
The App Store is a monopoly: Here's why the EU is correct to investigate Apple - waldohatesyou
https://protonmail.com/blog/apple-app-store-antitrust/
======
spullara
As a consumer, I am 100% in favor of the way run the app store. I don't want
to give random apps my credit card. I don't want to have 18 accounts to keep
track of. I don't want to have to call telephone support to cancel my account.
I don't want malware in my apps. I don't want apps to have my email if they
don't need it. I don't need another middleman for content companies license
and distribute. Everything Apple is doing is helping make a better app store
for me.

Pro-consumer behavior almost always looks like anti-publisher behavior.

~~~
wvenable
The problem isn't how they run their store -- the problem is that they are the
only store.

~~~
behnamoh
It's their product and they can do whatever they want with it. If anyone
doesn't like that, they can easily not purchase iDevices. Apple doesn't
_force_ people to buy their products.

~~~
MereInterest
It's my phone, and I can do whatever I want with it. If Apple doesn't like
that, they can easily maintain ownership by not selling the device. I don't
_force_ Apple to sell iPhones instead of leaving them in a warehouse.

Once I've bought it, it is mine. The entire idea that Apple can do whatever
they want on a device that they have already sold is ludicrous.

~~~
CubsFan1060
I'm curious, if you didn't like the way it is, why did you buy one? None of
these things are new. They've basically been the same since they came out.

You largely had a choice of two products. It sounds like one did what you
wanted, and one didn't. You bought the one that didn't and now you're unhappy
about it. I don't quite understand that.

~~~
wayneftw
It doesn’t matter why I bought one. Car manufactures can’t just do whatever
they want. They have to follow rules.

What’s wrong with people wanting Apple and Google to follow some rules?

Having a rule that all smartphones should allow sideloading would not be the
end of the world for people who like Apple’s app store. Those people would
still have the choice to us it.

~~~
albertop
No. I actually like the fact there is no sideloading. Why should I be forced
to like what you like.

------
socialdemocrat
I am a big Apple fan, but seriously, you guys are bending yourselves into
pretzels to make up excuses for Apple.

we already know what a market without a mandatory App Store looks like because
it is like that for the Mac. I still prefer buying apps through Apple’s store.
Due to safety, ease of use etc. But I am happy alternatives exist when I need
them.

They could follow a similar model for iPhone where non-Apple stores have to be
enabled specifically with a security warning.

~~~
jagged-chisel
I fear the inevitable end down that path lies people who bought an iDevice,
enabled alternative stores, were duped/hacked/otherwise-invaded, visited a
Genius only to be told Apple won’t help them, and then lawsuits against Apple
for their trouble.

~~~
wayneftw
So this must’ve happened to Google already since they allow sideloading...

I was not able to find anything.

~~~
jackewiehose
I hate the current situation where you buy a 1000$ pocket-computer and when
you want to run your own software on it they call it "sideloading" and it
might not be even possible.

~~~
xvector
Fortunately there are a ton of $1000 pocket computers on the market that let
you do precisely that.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
I applaud this. The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I
run on after buying it. Third-party appstores and app sideloading is a must.

(And do not forget third party push-notifications, iOS devices are next to
useless without them)

~~~
xvector
> The manufacturer of the device must not control what apps I run on after
> buying it.

The manufacturer of the device is within their rights to ship the
software/hardware experience they want it to have.

If you do not like it, then there is no obligation for you to buy said device.

You are not entitled to make the device manufacturer pour time and effort into
developing support for features like this. It's quite simple - if you don't
like the ecosystem, move on.

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
I actually do just that: I don't buy apple's devices, for precisely this
reason. And I happen to actually like them.

This argument you make is actually done to the death. If you don't like
Jenko's oil (ever read "The Godfather"?), you may just not buy it. It is a
monopoly, and it hurts consumers.

I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so
happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs. Good that EU and US
lawmakers are finally waking up to this abuse.

~~~
xvector
> It is a monopoly,

Apple is a minority player in the mobile device space. If you don't want to
use an Apple device no one is making you. It will not impact your daily life
in any meaningful way whatsoever.

