I am no lawyer, but this sounds like an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen. Apple, IMO, should not be allowed to monopolize their platform in this way.
Should Disney have control over what stores are on Disney Main St.?
iPhones are not the only choice, so if you don't like how they work, you can choose not to buy them (because they have significant competition).
The reason there are laws that limit monopoly behavior is because you wouldn't have that choice and it is considered a free-market failure that we want regulated.
Now maybe in some cases WalMart does demand exclusive right to sell something. But imagine they did it for EVERY. FUCKING. PRODUCT. I think people would get pretty pissed off. And rightfully so.
Apple can set rules for apps in their app store, just like Walmart can control the stock on their shelves. Walmart doesn't carry what you want? Go to Target. Apple doesn't allow an app you want? Go to Android.
But does that hold true even when the costs of switching is enormously high?
With Target/WalMart you don't have to re-buy a $650 phone to switch. You don't need to (maybe) switch carriers depending on needs or offers with all the hassle and fees that might entail.
You might have to re-learn an entirely new OS. How much time does that cost someone in lost productivity or just time in life?
Amazon.com and the App Store both seek to be places where you can find "everything" (in the context of their respective domains, of course). The difference, however, is that Apple's trying to redefine "everything" to mean "everything that doesn't compete with Apple", whereas Amazon has no problem selling things which compete against itself.
(not trying to troll you -- but I think you'd agree that they do, so it's not the freedom of the Internet. I do agree that there is a difference -- but I am having a hard time justifying it for myself)
If you must buy appliances from the KB Home App Store, is it ok to prohibit mentioning that an oven fits great in a Toll Brothers home as well?
Maybe it's because people relate better to the developers who are losing money, than the company who is controlling it. My bet is someone with a basic understanding of business and marketing would side with Apple, and everyone else would side with the little guy, even if the little guy isn't in the right.
Antitrust "monopolies" aren't monopolies in the sense of no other players, they are monopolies in the sense of practical lack of competitive pressure displayed through market power (also known as pricing power) which is the ability, within some -- potentially narrow -- range to raise prices without losing sales to competitors (hence "pricing power", but market power could perhaps also be demonstrated by being able to make other adverse changes without driving sales from the party with market power to competitors.)
In a sense, this does match the "no competition" definition, in that having market power indicates that while there may be other players -- or even bigger players -- in a named market, they aren't in a practical sesne actually acting as competitors in the sense of economic theory, because the goods are revealed by market behavior not to be substitutes.
Whether it's actually illegal is a question for a lawyer though.
http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/10/european-commission-join...
I agree that they're unlikely to be spanked under antitrust rules--unless they end up dominating the smart watch market, in which case they'll be very vulnerable, but they're not there yet. But even if they don't fall under those rules, they're definitely under scrutiny.
Plus, Apple is definitely heading where Microsoft was: perceived as big enough to be the public's favorite piñata. That may ultimately be a bigger problem for them than any business realities.
> Specifically, -> your app <- and app description declare support for thePebble Smartwatch.
Are you really saying you would allow it to run just so that you can 'help the consumer'?
Businesses are in competition... that's how the market works.
Here's a better analogy:
Amazon sells set-top boxes. Apple TVs, Rokus, the works. They also sell HDMI sticks, like Chromecasts.
All of a sudden, they come out with a product called the "Fire TV". It integrates with Prime, and in comes in either stick or box form, depending on your preference.
All is well in the world.
But then, all of a sudden, Apple and Netflix and Google find that their Amazon product pages for Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast (respectively) aren't published anymore. When they ask Amazon about it, Amazon stubbornly replies with some rule in their ToS about mentioning competing products.
Is Amazon's behavior in this scenario ethical? Is it worthy of brushing off as "that's how the market works"?
This differs from your analogy by the order of events. In your analogy, your movie theater existed before the attempt to buy an ad for a competitor.
In the case of my analogy (and, indeed, in the case of what Apple's doing now), it would instead be akin to you running a TV station that runs ads for a theater, you opening up a theater of your own, and you then banning the ads of the other theater while running your own ads on the TV station you own.
Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic.
Overall, I'm failing to see your point. Not to be a broken record, but these are competing businesses. It doesn't really matter if you s/Apple/Amazon|Google/g and s/Pebble/Netflix|Roku/g, all you're really arguing is that a company doesn't have a right to control a marketplace that they OWN.
I get that choice is great for the consumer, and I totally agree. It's absolutely best to have the ability to choose the devices you want, have them interconnect, and to be able to run the software that you want on them. I also think there should be no war or crime, and that the 1%'s money should be spread out evenly over the population. I (shockingly) think that no one should treat ANYONE unfairly. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
As long as we allow competition between businesses, they are going to, well, compete. Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.
For now.
A better analogy would be if Amazon suddenly refused to stock new Apple TVs and Rokus and Chromecasts in its warehouses and only stocked Fire TV devices, if we want to get all semantic about it.
> This whole uproar is about a single developer who had his app denied
There are multiple apps affected per the linked discussion.
> by a specific reviewer at Apple
No, by multiple reviewers on multiple occasions. Even appealing the decision results in the same response ("don't reference Pebble in your metadata").
> for a basic breach of their terms and conditions for putting Apps on the App Store
That's only being enforced for Pebble-related apps now that the Apple Watch has been released.
> The general consensus seems to be that a simple rewording (maybe not even having to remove the word 'Pebble') is all that he needs.
Apple's response (when SeaNav tried to appeal) was specifically to remove the word "Pebble". It's not a wording issue; it's an issue with that specific word existing in the metadata.
> Also, a theater buying a TV/Radio station and not allowing competing theaters to run ads is perfectly acceptable and realistic.
That's not what the more accurate scenario describes; you're still getting this backwards. It's the TV/Radio station buying/building a competing theater and preventing new ads from existing theaters that the corrected scenario describes.
> Just because one gets very large and popular doesn't suddenly mean the rules have to change for it.
Yes they do, per U.S. and European (at the very least; probably others are included) antitrust laws. Using one's market position to conspire to monopolize runs afoul of them.
And even if it weren't strictly illegal per se, it sure as hell doesn't mean that we should just lay back and let Apple do what it wants. What's the harm in calling them out on their dickery? A free market relies on an informed consumer base; such call-outs - at the very least - might put market forces in the consumers' favor for once.
I'm sorry, but I have to *sigh at that one. They don't have a monopoly on anything but THEIR OWN marketplace.
Anyway, have fun with your opinions man. I'm sure you're a bit hit at parties.
Apple has obviously gone to great lengths to make their walled garden a reliable and safe place for consumers who have chosen to buy their products. If you talked to Tim Cook or Jony Ive, I bet they would make a case that the best thing for consumers is to be entirely invested in the Apple ecosystem. After all, it DOES give you the most consistent experience.
So if you look at it from that perspective, who's right is it to go into a company and say, "No, that's not what's best for the consumer!" Obviously people like what they are getting, otherwise they would be defecting to Android in droves. Contrary to what some people are saying here, they DO have a choice.
Thinking through it logically, I just can't see any scenario where a company, no matter how large, should be forced to push a competitor's products.
The myriad of comments about how Apple "isn't really a monopoly" assume that horizontal monopolies are the only "real" monopolies, but vertical ones are just as dangerous and just as harmful in just as many situations.
may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
> Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
It's anticompetitive behaviour that suddenly becomes relevant if you're a monopoly.
Why not? They are influencing one market because of their control of another unrelated market.
Can you point where it is stated or the related point in the policy? Thanks
https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...