So for example, if you had a dominant market position for a particular category of phone operating systems, and you wanted to advance your interest in the market for app distribution...
Except the App Store was added to the iPhone before it reached its current level of ubiquity.
I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value - the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store.
fwiw I completely agree, but isn't this the inverse of the argument people make for why Apple deserves 30% of app revenue? Do app devs deserve a huge chunk of iPhone revenue since they contributed to its success?
Why should that matter?
> I believe Apple views the App Store as a feature of the iPhone that contributes to its value
If people prefer to install apps from Apple's store they're free to do so. That doesn't require them to prohibit other stores -- let the customer choose.
> the huge variety of apps available definitely contributed to the iPhone’s success; see the Windows phone for an example of a phone without a good App Store.
You're referring to the platform's selection of available apps. That is something different than the method of distributing them or whether it has competitors.
Paying off gamedevs would be analogous to paying off dough-makers (or doughnut bakers?) to only supply your store, and not your competitor, which would be super illegal. AMD sued Intel for very similar activity, and won.
Epic as a game store is very much not a monopoly by any means. Game consoles are certainly an argument, but thus far none are dominant over the other. It would mostly be a problem if a new console jumped in and Sony/Microsoft teamed up to hardball it out.
Isn't the resolution the same in each case? If you have an iPhone and you want to install an app from another store, you have to buy another phone. It's the same with these deals with Android, just overt.
Apple prevents that I bring an outside donut from competitor's, while Android allows it. That is basically the difference.
I only know of the concept of Corkage, where you pay the restaurant a fee if you bring your own wine to drink:
https://www.webstaurantstore.com/blog/2626/corkage-fee-guide...
> A corkage fee is the price charged to guests who choose to bring their own bottle of wine to a restaurant. Corkage fees usually exist at restaurants that already serve wine. The practice of allowing guests to bring their own wine is considered a courtesy to guests. … The average corkage fee ranges from $10 to $40 per bottle but may be as high as $100 or more.
Or you know, they don't care as long you're a paid customer.
BTW, I didn't say anything about restaurants. Coffee shop in general have much more of a lax atmosphere, so they generally don't care too much.
Some do, some don't. In my experience, Starbucks couldn't care less as long as you buy a coffee (and even then couldn't care less. maybe a restaurant would care more but it's on bar logic: they don't mind lending seats until paying customers come in). Smaller shops tend to be more strict about doing that kind of thing.
Seems to me the analogy holds.
What percentage of people do you suppose carry two different phones in their pockets? Is this something you reasonably expect the majority of people to do?
> Apple preventing other app stores on iOS is more like Starbucks preventing Peet's from coming into its stores to sell its coffee.
Just look at your own words. Preventing other stores is like preventing competitors from selling in your store?
Preventing other stores is preventing other stores. You can put whatever you want in your store, they put what they want in theirs, and the customer gets to choose where to get their app.
Preventing the customer from using the other store is the anti-competitive thing being objected to. It doesn't need an analogy, that's literally what it is.
It is anti-competitive to prevent competing stores. How you do it is irrelevant.
and their OS. I don't care if they allow whatever on their store. I would like the option to go to other stores or even sideload my own apps without the store intervention. That's right now impossible without a) hacking the device or b) being a dev working on an app.
So IOS may one day not be considered a starbucks, but a park. And you can't hog a park to yourself
People that are not employees of the company that holds dominant market position.
They all have closed application ecosystems and don’t allow third party stores.
they can, but they don't. Part of their argument seems to be that mobile is now a general purpose computer like Windows so it should open up. The big 3 consoles don't try to pretend that you can make host much more than games and movies on their devices, and the consoles operate on much thinner margins than the mobile market.
You can say it's cynically about money and that Google/Apple are the biggest targets. You can optimistically say it's that Epic knows consoles do more to deserve their 30% and aren't just gatekeepers (there is a LOT more support for AAA devs from the big 3 consoles than anything Google/Apple offers. Including direct help in porting if you strike deals).
We're seeing more handheld PC's, but the days of the Vita or 3DS as dedicated handheld consoles seem to be past us. There's a non-zero chance PC far in the future does the same to regular consoles too.
It's one thing to say "this is how the law should be, so that Apple should have to open their platform"; it's quite another to say "as the law is right now, Apple should have to open their platform."
If the courts get it wrong then you have to go to Congress, sure. But then you're in the same place -- convince Congress that it's bad.
Either way we're having a debate about whether it should be allowed. And the answer is no -- this business model is anti-competitive, for any business, and if existing interpretations of the anti-trust laws don't currently prohibit it, they should.
And still Apple is the one being sued.
The way that anti-trust law works is that if you have more market power, like Apple clearly does, then you are even more subject to the law and required to do certain things.
But also, if you disagree, then feel free to sue those other groups.