> I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so
> happy be restricted by their shiny digital handcuffs.

I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so
happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under
the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.

~~~
echelon
> I'm actually very surprised that this freedom-loving public here on HN is so
> happy let governments force private entities to do anything they want under
> the thinly-veiled guise of antitrust.

I don't want Apple and Google taking 30% of my profit. How hard is it as a
startup to yield that much of your profit margin for such a stupid reason?

We regressed hard core since the 90s. Distribution was free. The web platform
is accessible to anyone without an account or membership fee.

Anyone used to be able to write hardware drivers and innovate to the fullest
extent with hardware, to get it to do whatever. Now you have to follow the
distributor product roadmap and sanctioned API.

Google and Apple own compute. How the fuck did we let that happen?

The government needs to push these entities aside to ensure further innovation
can continue.

~~~
moogleii
Depends on what you're comparing against. With the web, as much as I enjoyed
those days, your take seems a bit rose-tinted. Generally, finding official
binaries wasn't too bad. "This website looks official" was the bar. But that
was a crazy low bar then, and even worse today. It's essentially "the domain
looks correct and the design looks polished". For some of the more obscure
binaries, I recall downloading from the "wrong" sites a handful of times.
Rare, but it happened. When I watched my parents use a computer then, there
was no check of what was legit, because why wouldn't it be legit?

Comparing against consoles like Nintendo, Sega, and Xbox back then, it was
definitely an improvement. No NDAs, no exorbitant upfront costs for dev
hardware, no massive take by your publisher. 30% was not much compared to all
that, where it likely would have been the other way around (you get 30 [if
that], "they" get 70). Today, it does feel steep, and could use another
realignment, but "the good old days" weren't exactly that.

------
LeifCarrotson
The ability to communicate by smartphone is so ubiquitous in our society that
it has effectively become a basic need on the level of electricity, water,
natural gas, and internet access. The utility service that was land-line
telephones is becoming obsolete, and it's becoming increasingly harder to
participate in society without a smartphone and the ability to install apps on
that smartphone.

In light of that reality, the duopoly of Apple and Google are effectively
public utilities. They can no longer be considered solely as providers of
discretionary consumer goods, and should be subject to additional scrutiny and
regulation beyond that applied to ordinary commodity manufacturers.

~~~
echelon
If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then you
support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix.

If you support Apple and Google having locked down authoritative control over
the code run on their devices, then you support the Great Firewall.

The only choice of a free and open society, and one mindful of the great
benefit of open source and open platforms, is to remove these companies from
executive control of mobile platforms. They must become free and open, just
like the web.

They're sucking all of the air out of the room. It kills freedom, diversity,
and progress. It's rent-seeking.

~~~
scarface74
_If you support Apple and Google in their claims to 30% of the profit, then
you support Comcast charging an additional fee for Netflix._

And guess what? I don’t have to use Comcast.

~~~
dcbadacd
> And guess what? I don’t have to use Comcast.

Pretending everyone has that choice not to.

~~~
scarface74
They definitely don’t have to buy Netflix through Comcast.

~~~
29083011397778
I'm legitimately curious what your solution is to sign up for Netflix if you
can't use your ISP (Comcast, likely a monopoly with no alternatives).

I can't imagine calling up Netflix and attempting to sign up via telephone is
feasible, nor is explaining to the average consumer the price is different
because they're on wifi instead of data (and only their wifi, or select
locations that use Comcast).

~~~
scarface74
Someone said that Comcast charges more if you buy Netflix through them.
Comcast does offer Netflix as an add on. You don’t have to buy Netflix as an
add on through Comcast.

------
skuthus
Apple doesn't just own the only app store on their platform: They also prevent
apps that don't meet their personal moral standards on the store, arbitrarily.
As a result, Instagram, tumblr, and many other sites are forced to censor and
curtail content on their platforms because of apples perpetual moral
consternation.

Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it without
those companies being able to represent themselves independently, through
another app store.

~~~
oscargrouch
> Apple should be able to do this - but they shouldn't be able to do it
> without those companies being able to represent themselves independently,
> through another app store.

I dont think they should. They should only do enough to comply with the law.
eg. child pornography

Each human being has its own moral standards and should be allowed to choose
and not let others choose for them, unless as stated before, its considered
illegal.

------
Andrew_nenakhov
I'll put it on the first level , because most Apple defenders say exactly same
thing: "Why should Apple who created the iPhone sell it like it prefers to? If
you don't like it buy another phone".

In fact, there was a business in US that did just that. Hollywood's Studio
System. Movie studios were vertically integrated with theater chains, and you
could only see Paramount or MGM movies in the theaters that that owned. And
you know what? Customers were really unhappy, because studios made all kinds
of bad tricks like forcing to buy a week pass to see just one movie. Of
course, you could refuse to watch other 15 crap movies that were bundled with
High Noon, or, like Apple defenders here say, go watch some other movie.

I imagined some arguments that some HN commenters could make:

 _" It's not a monopoly if you can watch other movies in other theaters"

"Paramount movie chain is just 15% of total number of theaters"

"They made this movie and they should decide how you are allowed to see it"_

It all ended with an court decision [1] that ended this monopoly abuse.

[1]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_P...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures,_Inc).

------
DenisM
The local cinema has an exclusive right on selling popcorn within its own
walls. Far from being the only game in town, this cinema represents only 25%
of the market and thus does not qualify for the Sherman Act definition of
"monopoly". Punters, however, believe that _once they enter the establishment_
they are now in the clutches of the monopoly, and so demand competing popcorn
stands and reject the suggestion of walking over to the competing theater.

Sorry folks, that's not how Sherman Act works. So long as there are enough
movie theaters in town it's not a "monopoly", and a non-existent monopoly
cannot be abused.

The US congress could, of course, rewrite the law (as they did to pass the
Sherman Act in the first place), but until such day Apple is not a monopoly in
the US.

~~~
habitue
This is not really an apt comparison because the commitment to a movie theater
is pretty minimal. If you spend $1000 on a phone, you're stuck there for a
while. Most of these issues don't become immediately obvious right when you
buy the phone either, it's things that might take you a few years to realize
are happening (if ever).

Additionally, the network/ecosystem effects might make it such that you are
really disincentivized to switch.

\- For a lot of people, the idea that they would show up as a "green bubble"
means they will never consider moving off of Apple \- If you've purchased a
lot of apps that you will now lose, you're not going to just move off of Apple

If you don't like a movie theater chain, you just go to another one, or don't
go to the movies. Not having a phone isn't a realistic option for most people,
and neither is switching (this applies in the Google -> Apple direction as
well).

People are very narrowly focused on whether Apple (or Google) are monopolies,
and the fact is that you can have very imperfect competition[1] in a market
that can seriously harm consumers, without anyone being a monopoly.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperfect_competition)

~~~
avianlyric
Would a better comparison be a cruise ship? You pay thousands to board, and
you literally can’t leave at will.

While you’re aboard you can only purchase food, drink and entertainment from
the cruise company. I don’t think a cruise ship would ever allow competing
companies to provide those services.

I’m personally a little mixed on the App Store. I don’t a have fundamental
issue with the App Store model, and as an Apple customer I personally see it’s
limitations as an advantage.

However I do agree that Apple using its App Store to harm competitors in other
industries, like Spotify and Netflix, as very harmful. Although I don’t know
how fix that without fundamentally changing the App Store, or banning Apple
from competing with App Store services like Spotify and Netflix.

~~~
scarface74
How is Spotify and especially Netflix being harmed? If I search for a movie on
either my iPhone, iPad, or AppleTV and the movie is available on Netflix, I’m
told that I can watch it for free instead of being guided toward Apple’s movie
store.

Spotify whined for years that they couldn’t stream music to the Apple Watch or
download music to the Watch. Apple allowed third party integration over a year
ago. Pandora added the feature - Spotify didn’t.

Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut.

~~~
avianlyric
> Spotify also doesn’t allow in app purchases so Apple doesn’t get a cut.

This is how Spotify and Netflix are harmed. They have to pick between funding
their competitor, or not providing simple signups and subscriptions on one of
the worlds largest computing platforms.

This directly harms either their revenue stream or cost-of-acquisition. Both
to the advantage of one of one of their largest competitors who has
artificially introduced this barrier.

~~~
scarface74
So can we also regulate Spotify for taking a much larger cut from artists?
Spotify has a much larger share in streaming music than Apple has in phones.

Also. I can’t sign up for a Netflix subscription on my Roku either.

~~~
avianlyric
Spotify isn’t using their market dominance in another industry to squeeze
either artists or competitors.

Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to
artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this).

If Spotify started pushing artist contracts that prevented artists from
getting a better deal else where, then they should be regulated. But they
don’t, and there’s plenty of artists that don’t sell on Spotify because they
don’t like the deal they offer.

~~~
scarface74
Spotify isn’t using their market dominance in streaming to give artist a
pittance?

 _Nothing is stopping another streaming service from offering a bigger cut to
artists (indeed Tide purports to do exactly this)._

A bigger cut of a tiny pie? In the same vein nothing is stopping app
developers from ignoring iOS or users from buying iPhones, using Google,
FaceBook, or Amazon.

~~~
avianlyric
> Spotify isn’t using their market dominance in streaming to give artist a
> pittance?

What evidence do you have back this up? There’s every suggestion that Spotify
are struggling to defend themselves against artists who demand bigger
payments.

Additionally there’s every suggestion that Apple Music now have a larger
portion of the market than Spotify, and if it hasn’t happened yet, it will
soon.

All of that is ignoring other competitors like Google Music (or YouTube,
wherever they’re calling it today) and Amazon Music.

Simply put, your assertion fails on multiple fronts.

~~~
scarface74
_There’s every suggestion that Spotify are struggling to defend themselves
against artists who demand bigger payments._

So you’re okay with Spotify “defending themselves” against artist who want
more of a cut?

It takes 180,000 plays to make minimum wage.

[https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-the-pay-rate-
fo...](https://help.songtrust.com/knowledge/what-is-the-pay-rate-for-spotify-
streams)

Spotify also takes a 30% cut.

Artist are also complaining about Spotify’s payout.

[https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-
statistics/](https://www.businessofapps.com/data/spotify-statistics/)

 _It has drawn criticism from recording artists, who complain that it pays too
little. Claims to democratize the music industry_

Maybe Spotify needs to remember that whole “those in glass houses”.

Actually Apple Music pays artists _more_ per stream than Spotify.

~~~
avianlyric
> So you’re okay with Spotify “defending themselves” against artist who want
> more of a cut?

Yes, there’s no god given right to be paid for your art. Just because I put
some tones together and throw it on the Internet doesn’t mean I deserve to
paid significant amounts of money. Or indeed any money at all.

> Actually Apple Music pays artists more per stream than Spotify.

That only proves my point, competition is driving up payments to artists, the
system works. Not only that but Apple Music may soon be the dominant streaming
platform, and if they can do that would resorting to anti-competitive
behaviour then is show that artists can make a living, and consumers can
continue paying ~$7/month for music.

~~~
scarface74
_Yes, there’s no god given right to be paid for your art. Just because I put
some tones together and throw it on the Internet doesn’t mean I deserve to
paid significant amounts of money. Or indeed any money at all._

But there is a God given right for software developers to get more than 70%?

 _Not only that but Apple Music may soon be the dominant streaming platform,
and if they can do that would resorting to anti-competitive behaviour then is
show that artists can make a living, and consumers can continue paying ~$7
/month for music._

How do you propose that Apple becomes more dominant than Spotify worldwide
when Apple only has a 15% market share? Are people really signing up for Apple
Music on Android or are the few Android users who use Apple Music doing so
only as part of a Family Plan where the other member of the household is an
iOS user?

