Apple is a monopoly. When Microsoft was investigated and fined for anti-trust behaviors, it hasn't engaged in this level of abuse.
The best (far-fetched) comparisons would be the inability to pick and choose TV packages from your local TV broadcast supplier. Or not having a choice on what firmware your car's infotainment system runs. Or what store you use on your Xbox/PlayStation/Nintendo. And for all of them: you can't run your own software of choice either.
While we might see a mobile phone as a collection of Application SoC, Baseband SoC, firmwares, boot loaders, OS, apps etc. the perspective of the actual markets where they sell like the hotcakes they are see it as a 'thing', a 'device'. There is no separation, no bundling and no concept of swappable components. It's the same people that see computers that way. There is no hardware + firmware + boot loader + OS + applications, it's "the computer".
While not iOS, there was a discussion last week on how MacOS has made things worse for independent developers, and is laying the groundwork to continue restricting un-notarized code.
The benefit of phones over laptops is the mobility, and I see no reason why the open options should go away for that mobility
Ironically, we could turn this on it's head: when the iPad came out people commented humorously "nobody asked for this" but apparently it was a device we didn't know we could use or enjoy. The same could be said for personal platform access. But what shape or benefit (and downsides) it gives to the mass market user eludes me so far.
By contrast, Microsoft had 95% market share during their antitrust suit. [3]
[1] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[2] https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share...
[3] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=179876183890909...
Secondly, the fallacy here is that people, like yourself, keep conflating the smartphone manufacturing or operating system markets with the individual software markets that developed around each platform. Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other. That software is what makes the platforms themselves competitive between each other, yes, but the actual software industry that's dependent on them is not competitive across those platforms. They are competing with apps within their particular platform, including the purveyors they have to go through (e.g. Apple and Google). You wouldn't say that the Bear notes app on iOS is competing with the Scarlet Notes app on Android because they're in different markets. Instead, Bear is competing with Apple Notes. Even if we are to go by your 14%, that's 14% of 3.5 billion people. IMO, that's such a large amount that it should be considered it's own market, but that has to be determined by a court.
No one is arguing "monopoly" of mobile smartphones here. They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution. The Microsoft case wasn't in relation to other web browser developers, but of other operating systems and of manufacturers because they leveraged their market share to illegally maintain their monopoly in that regard. Their monopoly was their monopoly of the Windows operating system, not the Internet Explorer web browser. What's being argued here is that Apple is leveraging their power, or distribution monopoly, over the entire iOS software market, not "smartphone" software in general, to gatekeep competition of software and software distribution while also profiting from that gatekeeping.
This is going to come down to how a court interprets this because antitrust isn't as cut and dry as other areas of law, especially now that individual markets are not so easily distinguishable in the current tech world.
That's fair, however I don't believe web usage is the correct metric to use either. In any case the numbers are still a far cry from the 95% Microsoft held during their antitrust case.
> Mac software doesn't "compete" with Windows software because people tend to have one device or the other.
By that logic Nintendo games don't "compete" with Xbox or Playstation games. I disagree with this narrowly defined view of the market in which Nintendo games, Xbox games, and Playstation games are viewed as competing in three separate markets, instead of competing in the overall video game market.
> They're arguing a monopoly specifically of iOS software distribution.
I disagree that this is a valid antitrust market and I think Epic is going to have a hard time convincing a court to accept this narrow market definition. US courts generally frown upon treating aftermarkets of a single brand's product as a valid antitrust market unless specific circumstances are met.
Those circumstances usually involve situations where the consumer lacks information about aftermarket restrictions or policies when the original product is purchased. In this case, iPhone customers know when they buy an iPhone that they will only be able to install apps via the App Store. If they are unhappy with this limitation they have an option of buying a different phone without such limitations. If they decide to go ahead and buy anyway, they did so knowingly, therefore antitrust liability is not likely in those circumstances.
> This is going to come down to how a court interprets this
I think many people are going to be disappointed by this. Aftermarket scenarios are not uncommon in antitrust law and the existing precedent is not in Epic's favor.
> 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...
Apple has more active users in the US than Android btw.
The fallacy being repeated is actually people defining monopolies by referencing market share.
Following Alcoa and American Tobacco, courts typically have required a dominant market share before inferring the existence of monopoly power. The Fifth Circuit observed that "monopolization is rarely found when the defendant's share of the relevant market is below 70%."(22) Similarly, the Tenth Circuit noted that to establish "monopoly power, lower courts generally require a minimum market share of between 70% and 80%."(23) Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"(24) and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power."(25)
It is also important to consider the share levels that have been held insufficient to allow courts to conclude that a defendant possesses monopoly power. The Eleventh Circuit held that a "market share at or less than 50% is inadequate as a matter of law to constitute monopoly power."(26) The Seventh Circuit observed that "[f]ifty percent is below any accepted benchmark for inferring monopoly power from market share."(27) A treatise agrees, contending that "it would be rare indeed to find that a firm with half of a market could individually control price over any significant period."(28)
Some courts have stated that it is possible for a defendant to possess monopoly power with a market share of less than fifty percent.(29) These courts provide for the possibility of establishing monopoly power through non-market-share evidence, such as direct evidence of an ability profitably to raise price or exclude competitors. The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
I don't know the numbers but I imagine there are more iOS devices now than there were Windows PCs back in the 90s.
