loumf 11y ago
  Can Amazon decide what you can buy on Amazon.com? Can Netflix decide what movies you see in their app? (not trying to troll you -- but I think you'd agree that they do, so it's not the freedom of the Internet. I do agree that there is a difference -- but I am having a hard time justifying it for myself)
  - kedean 11y ago
    This isn't about deciding whats in their store, its the justification given. In the US, an at-will employee can be fired for any reason, excluding special cases like sexism, racism, or homophobia in some states. A store can decide to not stock a product for any reason, except for a set of special cases. I think that 'because you are also friendly with a competitor' is one of those special cases. I would definitely have a problem if amazon refused to stock books that are also on B&N, or if Netflix refused to provide a movie only because its also on HBO right now (note that this obviously doesn't apply if there were exclusivity agreements made with the consent of the content maker).
    - yellowapple 11y ago