Apple built their controlled ecosystem and set their rules. And now others are insisting that Apple should not have that control (even when they themselves are doing the same thing).
With an iPhone, for better or for worse, I can point them at the App Store... app... ("say 'app' again! I dare you!") and be reasonably confident they're getting the official Instagram app. There are multiple apps with "Instagram" in the name, but the official one is the top search result.
Contrast with the Chrome Web Store. The search results for "Instagram"[0] have a bunch of results from who-knows-where, and many of them contain the official logo somewhere inside their preview image. They all look they could be the real thing, but as far as I can tell, none of them are.
Going to the family's house for holidays use to mean spending some time cleaning the weird programs off of the in-laws' computer. Now it means uninstalling the odd Chrome extensions they've manage to find, and making them change their website passwords.
If it ever becomes super easy for Apple users to install random software they find on the Internet, I am throwing my older family members' iPhones into a lake and giving them a flip phone.
[0] https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/instagram?hl=en-US...
That's not very convincing 'curation'.
Think about it, you are a normal person who wants to continue to use an application and for some reason the dev has been kicked out of the store (this often happens and the devs often have no idea why or how). You would be frustrated no?
Not to mention the mental stress of the poor devs which are subject to inhuman automated responses, neglect, and abuse by Apple/Google. Apple/Google is essentially shutting down small businesses arbitrarily and remorselessly. The only way action happens is if the dev somehow gets enough attention on sites like this that Apple is forced to act.
These tech monopolies have MORE than enough money for a customer/creator/dev service department - they just don't care, or, perhaps, maliciously use the lack of one to control their platform: "Oops sorry, you have been talking to our super-smart infallible AI, we don't know why its acting this way, but we are sure its right! You have one week to fix the issues - have a nice day!"
Or that Apple needs to charge less for access to the App Store while also spending more money (to stop the inhuman auto replies and actions)
Both are terrible arguments
Without competition (like gasp competing app stores) Apple will continue to be negligent to devs and ban applications that compete with their services.
For example, the Apple watch without cellular cannot use Spotify in offline mode since that would compete with Apple music. My girlfriend and I had to find this out after the purchase and completely defeated the purpose of buying the product for her workouts.
I’ve not run into the Spotify issue. I don’t listen to music from my watch, but I agree that is annoying. The alternative sounds so much worse and why I stay away from Android.
And sure they have the most successful (and only) app store compared to the only other app store.
But yea fragmentation/choice is just awful and without a doubt will lead to a less rich experience... totally
Your reply comes off as very authoritarian and controlling. If you like the app store then you should have the choice to use it. What you are saying is that devs shouldn't have access to other options because you dont understand why they wouldn't use the perfect one already there.
Oh, I get that the App Store isn't perfect for developers. That's perfectly fine though. My concern is end users, not developers (software developers aren't benevolent actors).
Developers, such as Facebook, haven't exactly conducted themselves in a way to earn my trust. I'm happy to see them ensnared in the App Store's rules (at least the ones pertaining to privacy, security and general user experience). There's a reason you see users (even right here on HN) celebrating when Apple imposes an ever growing risk of privacy policies on developers. It's because users have learned we cannot trust developers.
IIRC this is related to Spotify's music licensing agreements only permitting streaming and not copying of music and has nothing to do with Apple itself. I don't believe there are any technical restrictions preventing Spotify from implementing offline playback on the watch, they simply have chosen not to do so.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2016/02/03/android-p...
[2] https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-iPhones-have-been-j...
"AT&T built their ecosystem and set their rules."
> Standard Oil dominated the oil products market initially through horizontal integration in the refining sector, then, in later years vertical integration; the company was an innovator in the development of the business trust.
Horizontal then vertical integration is exactly what Epic is doing, by first getting onto a bunch of platforms and app stores, then creating their own app stores and auxiliary purchasable items. Apple has always been vertically integrating, when have they horizontally integrated? AFAIK they've always been a platform into which other companies, like Microsoft with their original Office suite, have horizontally integrated.
> The Standard Oil trust streamlined production and logistics, lowered costs, and undercut competitors.
The group of companies coming together to form this advocacy group is a trust. Apple is not.
From Wikipedia's entry on US v AT&T [1]:
> [AT&T was] using monopoly profits from its Western Electric subsidiary to subsidize the costs of its network
Companies selling apps on the app store are not subsidiaries of Apple, they are customers of Apple. A company reinvesting profits into itself is not anticompetitive. Maybe you had a different idea of why AT&T relates to Apple, but I don't see it.
