That’s like saying that the manufacturer of my vacuum has a monopoly on vacuum bags.
Apple can make the argument that curating the App Store is required to maintain quality.
This isn't the case with the iPhone. It isn't niche and plenty of people want to build and be listed in alternatives, but they are prevented from doing so.
I’ve never heard of a market being divided up like that legally. But it’s in the Supreme Court so it can’t be completely without legal merit.
Source: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
From my understanding, the lower courts haven't looked at that argument yet, since the question "do these people even have standing to sue" comes before any arguments.
“The question presented is: Whether consumers may sue for antitrust damages anyone who delivers goods to them, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.”
Had Apple tried to force everyone into using a gatekeeping App Store after smartphones took hold, end users would've rejected it.
It's like buying a car and only able to use gas sold by that company.
There may be other laws that would prohibit that, but they aren't anti-trust laws.
Some printers ship with only partially-filled cartridges. This winds up being destructive on several fronts - users feel buying a whole new printer is cheaper than buying all the refill cartridges, not understanding that the new cartridges are different than what they had. This means the printer company is constantly selling new printers at a loss, with functional printer hardware thrown away to make space.
The print cartridges also usually sell with an XL-size option that appears cheaper overall. However, people who feel they should buy a new printer rather than cartridges are typically people who are at an ultra-low usage level (<10 pages per month). Even at the normal size, they are not going to make it through the ink before the cartridge starts to degrade with age.
HP rolled out a printer monitoring/ink subscription service which may solve these problems - assuming people feel it is financially sound to subscribe.
Nintendo
Sega
Any loss leader product
I understand the free-software arguments for why I should be able to run arbitrary code on any computer I own. What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.
Why should I, as a consumer? I don't understand this argument from Apple apologists.
> Apple didn’t even invent the walled-garden digital software store; Microsoft was using it on the X-Box in 2005.
So if it wasn't called out then, it should never be called out ever?
the apple method allows a really easy UX for every single purchase and install on ios; if you allow a developer to decide that they’re only releasing on NewOpenAppStore, a user has to go ahead and somehow install that, which is a mess. apple don’t want that, because it just looks bad for the whole ecosystem
the security implications are obvious; if a user wants a pirated app, they will follow the “technical instructions” to click through menus and allow 3rd party installs so they can download their package from legitnotmalware.com
there are plenty more in the same kinda thinking, but overall they are different approaches but the walled garden should not be dismissed. you can argue that the down sides outweigh the upsides, but don’t just dismiss anyone that decides the upsides are worth it as “apple apologists” in an effort to condescend and shut down conversation
Android lets you install apps outside of play store, without any hard tech knowledge. That's not possible on Apple devices unless you are tech savvy and can go through a 10 step process.
Whatever upside you think they have flies in the face of openness.
Likewise, rather than having Apple review entitlements and for entitlements to privacy-impacting features like location or the camera be approved by the user at runtime, Google put a screen that asked users without the proper technical knowledge to make an evaluation a decision - either allow things that sound scary, or abort running the app.
The App Store review process is an abstraction that allows normal users to decide they trust the system to limit abuse so that they don't have to learn how to evaluate entitlement policies. Putting roadblocks to side loading apps (as you seem to know, still possible on iOS, but harder) means you don't have third parties convincing users to agree to security changes they don't understand.
This is not an open vs closed argument, since it is theoretically possible to build an open system with such features exposed opt-out with sufficient gymnastics. But that is a lot harder, and there is no financial motivation by Apple (or Google, or Microsoft, or any of the console vendors) for doing so.
I can't install software I buy in a store or direct from someone else without going through Apple. Even with the XBox, I could buy from a store, or second hand and play the game. Apple has invented the computer that forces you to pay Apple for for software or services you want to buy because of their store.
> What I don’t get is the monopoly argument.
The argument is this: Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. Whether you think that has standing or is an issue in the smart phone market is a different issue. But at least you now understand what the argument is.