I don't think Apple has demonstrated more commitment to "building secure devices" than to "building a tightly walled garden to maximize leverage over developers and users".
Edit: grammar
They led the way on iOS with Sandboxing, Secure Enclave, forcing HTTPS, on-device ML, on-use permissions model, fingerprinting prevention. And TouchID/FaceID both were popularised on iOS and made simple and reliable enough to be used by tens of millions.
True, but that doesn't negate other intentions.
Lol, if I remember correctly Microsoft also used the "security" angle to defend their monopolistic behavior too.
It prevents you from dynamically compiling code at runtime which is a needed rule because otherwise apps would just run around the curation process.
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
You can create browser engines without this feature.
> 2.5.6 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate WebKit framework and WebKit Javascript.
How many HTML/CSS/DOM/JavaScript rendering engines have been available on iOS compared to Android?! Has Gecko or Presto ever been available on iOS? What is the ONLY platform in wide use today that does not support Gecko or Blink?
Apple's iOS is by far worse than the Microsoft with Windows.
There was never any limit on installing software. Any Windows user could have easily installed Netscape.
Now, if we want to compare actual complaints, I recall that the idea that MS used private APIs to get Word a leg up was considered outrageous. These days, Apple uses private APIs to help Apple Music, and not a peep (well, until the EU will smack them down).
Did I read this right? My understanding was that Microsoft was penalized for bundling Windows with IE. Windows never forbade users from installing other web browsers.
Apple situation today would be more like if Windows did not allow users to install word processors other than Office, didn't allow browsers other than IE, etc.
The problem isn't installing apps. It's installing app-stores: the programs we use for exploring and accessing apps.
Competing browsers saw their traffic increase,[16] suggesting that these smaller competing developers were gaining users. However, long-term trends show browsers such as Opera and Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
To Chrome, not IE/Edge, which benefits from the browser ballot as much as they do.
> Firefox losing market share in Europe, calling into question the usefulness of the browser choice screen.
This is exactly what Apple is doing. Apple does not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. They are literally preventing competitors on the platform, and forcing people to only use the apple app store.
> about allowing third-party apps in the beginning.
No, they absolutely do not allow 3rd party app stores on the iPhone. That is what this is all about. It is about Apple preventing competing app stores on the iPhone.
It's far worse. Microsoft may have played dirty tricks with bundling, but they never prevented developers from distributing competing software. If Microsoft had the control over Windows that Apple does over iOS, they never would have allowed web browsers (for "security", no doubt) and we might be in a Windows monoculture today.
In a way, they did. They made deals with OEMs to only ship PCs with Windows on them, and not, say, BeOS or Linux.
Does Apple prohibiting apps from using any other payment processors than Apple's come close enough to equivalency to you? That's one of the key elements of the dispute here.
Podcasts - Overcast, PocketCasts, etccc
Music - Spotify, Rhapsody, Amazon Music
Books - Kindle.
Maps - Google Maps
Mail - Gmail, Yahoo Mail
...
Here's an article that goes over some of it (although it oversells Apple's first party advantage I think)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/05/how-app...
Apple also has a no Copy-Cats guideline that has been used to push out some apps, although maybe its not wide spread enough to be a concern.
There is no copy cats rule. There is an existence proof that this isn’t true in every category where Apple bundles a first party app.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#cop...
Allowing apps to send SMS exposes users (think: kids) to all sorts of headaches such as auto-signing them up for premium content. And Apple has no mechanism to prevent this other than blocking the APIs entirely.
And you can use a third party browser engine. You just can't be dynamically compiling code at runtime which is needed for JIT Javascript. Being able to do this defeats the purpose of having an app curation process.
If these were actually security restrictions then they would be privileging their own applications by waiving them for themselves, which is just as bad. Meanwhile in practice the effects of these "security restrictions" rather than rules against apps taking the bad behavior you're actually objecting to are suspiciously convenient for them -- their users can't switch to Chrome and it gives iMessage a larger network effect, and keeps people on iPhones when their friends have iPhones because they're all using iMessage rather than Signal or Whatsapp etc.
And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
So reject the dodgy apps then. What justification is that for denying it to Signal? In particular, what justification is that for denying it to Signal but not iMessage?
> And you use Chrome, Signal and WhatApp on iPhones. Not sure what you are talking about here.
