

How is Apple's pay to provide content model legal? - johndlafayette

Can someone better explain how Apple's app store model is legal/what led to this situation? When Microsoft first invented the Windows OS, did they get to charge 30% to everyone that built a software program that worked on Windows? (for all I know they did/do.. I'm just wondering how this ended up the way things are).<p>Apple has a monopoly over any content provider that is marketing to someone that uses an Apple device. You would think that they'd have to allow other marketplaces (app stores) to exist on their devices, same as Windows had to allow other web browers, accounting programs, etc.<p>Thanks for any info
Dan
======
epo
I presume you are talking about the iPhone app store.

Apple did it because they can. For their money vendors get development tools,
marketing and distribution assistance plus, of course, access to the
marketplace.

Its the same with supermarkets or big stores. Want them to sell your stuff? By
and large you have to do it on their terms.

~~~
johndlafayette
If the state I lived in only had one supermarket chain, and the only way I
could shop somewhere else was if I moved to another state, that supermarket
chain would be called a monopoly, yes? Just because I can move to another
state doesn't mean that the sole supermarket chain in my current state isn't a
monopoly.

~~~
bilbo0s
You don't need to move to another state, just use another phone. You can't
argue that the Honda Civic alternator won't work on your Mercedes, and the
part is only made by Mercedes. When you bought the Benz, they locked you in.
You can go somewhere else to get service. But guess what, that mechanic will
have to purchase the part from the Mercedes supplier. That is true lock in.
Same with servicing the on board computer software. You want the updates?
Sorry, only available through Mercedes and Mercedes suppliers. Oh sure you can
go to Joe Bobs Auto Service, but then HE will have to order from Mercedes or a
Mercedes supplier.

OP was right, this model has been around a while.

~~~
johndlafayette
I'm not arguing that a Honda Civic alternator won't work in my Mercedes and
that's a bad thing. That's like saying I'm upset that apps built for the
Google OS don't work for an Apple OS. I'm wondering why I can't buy an
'aftermarket' part for my Mercedes without Mercedes taking a cut.

Last time I checked, I could buy a new sound system for my car without paying
the original manufacturer. Buy new tires for my car without paying the
original manufacturer. I can buy a new engine that's not built by Mercedes as
long as it fits in the engine compartment, can't I?

Or am I wrong and Mercedes does get a cut of my new tires, even if they aren't
tires that Mercedes builds itself?

~~~
johndlafayette
Also, if I do buy a new engine that needs to specially fit into my awesome
Mercedes, I do pay my mechanic a small fee, but the mechanic is the one that
makes it work in my Mercedes (the programmer that makes the program work on an
Apple OS). I also pay the manufacturer of the engine (the programmer that
manufactures the program).

Just to be clear, I LOVE Apple for almost everything, and have owned an Iphone
for years. Have used Apples for work and will readily admit that they're the
absolute best you can buy for design work. Also, sorry if I use incorrect
terminology at any point (I'm a business student). I'm just trying to wrap my
head around how this situation became legal.

I sincerely appreciate all of the feedback about this subject, and I hope
nobody takes offense if I argue points back. I'm simply trying to learn more
about the situation, and arguing a point and being proven wrong is the best
way I've found that I can learn more about the current issues in tech.

------
ig1
Because no-one's challenged it in court.

Historical precedents have been mixed. Games consoles have been allowed to
retain exclusivity for software but not hardware (controllers, etc.). Printers
haven't been allowed to reject third party refills.

The only way for there to be a clear judgement would be a trial.

~~~
johndlafayette
Do you know if there were any legal cases regarding these issues, or if that's
simply the way things worked out?

I'm sure I can find the cases if there were some, so please don't search for
them if you don't know them off hand.

Thanks again Dan

~~~
MasterOfMagic
<http://segaretro.org/SEGA_vs._Accolade>

SEGA only wanted licensed developers to develop for the Mega Drive, so they
required a piece of code in order for a game to boot. This piece of code
included the SEGA trademark. The thought was that if any unlicensed games
appeared, SEGA could sue for trademark violation. SEGA sued when Accolade
started producing unlicensed carts for the Mega Drive. The courts ruled
against SEGA saying that since the code was functional, not expressive, there
was no trademark violation.

------
arn
"monopoly over apple devices" doesn't equal illegal monopoly.

So, I don't think there's a legal issue at all, especially since Android
exists and is doing well.

~~~
johndlafayette
I guess I'm asking more if Microsoft was allowed to charge anyone that
built/builds a program for Windows. By your logic, they should be allowed to,
because Apple OS/Linux exist.

Now that Apple OS for desktops/laptops is more widely used and Microsoft
doesn't have complete control of the OS market, could Microsoft start charging
software makers that wanted to provide content on a Windows machine?

~~~
MasterOfMagic
They sell Visual Studio, don't they? It's not the only toolchain for Windows,
but it's likely the most popular toolchain.

It's Microsoft's OS. The reason that they got in trouble is that they unfairly
used their market position to kick competitors (Lotus, Netscape, Novell) out.
I doubt it would be illegal if they decided to charge everyone equally based
on either units shipped or royalty.