 _That only proves my point, competition is driving up payments to artists,
the system works._

It’s only “working” because Apple, Amazon, and Google don’t need for music
streaming to be profitable - unlike Spotify. They can operate at break even.
Artists aren’t choosing one over the other.

~~~
avianlyric
> But there is a God given right for software developers to get more than 70%?

No, but the market clearly values developer time significantly more than
artist time.

If you wanna have a debate about the relative worth of people professions to
society vs their pay. Then talking about the difference between a sports
persons pay and doctors pay tends to make for a better argument.

> How do you propose that Apple becomes more dominant than Spotify worldwide
> when Apple only has a 15% market share? Are people really signing up for
> Apple Music on Android or are the few Android users who use Apple Music
> doing so only as part of a Family Plan where the other member of the
> household is an iOS user?

Apple own almost 20% of the streaming market to Spotify’s 35% and show no
signs of slowing down. Apples hardware market clearly hasn’t been a limitation
so far. But again that isn’t a surprise when you consider that core markets
for streaming are mostly western. And Apple have very high HW market share
there, such as almost 50% of the US mobile market.

> It’s only “working” because Apple, Amazon, and Google don’t need for music
> streaming to be profitable - unlike Spotify. They can operate at break even.
> Artists aren’t choosing one over the other.

That just shows that Spotify’s cut isn’t unreasonable, they’re barely making a
profit.

Ultimately artists choose to make art, they aren’t forced into. They, like any
small business owner, takes a gamble. They trade a stable income for the
opportunity to do some they love, and do something that has unbounded upside.
If they strike a cord with popular society then they stand to make millions,
an opportunity that a software developer earning a salary doesn’t have.

If they don’t like that deal, they get a salaried or wage job like the rest of
us.

I started my own business for the reasons above, it didn’t pan out, and now I
have a salaried job. But you don’t see me gripping about how someone else
should have paid me more to run my business.

Simple fact of the matter is that society just doesn’t value artists that
much. Neither Spotify or Apple is gonna change that.

~~~
scarface74
_Ultimately artists choose to make art, they aren’t forced into. They, like
any small business owner, takes a gamble._

You could say the same about app makers. In fact, I am sure that I made more
as “mobile developer” in 2008 working for a company that developed Windows CE
apps for field services than most indy app makers make in 2020.

~~~
avianlyric
Yes you can. It what happens when the barrier to entry for an industry
collapses, costs of goods also collapses.

But the positive impact of the pie growing, more people being employed, and
cheaper goods is hard to argue with.

------
skuthus
If you purchase the hardware for the product, no company should be able to
stop you from installing whatever you like on the product.

~~~
gramakri
Yeah, I very much side by this view. It's not coming from a monopoly
standpoint but from a ownership standpoint. I bought something, so artificial
barriers to installing/tinkering with it must be removed.

~~~
627467
All barriers in this case can only be artificial. Think of the court case
where FBI tried to make Apple develop software to their specs: it's hard to
justify this order even though it seemed like it had legal standing.

Apple doesn't have to develop what you want them to develop. But it could be
in their interest to avoid being labeled as an abusive monopolistic power. In
won't make them any less abusive or monopolistic, but it knocks out some
detractors.

------
627467
It's funny to see tribal reactions to these news.

Apple and other large tech companies have obviously arrived at a dominant
position that would trigger these sort of investigations. You could say it's
an attack on their success, and it is ironic that: success obviously has to do
with it.

What apple and other tech companies have are not natural monopolies so it's
not always easy for everyone to understand why anyone could claim they wield
monopolistic powers.

But the point of these "platform businesses" is and has always been about
gaining quasi-monopolistic strength so you can extract value from the margins
of everyone involved in the platform ecosystem.

Is a monopoly illegal or necessarily undesirable to society? It depends on how
society sees and regulates it. Depends on what society interprets as a NET win
or net loss to itself.

And I can definitely think of several aspects of this state of affairs
(handful of platforms sitting at nodes of large chunk of digital economy) that
present as triggers for society to question the value of the ongoing
monopolistic powers of these companies.

But if anything is to be taken from Google's case with EU, Apple will just pay
a headline-grabbing fine and continue doing whatever they are doing.

------
kennydude
Some of the arguments here reminds me of "Unauthorized Bread"
([https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-
bread-a-...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-
future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/)) where, take a fridge.
Why would any fridge be allowed to not accept certain brands of milk? But, it
is the manufacturer's product and right to do so right?