Signal and WhatsApp on iPhones can't send SMS. Chrome on iPhones isn't Chrome, it's Safari with a Chrome logo.
Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access. Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Apps, like Signal, that you have given permission to intercept your text messages? Why would that be a security issue? You gave them permission to do it because that's what you wanted.
> Of course the OS vendor is going to have privileged access.
Also known as "private APIs" etc.
> Do you also want third parties to be able to reprogram the Secure Enclave?
Why would that be unreasonable, if done at the request of the device owner?
I am so glad we have companies like Apple who actually take privacy and security seriously.
So now it went from Apple “bans” apps to it has tighter security restrictions?
The "Chrome" in Apple's store is just a skin over Safari. It doesn't actually exist there, only something different with the same name.
How is this any different from people having to use WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, SMS etc?
Then they accidentally send a message to the other person using iMessage instead of Signal and it goes out unencrypted.
So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
It means you're using a different app for secure messaging and SMS. If they're the same app then it knows to not send SMS to the person you have encrypted messaging set up with.
It also requires you to use multiple messaging apps, which increases cognitive load and the potential for mistakes, because there is nothing available on iOS that can both send SMS and send secure messages to Android devices.
> So the same people who are smart enough to know the risks involved in letting a third party intercept your text message aren’t smart enough to choose the right app?
Smart people make mistakes all the time. Isn't that your whole thing about not giving the user full control over the device?
How many people trusted the “no logging VPNs” before the ES hacks showed they were in fact logging everything?
And Apple is not forcing anyone to write ios apps. They are curating a store. Should lawmakers dictate to Walmart which products to stock or how much to buy and sell them for?
Apple is not forcing anyone to write iOS apps, Microsoft and IBM did not force anyone either. Still, the law acted, because anti-competitive market behaviour is illegal.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
However, it is true that some of Epic's claims were brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act which do not necessarily require monopoly power. (Section 1 has to deal with unreasonable restraints of trade, whereas Section 2 deals with monopolies.)
Microsoft was also cited for forcing OEMs to pay for a license for Windows for each PC sold whether or not the PC shipped with Windows.
The MS case was different, but some elements are similar (use of private APIs; ability to choose default apps which is still not complete in iOS), and some are things MS never dreamt they could do.
The use of “private APIs” is a red herring. Every software developer for the last forty years knows about the concept of a public interface that they promise not to change and private implementation details. Some languages force it and others do it by convention.
My other point is that some Apple app store apps can use APIs that every other app would get banned for. People complained about that when it came MS; It's not better when Apple does it.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/how-compaqs-clone-comp...
No one could argue that IBM is any more than a bit player in PCs in 1983.
iMessage is not an “Apple Store app” any more than the phone app. Text messages and phone calls are kind of vital to be called a phone.
Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is irrelevant for the antitrust laws.
So even though there are some antitrust violations (e.g. price fixing or bid rigging) where monopoly power is indeed irrelevant, it is very specifically relevant in the context of Epic's lawsuit against Apple.
It's generally illegal to use a monopoly on one thing to acquire a monopoly on another thing when that harms society, and that is the claim here.
Microsoft alone created windows, that's fine. Microsoft used their monopoly on windows to gain monopolies on other pieces of software, and that was problematic.
1) They use their market power over something they created in order to gain advantage in a market they did not create (payment processors). There's no technical reason to link the two except that's it's good for Apple's bottom line.
2) Apple's app store is like running a Mall where Apple rents store, or Apple being a landlord renting apartments. The agreement to receive rents comes with implied duties like allow fair competition, and Apple overtly giving themselves undue advantage violates that.
Apple's app store is the store, not a mall, 100% build, owned and operated by Apple. Developers are goods suppliers, like milk to Wallmart. Want a better deal? Build your own store or sell elsewhere. You cannot expect Wallmart stocking your empty milk bottles for free with a printed message "now you can buy milk on milk.com"
P.S. Quite a lot of products in I buy in $LOCALSTORE link to the manufacturer's web site, and more than a few manufacturers allow direct sales. No store here would imagine it could force the manufacturer to use only its preferred credit method in their web site.
To answer your question, yes, Apple should be forced to allow other payment system. The current anti-competitive arrangement both disadvantages non-Apple payment systems, and prevents users from switching to Android if they wish (since subscriptions are managed by Apple, and it difficult to access that without an Apple device...).
Yes, they could do that. I just don't understand the reason why they should be forced to.
Anti-competitive by mandating use of their products, rent seeking because 30% is absurd (but alas legal), and as one twitter thread pointed out, if the web hadn't already existed, no existing web browser could possibly have passed Apple's app store policies.
It used to be possible to get payments on iOS going without using Apple's payments, before Apple set their eyes upon that market.
The "platform" is the thing the customer paid for when they bought the phone.