Notice how those two companies were broken up for abusing their positions in different ways? Weird, huh? It's almost like the issue was them abusing their positions, not how they were put together?
I'll save you some additional wikipedia searches:
Microsoft was under significant legal assault for bundling its browser with its operating system. It paid out billions of dollars and was forced to allow computer manufacturers to bundle other browsers.
Exactly Apple organized developers, giving the developers a collective power to rival Apple's unilateral dictatorship...sure Apple could call their bluff like they always do with any one single developer, except if these developers collectively withdraw from the Apple ecosystem in mass, Apple would lose developers/market share/market cap.
Now if only consumers would collectively organize against big tech in the same fashion, big tech wouldn't seem so big, and consumer could begin to dictate how these platforms collect use their data.
Actually, in this case I guess that means I like the restrictions that Apple's app store places on developers. Sure, lose the ability to publish malware and other profitable things, but that protects my ability to use it peacefully.
If you don't like Apple's walled garden then use Android.
Linageos is a possibility, but with the play services situation, running any mainstream app without phoning home to google is if not impossible, extremely difficult and filled with footguns.
Pine and Librem are exciting emerging possibilities but they have only been available for a very short time so it remains to be seen what will happen there.
Join the weird fringe phone crew.
A horizontal monopoly is if one company made all the cars.
A vertical monopoly is if one car manufacturer owned all the roads in Detroit and only their cars were authorized to drive on those roads.
Apple is a vertical monopoly across its hardware, the software that runs on that hardware (they don't own the software, but they own the distribution channel), and some of the suppliers that manufacture components for the hardware.
That's not a good analogy. It's more like if you bought X's car model and X had a policy that you could only buy official, certified parts from certified dealers through which they get a cut. (App Store)
You can go for after market parts but if you break the car it's on you. ("Jailbreaking" AKA flashing your device)
This is like saying Uber has a monopoly on all of their own assets.
Wrong terminology.
This is a meaningless definition of monopoly.
The issue is market power
Why doesn’t this coalition of multi-billion dollar corporations invest in creating an Android based alternative with different policies?
That would add choice to the market rather than taking it away.
They can clearly afford to do so, but it seems like they just don’t feel the need to make the investment.
I don’t see why Epic couldn’t create their own gaming focussed device, and buy a bunch of exclusive titles including their own content.
If their store had better terms than Play, and accepted APKs, why wouldn’t other developers want to sell through it?
If the argument is that developers are desperate for better terms, it must follow that they would want to support a store which provided them.
Because of network effects, consumers just don't want a phone without their banking apps.
Epic tried to make a deal like you suggest with OnePlus and LG but it was cancelled due to Google pressure.
Network effects are strong, but not impossible to overcome. All they need to do is sell the device to users who don’t care about banking apps for long enough for banking apps to be uploaded to their store.
As for the the deal with OnePlus and LG. I don’t believe it was anything like what I am suggesting - that was just a co-marketing effort.
They weren’t going to create a new and open platform based on Android.
The argument that nobody can ever compete against Android no matter what they do is a weak one.
The iPod was an incredibly niche device when it was launched.
There is a proven market for handheld gaming platforms that don’t run banking apps. Epic could start there and build out, just like Apple did.
So yeah, they could do that but it would be pointless.
This is false at face value.
If they put cellular functionality and an open app store on the device, it would be de-facto competing in the mobile app market.
Nobody would buy a phone that only plays (a few) games and has very little useful apps. You're not arguing in good faith.
Are you saying that nobody can ever successfully sell a handheld gaming device again?
People in fact do buy handheld devices that play games, and there is no reason Epic cannot enter the handheld gaming market.
If they can sell a handheld gaming device, they can make that device cellular, and they can add an App Store. People won’t buy it as a phone or to run app initially, but if they sell it successfully as a gaming device, they can use that success to attract more apps to the store.
But do people buy devices exclusively for playing handheld games? The 3DS is now officially out of production (and hadn’t had first party games in years, IIRC) and the Vita has been dead for longer. That leaves the Nintendo Switch, and while the Lite does exclusively play games in handheld mode, it plays the entire library of Switch games, including ones that were originally only designed for home consoles. And Nintendo created the dedicated gaming handheld market and was the uninterrupted leader and as often as not %70+ marketshare monopoly ever since Gunpei Yokoi made the Game&Watch AFAIK.
