google?
>How would you extend that analogy to the iOS App Store, which has no competitors whatsoever who sell iOS apps?
By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
> By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
No, that logic does not compare at all. Google's groceries aren't fungible when compared to Apple's, and vice versa.
If you have been eating Apple's groceries but want to switch to Google's, you have to get your teeth, tongue, throat, and stomach replaced with Google-compatible versions. Plus all of the things you are currently storing in your fridge and freezer at home needs to be thrown out because they will no longer fit in the new Google-compatible fridge/freezer you have to buy. Oh, and for the things that need to be cooked, you'll also need to buy a new Google-compatible stove and oven.
Bought a Honda? Only Kroger for you. Ford? You get Albertsons.
There's a sizable purchase with phones and computers that creates a cost to switching stores. There's no cost to me to go to Kroger one week and Albertsons the next.
Something like Amazon is more comparable to grocery stores, but I think there's a "trust" cost that makes them not directly comparable.
Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
Is this a better situation than on iOS? Yes, of course, definitely. But it's still not a level playing field.
> Apple only has control over consumers who chose for them to have that control. If you are selling an app to an iPhone user, you are selling to someone who only wants your app if Apple blesses it. If you are an Apple user that doesn't want that, then why did you by an Apple? Free yourself and buy a real computer or phone next time.
I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. People who are in the Apple ecosystem and not Android (and vice versa) have many different reasons for doing so, whether it's because iPhones are seen as a status symbol, or they believe that iOS is more privacy-protecting than Android, or they are in the Apple ecosystem for their desktop experience, and don't want to have to deal with frustrating interop issues. And a host of other reasons.
So sure, a person who buys an iPhone is choosing the restrictions imposed on them, but it's not because they necessarily actively like or want that. They just believe it's something that they will have to give up and deal with if they want the other things.
So no, no one held a gun to their heads and made them buy iPhones, but it's not just a binary decision on a single dimension as to whether or not you buy iPhone or Android.
"I can take you to Wal-Mart... that's a sponsored destination. But Target will require a $2.00 fee, or you'll have to self-drive. Note: Your insurance rate will also increase."
>By that logic costco has no competitors whatsoever that sell kirkland signature products.
Can you explain how you came to that conclusion and what 'that logic' is?
Because the parent poster was applying arbitrary restriction on it (apps, but only ios) to make a point. I replied with the equivalent example for costco (grocery store products, but only kirkland signature).
The iOS state has 65% of users and 75% of App spending and it has one Store.
You can perfectly have your own retail brand when there are plenty of competition within the market. If you argue there is still another state with diverse choices, you are either hit with a Duopoly argument, or a monopolistic power argument where iOS have too much power within market economy.
People have been using these over simplify analogy with Xbox and Retail and there are not even the same.
Either way, there should be no denying there is something wrong with the way things are currently being handled.
65% may be the shares in devices sold in Q4 2020, in the US.
From what I’ve gathered, actual devices market share, in the US, is closer to (and less than) 50%.
Doesn’t invalidate your points though.
iOS has 60% of the market in the US[1].
[1] https://www.pcmag.com/news/ios-more-popular-in-japan-and-us-...
Here, 50% [1] There, 59% [2]
Intriguing that there isn’t any reliable statistics on the topic
[1] https://www.emarketer.com/content/iphones-gaining-us-market-...
[2] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-sta...
But that’s just me, and it probably speaks volumes about some of my flaws.
The pretty well-known examples of these sorts of restrictions are things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. Antitrust law is on there too, and in my opinion it should be expanded to cover some of the stuff we're talking about here. You seem to not agree, and that's fine. But personally I think we should be doing more to protect customers, even from things they may not realize are hurting them. Right now the only serious choices for a smartphone are iPhone or Android, and while they both have a lot of good things going for them, they also both have significant negatives. I don't want the future to be a techno-dystopia where there is only one "choice", and the manufacturer dictates how we use our devices. It really feels like that's where things are going, though, unless we start requiring platforms be more open. Customers won't demand it, because most of them don't understand the issues around it, so it's likely the only solution is legislation.
It's a pretty fantastic deal if you can get it and I don't think if regulations on manipulation of the app market is tightened up it would be an undue burden.
You seem to be imagining that a trillion dollar business is just a really big version of a small business so you imagine storming off in a fit of pique but it's really not a bigger version it's a different animal because it's wealth gives it so much power it is in need of greater restraint internal or external and it's massive payroll and base gives it greater obligation to it's customers and staff.
Anyone who would do such a thing would just find themselves looking for a new job after the stockholders fired them.
You are extrapolating. Of course I’m aware shareholders would just fire me.
However, adding tens of caveats to what was merely a statement of my visceral and spontaneous reaction to being put in such a situation was, and is, kind of moot.
It's not just "a platform" Apple's Market cap is 10% of the US GDP. What they do has real consequences for the world.
If you are in such a position, you can sell it for billions of dollars.
However, it can happen with both investors or managers instead. Or clients, when you’re a freelancer.
And I thought of the selling option, but it would just mean that someone else would bend what you built to that third party’s will.
It’s vain, and probably egotistical, I know.
/s