~~~
threeseed
You mean like how I can only play Sony approved games on a Playstation,
install Tesla approved apps on a Tesla, watch TV shows that a cable company
has approved etc. The standard for most products that have addons since the
beginning of time.

Forcing companies to build an open ecosystem around every feature is a pretty
unprecedented and unworkable concept.

------
moralsupply
The article states that Apple is extorting users. Is Apple forcing anybody to
use their services?

~~~
Apocryphon
By not allowing alternate app stores, yes.

~~~
coldtea
Nobody forces anybody to buy an Apple product...

In fact, Apple charges more, so it makes it even more difficult to buy them
than an Android phone -- which also has multiple app install options. Why not
use that?

~~~
tootie
From a practical point of view, if you're a developer and you don't target iOS
you're going to lose. It's a duopoly and Apple really controls the affluent
segment (ie the users willing to buy apps or pay for in-app services) pretty
strongly. And the user base is very sticky. If some big app owner like
Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only supporting Android now, so
please switch phones to use our service" they'd just go out of business.
That's the essence of monopolism.

~~~
moogleii
So is it a duopoly or a monopoly? I'm fine with just throwing around words in
casual conversation, but the closer the conversation moves towards the orbit
of law, the more words will matter.

> If some big app owner like Facebook or AirBnb came out and said "We're only
> supporting Android now, so please switch phones to use our service" they'd
> just go out of business. That's the essence of monopolism.

I think that's just called bad decision making, which vendors are completely
free to make. There are plenty of apps that are Android only, and I'm sure
they fully realize their revenue will be less as a result. There are also
plenty of third party game developers making exclusive titles for Playstation
or Xbox all the time. They're roughly neck and neck outside of Japan, but in
Japan, it's no contest, Playstation is completely dominant. Assuming we ignore
Nintendo, would you then suggest that Sony has a monopoly on consoles there?
One could claim that if you're a developer in Japan and you don't target
Playstation in Japan, you're going to lose. But if the goal is maximum revenue
...that's just bad decision making. If the Xbox market in Japan just isn't
coughing up dollars, how is that Sony's problem?

Rather than continuously trying to compare Apple to a monopoly, which it
isn't, I think the more effective comparison would be with RAND and FRAND. I
don't know what kind of legal hoops would need to be jumped through to make
the legal justification work, but it seems like Apple has an essential
technology (the App Store), and must be obligated to license it (arguably
reflected via the fee it charges), but that is an extant example of government
regulation where the fee could be legally managed.

------
julietteeb
I'm a iOS tweak developer and the way the App Store is ran is fantastic as it
prevents people like me from posting our tweaks to the main store as in my
opinion a regular person shouldn't be installing tweaks or jailbreaking their
device as if they install a bad tweak or fuck up their device they should know
how to navigate the command line to fix it. Jailbreaking is cool but if you
don't know what you are doing you shouldn't do it.

There are plenty of 3rd party app stores for the iPhone/iPad that anyone can
access with out jailbreaking, Ignition
([https://ignition.fun](https://ignition.fun)), TuTuApp ([https://tutuapp-
app.org](https://tutuapp-app.org)), TweakBox
([https://www.tweakboxapp.com](https://www.tweakboxapp.com)), I'm probably
missing more but they do exist. But they're sketchy and ad filled. They do how
ever allow anyone to install semi-untethered jailbreaking software like
Unc0ver and Electra.

That being said Apple taking 30% cut in revenue is way too much in my view and
the way it's set up could be better.