Because not supporting them is anti-competitive. Markets require competition to operate. It is obviously not feasible for an individual app developer to build their own phone hardware and operating system and convince everyone to switch to it from iPhones just in order to avoid Apple's app distribution system, so requiring that is unreasonable.
By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
And they must not unfairly promote Autopilot.
It's not arbitrary. It's based on whether there are reasonable substitutes. Exxon is a reasonable substitute for Chevron when buying gasoline for your 2020 Ford F150, because you can use either one. Google Play is not a reasonable substitute for the Apple App Store when buying apps for your 2020 Apple iPhone, because you can't actually use it for that.
> By this tortured logic Tesla should be forced to have a marketplace of self-driving implementations which their cars must support because that is technically a market.
It has nothing to do with forcing them to do something. They just shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from producing an autopilot implementation for their cars. And what's so unreasonable about that? It's plainly anti-competitive.
It's not available on Steam store for example.
The console makers actually actually do things for Fornite, other than offering a download. Sony sells like a Fornite + Playstation bundle, and do marketing with them.
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
- the antitrust committee investigating them
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/26/antitrust-investigation...
That doesn't seem like a monopoly to me. Apple has huge competition on the mobile market. Windows Phone 8 only had Microsoft's own app store, was that a monopoly with its <5% market share? I think not.
That sounds like an argument that "every single current game console and almost all other modern devices with app support" are maintaining monopolies on app distribution on their platform, what's your point? Epic Games is not obligated in any way to sue every company breaking the law just because they chose to sue one that is.
I can see the pragmatic sense in that argument, but I'm pessimistic and see it more as Tim trying to avoid destroying a relationship with strategically critical partners while achieving new strategic goals on mobile. Trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He's also allowed to believe that there is a stronger case against Apple and sue them first, and then sue the other people later if he wins the first suit convincingly, which is what I personally suspect is going to happen.
Software development and access to American consumers is no longer free and open.
Don’t buy an ios device if you want apps from vendors who don’t play by apples rules.
I hate the 30% fee as a developer and a user.
I was an ios jail breaker before the App Store launched. I used jailbreaking after the App Store launched to have a control panel and fast app switching. All that got baked into ios but I wish new innovations could make their way to the platform with an unofficial store.
I think that would ultimately be better for consumers.
That’s long term better for Apple.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Not possible on iOS.
Refusing to release an iOS app for your web application/game/etc is generally a death sentence, so much so that oftentimes you see new services release as "Get it on the iOS app store, Android coming soon."
A. iOS is generally more expensive and thus users are more likely to have disposable income
B. The IAP system means the only barrier to purchasing stuff on a completely new app is performing touch/face ID
So comparing iOS store to only the play store will ignore a section of Android users.
What I think is an argument against Apple is that users want to have access to apps that Apple doesn't want to release on its store. In that case, they may be forced to relax their rules on the Appstore.
This is much like saying that having a monopoly on retail stores in California isn't a problem because producers can just sell their product in New York. Obviously that doesn't allow them to reach the same customers. They aren't alternatives to each other because you need both to reach your entire customer base. Compare to Walmart where if you don't sell through them, the exact same customers can easily walk across the street and buy your product at Target.
In what sense can people in California not relocate to NY but people with iPhones can relocate to Android? In both cases moving is possible but the cost is far in excess of the cost of the typical product you'd buy in the store.
It isn't a negligible transition.
I'm not talking about writing an application for iOS and Android, then selling it in the store. I do think that's a separate case.
I'm talking about, as the best examples, xCloud and Hey. Web services which need to offer a mobile experience. Microsoft will be fine without Apple, but Hey faced legitimate business issues when Apple kicked them out. These companies are uninterested in the App Store Economy: They just want distribution.
Microsoft got hit for antitrust because of bundled software. What Apple does is far worse imo, not just bundling software, but the control over the store/devices is nuts.
Not quite. Microsoft's antitrust violations involved coercing other companies to bundle IE with their products. In particular:
1. They forced OEMs to ship IE instead of Netscape as a condition of obtaining Windows OEM licenses.
2. They made deals with ISPs to ship IE instead of Netscape (for example on AOL CDs).
3. They threatened to pull Office for Mac if Apple shipped Netscape with Mac OS instead of IE.
The question of whether the sole act of bundling IE with Windows would have been itself an antitrust violation was never decided by the appeals court. It was remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings which never happened as the lawsuit was eventually settled.
Microsoft “invested” a token $250 million in Apple. The same quarter, Apple spent $100 million to buy PoweComputings Mac license. The $150 net did not save Apple. Apple lost far more money than that before it became profitable.
What MS did was promise to continue releasing both Office and IE for the Mac.
Well, I couldn't buy a computer from a major company with an alternate operating system without paying Microsoft in the 90's, so I'll say that's pretty damn abusive.