Good lord - on HN the monopoly comments are so crazy sometimes. What is the monopoly issue Apple has? Use android if you don't like Apple's product line. Apple is at 22% share.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I think there's a reasonable argument that users buy iPhones with the expectation of a market in the app store (I can get or buy apps from any company that cares to develop one), so when Apple charges a 30% fee (far above normal payment processing fees) on every transaction made through the app they are abusing a monopoly position.
An iPhone is clearly a different case. Measuring what options users have is not limited by a geographic region but by what policies and app stores govern the device.
what's crazy is harping on a technicality about the word "monopoly" and then to ignore the actual issue that is implied by the criticism, market power.
Even two companies aren't a market, if you get hung up about monopoly call it a duopoly. The state of affairs is ridiculous. There should be a thriving market of competing stores, payment systems, operating systems and so on, yet we're stuck with at best two alternatives, both of which are extremely locked down.
Sure, there should be more platforms available. I'm into that. Personally, I bought an iPhone because of the closed ecosystem. I don't want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it. That's what I paid for and that's what I'm getting.
From my perspective demanding that the platform be open to any and everything is a bit like going to a carwash and demanding they also do your house.
> I don’t want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it.
I’m in the exact same boat; I have no interest in sideloading every app that decides to get into a pissing match with Apple (and as Spotify’s hinted at it before, they will certainly be losing my subscription if I need to sideload their app). For every app that has a legitimate reason to sideload (i.e. payments), there will be another app that sideloads to bypass the user-beneficial aspects of the App Store (i.e. Onavo from Facebook).
That sounds terrible. Myriad incompatible ways to find apps, having to give your financial information to lots of different systems you have to investigate individually, or not be able to do business with someone using a different system, apps only being available on the small number of devices running the OS they were developed for.
All the things you mention benefit massively from network effects, which can greatly benefit consumers.
that is a weird complaint because that is the status quo due to closed platforms, I can't run facetime on an android phone.
Diverse ecosystems develop protocols to enable interoperability, that's where the slogan "protocols, not platforms" comes from. This is how the internet works, despite the fact that you can hook up anything from a fridge running windows ME to a supercomputer running suse to it, everyone communicates just fine.
At least with Android you can go through f-droid if you don't like the Play Store.
A monopoly would be if Apple was literally the only smartphone manufacturer in the entire world.
"Apple monopolizes the iOS App Distribution Market".
I don't think that it's a good argument to make that anyone can do it, because it does require _some_ technical knowledge in order to do it. I'd make the argument that if it's not accessible to everyone, then I don't think it's a viable replacement for an app store.
To lean on F-droid as an example on the Android side, outside of the initial installation of F-droid(which can be done from your phone), you can easily browse F-droid and install apps.
I don't think it's as easy to sideload apps on iOS. I haven't done it in years(since my jailbreak days), but I remember that you needed to be on a Mac and needed xcode to do it. It's probably updated now to make it a bit easier, but from a quick Google it looks like you need to download a separate program in order to do it. It looks like other ways to sideload apps requires some abuse of developer certificates to make it work.
Is this seriously the argument?
There are multiple stores that you can try and get your product on. If Walmart doesn't work, then you could try Target, or Aldi, or Amazon.
You have literally one option to go with on iOS. You can't even "drive to a new store", as switching to Android costs hundreds of dollars, and not everyone is in a financial situation to purchase a new phone on a whim.
I won't argue about the specifics of this, Epic paid lawyers millions of dollars to draft a court document about the monopolization of the iOS app distribution store. I'd urge you to read the document first before drawing pretty poor parallels.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266572/market-share-held....
Similarly, I'm sure Walmart monopolizes the Walmart distribution market.
As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.
They STARTED the app store with these terms, that is literally the OPPOSITE of achieving a monopoly with predatory or below market pricing. They did such a good job that despite the high price most developers make LOTS of money on the app store, and users value many of the elements as well.
Anyways, will be an interesting case, but it's not "crazy" that someone doesn't have time to respond to every point on HN - seriously HN has gone full outrage / offense these days with no ability to just discuss merits, consider other viewpoints.
And that the high-spending consumer segment appreciates this?
I always seem to regret signing up for subscriptions elswhere. Did anyone have the myheritage fight - I did that 5 years ago - total nightmare. I mean - how is stuff like THAT legal (hadn't used service in a year, no notice prior to the renewal being billed), no way to get out of paying.
I'm not using any Apple products for exactly that reason (other than what my workplace forces upon me.)
On my Android phone I can install any 3rd party app I please - there even is "F-Droid", a non-Google app store for open apps, which I use a lot.
And for desktops I use Linux. I guess I'm in the minority - even here on HN.
If iPhone had no App store and only had official Apple apps we wouldn't be having this conversation, regardless of how popular iPhones are.
I think Apple is in the wrong, but a critical issue what threshold or criteria must be met for them to be required to offer an open(ish) platform?
*open(ish) meaning allowing alternative app stores or charging industry standard payment processing fees.
If you’re accusing Apple of breaking other laws, please specify which.
Unless if you’re alleging that Apple is in breach of an existing law. If so, you should probably provide evidence for such an assertion.
In my youth I had the energy and desire to individually assess how much I trusted what I downloaded. Today I do not want to spend the energy/time so I spend financial capital to have Apple assess trust for me.
Does that mean that app developers have a harder time selling me their software? Yes. I empathize, but I don't want to be an early adopter anymore. I'm happy for those developers to first build trust, then have access to me as a customer.
I'm mostly responding to the strong comments - in this case "digging their own antitrust grave."
While falling into an anti-trust grave would be very serious - we are a fairs ways away from that here I think.
Is this what we're advocating for? More consumption of rare resources?
Either way, say I made a mistake and now I'm using Apple. Do you suggest everyone in that same condition go make more waste by buying new phones?
Edit as reply: I'm not accusing them of breaking a law, but of abusing their position. That there might not yet be a law against this specific kind of abuse doesn't make the practice any less abusive.