------
moogleii
I'm guessing Apple's defense will be very similar to the author's own words,
except a little less emotional:

> Apple is using its monopoly to hold all of us hostage

> Apple’s iOS controls 25% of the global smartphone market (the other 75%, is
> largely controlled by Google’s Android). This means that for over a billion
> people (particularly in the US where their market share approaches 50%), the
> only way to install apps is through the App Store. This gives Apple enormous
> influence over the way software is created and consumed around the world.

25% is indeed "enormous influence" but it's not a monopoly. It feeling like
one isn't enough. The telcos in the States seem like a comparable example.
There are three major players, so it's roughly 33% control for each (differs
per region I'm sure).

With ISPs, it feels even worse. In most areas you can't even choose another
provider with the same technology type (if you want fiber in my area, it's
only Verizon. If you want cable, it's only Spectrum; DSL, AT&T; etc). But the
rationale is, it's still internet at the end of the day, so I can technically
choose.

~~~
toyg
25% market share is a misleading statistic. Since iPhones dominate the higher
end of the market, where the real money flows, they actually make twice as
much money as Google: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-
apple-app-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/296226/annual-apple-app-
store-revenue/).

So it’s more like a 70% share, in practice.

~~~
manicdee
One dollar, one vote!

------
simonh
The only monopoly here is Apple’s monopoly on designing its own products. The
iPhone, iOS, it’s development tools and the App Store are all Apple products,
so Apple gets to decide what features they have.

It’s also not unusual for companies to make deals with third parties to
include their technology and software in their products, often as optional
chargeable extras. That’s all the App Store is, it’s a way to add optional
features to your phone, offered by the phone manufacturer. There is nothing
illegal or abusive about this.

What’s the alternative. Are you going to mandate what features Apple, or any
manufacturer of devices with embedded software, can or cannot implement? Are
you going to mandate by law specific features for side loading that all
manufacturers have to implement in all devices containing software? What
features, who gets to specify them, how will this be enforced?

So now we’re going to have governments design the software in our phones,
enshrined in law?

Finally, how does this serve my interests as an iPhone user or developer? Is
fragmented app stores going to make it easier to find software, make it easier
for developers to connect with customers and increase software revenues? I
don’t see it.

Android has had tons of app stores over the years, the public converged on the
Play Store because they want to go to one place to get apps and have one
company to deal with. Users like consolidation, it serves their needs.

All this does not mean I’m against any regulation. I thing there’s a
reasonable case for oversight of these things and a dialogue between law
makers and tech companies about how they manage their products and customer
relations. That’s fine, but chopping up the market and products arbitrarily
does not serve the public interest.

~~~
Apocryphon
If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium of
industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and open
source foundations... sure why not?

~~~
coldtea
> _If the government forces a platform open and hands it over to a consortium
> of industry leaders, as well as associations of independent developers and
> open source foundations... sure why not?_

Because the platform only exists because somebody created it, somebody
specific not some consortium.

I don't want my iPhone OS to be created by a consortium, I want it to be run
by Apple...

~~~
HunterWare
And because if that happens I would promptly go find a phone with a curated
locked down store again. If I wanted otherwise I would have bought an Android
phone, with my _choice_.

~~~
Apocryphon
And, if the unlocked store charges independent app developers lower fees, and
if market trends favor the non-locked down store over the locked down store-
say in the example of Android vs. BlackBerry OS- then the apps would flock to
the former over the latter.

------
eykanal
> This is virtually indistinguishable from a protection racket: It is a fee
> that developers must pay if they want to stay in business. And it is a fee
> which ultimately harms consumers because these fees are indirectly passed on
> to users, either through higher prices, or through fewer competing products
> in the marketplace.

I guess this would be great, if it were true. There are over two million
competing apps in the market [1], and the vast majority are priced
ridiculously competitively at _less than a dollar each_ [2]. That's the
_average_ cost, not the median, which would be significantly lower.

I'm sure proton isn't happy about this, but considering the ridiculously high
salaries app developers are able to command [3] but the market doesn't seem to
agree with their assessment.

