Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

>Users who value freedom, competition, and efficiencies of markets can also enjoy those things, but they currently are prevented because Apple will pull no stops to protect their App Store moneyhose.

The counter is that these users do have a choice. They can buy an Android.

Allowing different stores might end up removing choice for the end user who like Apple's current approach as the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us. This change is reducing Apple's power, but that power isn't all going to the end user. It is empowering Meta, Google, Amazon, and other big tech companies who are seemingly even less likely to act in the end user's best interest than Apple.

View on HN

Google is part of the same duopoly that leverages their dominance in the mobile OS and hardware markets in order to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.

The majority of the mobile OS market in the US is iOS, the rest is Android. Apple is responsible for 2x mobile app revenue than Google, but Apple and Google both make up more than 99% of all mobile app sales.

When talking about monopolies, the working definition from the FTC are firms that have significant and durable market power such that they can set prices and exclude competitors[1]. That describes the Apple and Google duopoly accurately. Such firms and their anticompetitive tactics are outlawed by antitrust legislation in the US.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

It’s not like many others haven’t tried. Microsoft, Palm, maybe they can try again.

But for whatever reason that I can’t quite explain (especially on android, on iOS I think iMessage locks people in. Maybe on Android it’s the Google suite?), others haven’t made a dent.

How is Apple's app store specifically anti-competitive with respect to other mobile OSs and devices?

I can, to some degree, understand people's gripe with Apple for DRM behaviors on hardware you own. But I don't see why forcing Apple to host multiple app stores will provide more user-choice in the mobile OS space.

It might make Apple's platform more compelling for some users. But it will do the opposite for other users and still doesn't solve the duopoly problem you're citing.

I also don't see what the FTC's definition of a monopoly brings to the discussion other than to boogey-man the big bad corporations.

It sounds like your issue is with the lack of OS choice in the mobile market. Forcing Apple to allow other app stores does nothing to solve this problem.

Microsoft went to court and lost to the FTC for less. Microsoft leveraged their dominance in the PC OS market to dominate the browser market, as well. The FTC successfully upheld antitrust legislation against Microsoft in that instance.

Apple and Google are doing the same with their dominance in the mobile OS market to dominate the mobile app distribution and mobile app payments markets.

If you don't see the significance of literal illegal anticompetitive business practices, I don't know what to tell you.

I would urge you to specifically read the complaint and identify which provisions would be applicable to Apple's ecosystem.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp

Has Apple compelled asked companies that are using Android to dump Android and switch to iOS (for some money)? (P.17)

How about having 3rd party iPhone manufacturers be restricted to using iOS as a condition for licensing and distributing iOS? (P.18 - note, if you're making Android and requiring all of the 3rd party manufactures that use it to also have Google Play... that's ok)

Has Apple entered into exclusive contracts with all the top ISPs to brand their web pages to work with Safari but not Chrome? (P.28 - note, if you are making Chrome and make a site not work with... say Firefox, that's ok)

So yes, Microsoft and the DOJ went to court. But the thing was about Microsoft forcing its terms on other companies that excluded it's competitors. Is Apple going to other companies and enforcing terms that are excluding Android?

Have you even read the Microsoft case? It's not even close to the same thing [0]. Apple hasn't forced it's terms on other companies in nearly the same way. Apple has instead built a hardware and software platform that has a lot of users and is gatekeeping their OS, hardware, and user-base.

There are arguments for side-loading on Apple, but that doesn't have anything to do with breaking up the iOS-Android mobile OS duopoly, which seems to be the thing you're really mad about.

Android allows side-loading. Making iOS more like Android doesn't strike me as "increasing consumer choice".

>illegal anticompetitive business practices

None of what Apple has done is apparently illegal. In fact, this is a _new_ law that Apple is complying with.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp

> the large developers with power like Meta will likely force the different stores on us

I don't think so- they'll try, they might build their own stores, but I doubt they can force the customers to switch.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30808926

I'm certainly not as confident as you are. Why wouldn't essentially every large app with even a moderate amount of lock-in do this? I would be extremely surprised if any large social networks or online games wouldn't immediately do this.

They would try, but they would likely fail because, as I mentioned above- do you have any responses to the points I bring up? To enumerate some of them-

1. Consumers are already sick and tired of having to do account management already and having to deal with Meta or Google forcing them to do more of that will lead to backlash.

2. I'm unconvinced that Meta and Google have the product capability wherewithal to force a great migration, judging by their attempts at new products in recent years, let alone what basically amounts to a new platform. The Facebook Home launcher went nowhere and I'm pretty sure Android Instant Apps didn't either. They don't really fare very well outside of their home turf, and iOS is definitely not theirs.

3. Regulators, particularly in the EU, would not sit idly by while Big Tech lures customers to shady third party app stores; if anything, these stores would present opportunities for greater scrutiny and more crackdowns.

4. I'm not even sure if Meta can get away with pulling a crucial app such as WhatsApp away from the main App Store. That seems like monopolistic behavior, and disruptive to the lives of tens of millions of people who use it for basic communications. The EU would probably mandate them host it on their third party app store AND on the official App Store.

5. I do have a carve out exception for games, because publishers regularly engage in extractive abusive behavior and gamers just take it or pirate:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30204012

I do think the possibility of a Bytedance app store/sideloaded .ipa is a wildcard, as TikTok seems to be the current killer app on mobile.

It would definitely depend on how difficult it was to sideload and whether there were negative side effects (like Apple disabling certain features if you enable sideloading). Your older comment seems to imply that it would be quite difficult, and other than that I don't see much of an argument for why it wouldn't happen overnight.

My main point is that it's not about actually creating an app store ecosystem to compete with Apple's. I agree that that would be difficult (although existing ecosystems like Steam would almost certainly go for it, as you seem to concede). My main point is that they would just immediately make you sideload to use Facebook, Fortnite, etc.

Steam might go for it, but I think Epic would be the big one, mostly because I don't believe Valve has any mobile games that would entice users to join their app store. Well, I guess being able to buy Steam games without going through the App Store cut would be a factor, but then it would just be a standalone storefront app for purchasing PC games, not really a shady app store with questionable binaries full of user tracking.

> My main point is that they would just immediately make you sideload to use Facebook

What about my points about the regulators? Meta does not exist within a vacuum. They are under as much scrutiny, probably more, than Apple. Sideloaded binaries will end up combed through by regulators, government watchdogs, security firms, Brian Krebs, etc., to check for Meta malfeasance. Plus, the point about forced migrations being potentially monopolistic behavior.

And again, they can try to make users sideload, but a not-insignificant minority would not comply. Forcing them to jump through new hoops while presenting no new benefits would not be a good user experience. Plenty would take to social media to complain. Many would read up about Meta's dastardly data policies. It would be a PR nightmare. The mea culpas and reversals would come quicker than you can say "Senate hearing."

This is also all overlooking the fact that Meta as a company is in a pivotal business situation right now- DAU was falling a few quarters ago, they just spent a ton of money on the metaverse with no results other than avatar legs to show for it, and so on. Trying to do something as disruptive as forcing their customers to get their apps from a new source could be highly detrimental to them.

Facebook has spent an immense amount of effort on being installed-by-default on most platforms. They also have massive user retention problems right now, with competiting platforms taking app a lot of market share from basically all of their owned platforms, not to mention their image issues. I'm willing to bet that going for a scarcity tactic with their own appstore would be major mistake.

Not to mention that it's not much use for most social media platforms, assuming this doesn't allow them to bypass privacy restrictions. The only apps eho would immediately benefit from such a move would be the ones handling payments.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com