Is it clear? If it's that easy, how did Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon all fail in their efforts to break into that market?
It seems much simpler to force Apple to follow fair trade rules on the marketplace, than to force every other company to develop their own OS and hardware. Furthermore, the latter option basically bars anyone who isn't already in control of a large corporation from entering the mobile app market without Apple's blessing.
A service like netflix, spotify or basecamp can't compete without an iOS app.
Apple has a monopoly on non-shit smartphones precisely because of their restrictive policies.
You think there is a chance in hell Apple and Google are not going to continue the trend of restricting devs and taking bigger profit shares for the "privilege" of being in the store? Its only going to get worse. Good for them for standing up.
You're arguing they lower their prices, and thats just going to cement their position.
We would all be better off if Apple lowered prices and we got alternatives. That's a win/win even if most users don't use the alternatives.
And the current lawsuits are arguing that Apple has a monopoly on payments on their own devices, not that they have a monopoly on the smartphone market. Big difference.
Epic is a monopolist.
/s
I clearly don’t actually believe this, but the point is that if Apple is a Monopolist, then so is Epic.
Epic has a store, but doesn't have a large-market-share hardware platform they control exclusively to go with it. Any machine I can install the Epic app store on, I can also install Steam on.
If people are pushing for a change in framework where no hardware manufacturer is allowed to control what software is installed on their platform, I actually think that might be a good change across the board.
The groups targeting Apple don’t care about any such freedom. They simply want more money for themselves without having to invest.
On Apple's app store the product is iOS software. Apple do control how all iOS software is sold.
Seriously, this isn't complicated...
It’s all just software.
Probably one solution is to place the bet on anti-trust instead. It's still not quite right, but if you bend the current legal understanding of "trust" a little bit, you can get there. Whereas, there's no amount of bending the interpretation of "monopoly" that will make Apple fit.
>If you run a platform where others come to sell, then you don’t get to sell your own items on the platform because you have two comparative advantages. One, you’ve sucked up information about every buyer and every seller before you’ve made a decision about what you’re going to sell. And second, you have the capacity — because you run the platform — to prefer your product over anyone else’s product. It gives an enormous comparative advantage to the platform.
Costco charges a membership to use their store (“platform”), similar to buying an iPhone. Costco offers reduced-price store brand goods. Costco controls and decides which third-party goods are available in the store. This is all generally considered to be to the consumers advantage due to lower prices and good experience. If the consumer does not like Costco, they can go to a different store. If a consumer does not like the experience of purchasing their apps in the app store, they can use Safari to access the web site, purchase an Android or use a PC for their computing needs, and a console/portable for their gaming needs. The number of competitors to the iPhone platform is lower than the number of competitors to Costco, but it’s not an insignificant number of alternatives. If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.
As it is it’s a unfair to punish Apple for successfully curating a good experience where users are happy and comfortable spending money. All retailers set the conditions for sellers to sell with them.
That sounds like an incredible headache for the customer wishing to opt for an alternative.
> If ALL mobile platforms did not allow sideloading and charged similar rates, AND it was impossible to create a new mobile platform (admittedly difficult, RIP Microsoft, Blackberry, Nokia, Firefox OS) AND it could be shown webapps are not viable (they are viable) then Apple plus the other platform might have an anti-trust problem.
You've made my argument for me: nobody wants to use a webapp and just about no one does. There's only one other mobile platform with any market share and it's Google's Android. The Sisyphean task of launching a new OS into this fray is so high that even an authoritarian nation-state isn't going to do it, so let's just call a spade a spade and say it's impossible.
Google's Android doesn't give you blue bubbles so say goodbye to much of your iPhone-privileged social circle, which uses blue bubbles as a new kind of social elitism predicated on wealth-peacocking. You're essentially bullied into one avenue or the other and the apps you paid for a long tether of slavery to the platform you've picked. It's enough to give someone Stockholm syndrome but I'm not yet out catching bullets for them, are you?
All of these corporations need to be broken up. The problem is not just Apple. But Apple's platform is locked down so tight they will stop at nothing to get their penny's share, whether you're a cool new email service (Hey) or you want to launch a gaming cloud service (xCloud, Stadia, you-name-it).
This is not Costco selling generic fruits and meats for your consumption. This is a dominion of access to how you communicate, to how you read, to how you play.
The citations of global mobile device market share are deceptive. It is not necessary for US regulators to prove that Apple has a monopoly in India to prove that they are engaged in anticompetitive behaviors in the US. If you want to make money as a mobile app developer, deciding not to support iOS can be a crippling decision. You don't really have a choice[2].
----
[0]: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/us-market-smartphone-sh...
[1]: https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/11/as-usual-apples-ap...
[2]: That ends up being the much more interesting argument anyway, because Apple advocates mostly want Apple to be able to force developers to jump through hoops. I've seen a lot of arguments on this topic that say that 3rd-party app stores would be a disaster because companies wouldn't be de-facto forced to distribute through the primary app store.
For those people, the duopoly and monopolistic power structures are the point -- they're not debating whether or not Apple is so powerful that it's taking away developer choice. They want Apple to take away developer choice.
I disagree with those people, but I find their position to be much more compelling than, "India uses Android, so the US can't regulate its own market."
Why do you not have a choice? If your product is not stocked in Walmart or Amazon, who make up the bulk of U.S. retail, can you not make money? Having your app exclusively on Android can make plenty of money. Epic makes plenty of money on other platforms. Many game publishers are successful publishing exclusively for one console. Pandora was fine before mobile apps. Many dating websites exist. 40% of a particular segment of the computing sector in a market as huge as the US does not monopoly make.
Antitrust actions are aimed at restoring public oversight over public markets. Two companies should not have the ability to lock developers entirely out the mobile app market.
It's using an advantage in one area to force concessions in an unrelated area that I believe is illegal.
For example, Microsoft had an effective monopoly over PC operating systems.
That was unfortunate, but not illegal.
It was when they used that monopoly to disadvantage a rival browser maker --- Netscape -- that they broke anti-trust law.
I'm most interested in seeing what happens over Apple's decisions to force app providers to use Apple Sign-in if the offer any other 3rd party SSO.
As a developer, I may have valid security concerns regarding Apple Sign-in.
So their app store dominance seems unrelated to SSO infrastructure. And I don't fully understand how they can force me to use it if I decide to support Google or Facebook SSO in my app.
So I do wonder if that is an anti-trust violation.
The merger of state and corporate powers is complete. We live in a fascist world with surveillance that Stalin could only dream of.
So yea, a bit "unfortunate"
Can you find me a single example of a monopoly (excluding regulated utilities) that don't use their power to force concessions in an unrelated area? What's the point otherwise?
The conversation about Apple's 30% is a valid one. Epic is, intentionally, at this point; taking a sledgehammer to any validity that conversation had.
The way Epic handled this situation was with a maturity level of a 6-year-old kid yelling 'no!' to their parents and throwing a tantrum.
We need serious, mature discussion over these issues.
Spotify, in particular; while a horrible, heartless company to artists like myself, could at least make the excuse that they could funnel more of that 30% to the artists, although I doubt any more than 1% of it would actually go to us. (Spotify CEO is worth $3.8bn and the company claims they can't pay artists more...)
I'm not sure wtf leg Tinder has to stand on beyond greed?
There's nothing laughable about having a layered strategy of “try not to get caught, and, in case you are caught, have a backup argument that enforcement of the rules is illegal in any case.”
They invalidated their own potential for legal standing by intentionally sneaking around instead of working through the system like, for instance, LGTBQ+ people (I'm lesbian) did. If something is an injustice; you don't just, e.g. walk into a church and try to get married in a state or country that forbids it. You'll be prosecuted or killed. Doesn't matter that it's not fair.
Apple's stance isn't as black/white, cut/dry as gay rights. But the point is, these guys took the absolutely wrong approach, have made themselves look like fools, and taken away power from people taking the time to properly (e.g. not intentionally sneaking around, which a backdoor switch to violate their terms and conditions is, by definition) try to move through the legal system and make these changes.
All Epic has done is made that harder for real champions of Justice to approach in the future. It's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of. They're not standing for rights. They're standing for profits. Nobody's falling for it, especially not the judges.
The entire reason we have a private right of action for firms (rather than just a public right of action) in antitrust law is that actors selfishly standing up for their own profits will incidentally serve the public interest. The law does not rely on or expect litigants (other than those acting in the direct employ of the government) to seek to serve any interest other than their own narrow interests, instead it is (insofar as it seeks to serve a public interest, which is sadly not always the intent of the law to start with) designed to achieve the public interest by shaping private incentives so that the pursuit of private interest itself moves the public interest forward.
So, while what you describe in the above quote about Epic is unquestionably true, that's exactly how the law is supposed to work.