Now, this may be more true about app _companies_ , but the numbers there tell
a different story. Based on this analysis [4], the thing killing them isn't
the developer fees, its that its ridiculously hard to make _any_ sort of
living if your only product is a phone app. The majority of apps simply make
no money at all. Adding 30% to 0 doesn't do much for anyone.

[1]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-
availab...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/263795/number-of-available-
apps-in-the-apple-app-store/)

[2]: [https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-
app...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/267346/average-apple-app-store-
price-app/)

[3]: [https://www.businessofapps.com/app-
developers/research/ios-a...](https://www.businessofapps.com/app-
developers/research/ios-android-developer-salary/)

[4]: [https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-
reve...](https://medium.com/@sm_app_intel/a-bunch-of-average-app-revenue-data-
and-why-you-should-ignore-it-2bea283d37fc)

------
BoysenberryPi
Genuine question: Why does this matter? I see 0 problems with Apple having a
"walled garden." It's their product and their platform so they should be able
to decide what gets supported and developed for it.

I personally don't like how Apple conducts their business so I just don't use
Apple products and that's that.

~~~
matsemann
I think the article explained that reasonably well. One example is that they
also make their own apps, so you potentially have to pay your competitor 30%
of your income which is more than your own margins. And then they surface
their own app and hide your's. Cannot compete against that.

~~~
BoysenberryPi
My issue with the article is that despite acknowledging that Android market
share overall they are acting as if Apple is the only game in time. Maybe my
thought process is just overly simplistic and I'm missing something because
every time the app store gets brought up my general feeling is just don't use
Apple. If enough developers abandon the platform they will be forced to
change.

~~~
matsemann
A consumer can somewhat choose freely. A developer though has to go where the
market is. Not being on the app store is a huge blow to many businesses.

------
jlnthws
Apple sells an experience, it's hard to find a common ground to those single
store monopoly issues without compromising this experience and tarnishing
Apple's precious image.

Suppose Apple standardizes jailbreaking: say they allow you to turn on a
switch that creates a sandbox on your device for you to do whatever you want.
Your device would then be running freestyle without warranty, fair enough for
me as a first mockup. What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate
or unaccountable users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites
with their misfortune. Apple would be cancelled overnight. I'm barely
exaggerating.

Now I guess some EU negotiations could help to have some in-app purchases
without fees (like buying a book in the Kindle app), avoid getting their app
rejected for a shady reason (because rules can be changed whenever Apple sees
fit) and, above all, allow me to set my morning alarm to some radio app (this
one is ridiculous). The tragedy is that no "developers union" could ever
succeed at this.

The last issue, about supporting authoritarian regimes, is probably the most
difficult to solve. This is politics, there are no companies or governments
that can have it all every time. China is a huge market: you cannot hope
staying in business if you try to impose all your rules everywhere. That's the
exact same idea behind having the EU make a stand on the single store issues.
Also, the most intolerant wins [1].

[1] [https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
dict...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-
of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15)

~~~
striking
> What's going to happen next is a handful of illiterate or unaccountable
> users will deface Apple's reputation by bombarding news sites with their
> misfortune.

Many Android phones already allow you to gain access to root or to replace the
OS that the device ships with (and even more of them allow for indiscriminate
sideloading, even without rooting). Has Android's reputation been "defaced"
over this opportunity for users to run custom software on their devices?

~~~
jlnthws
I was being satirical with my wording but the issue with Apple is different.
Android is fragmented by design, there is Google, Samsung, Huawei, etc.
companies which sell a lot of other things, so Android image may be less of an
issue for them. Apple literally is iDevice, it's more than 2/3 of their
revenue.

But indeed "reputation" is more about marketing and at the end of the day the
only thing that matters is the margin they can extract from aftermarket sales.
As the recent antitrust inquiry shows, we were short of having 40% fee on app
store sales.

[https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/128856728139671142...](https://twitter.com/HouseJudiciary/status/1288567281396711426)

I think 30% made sense back then when the platform was tiptoeing. Now it may
look as an abuse of dominant position, the classical shareholders vs workers
game. I wonder how the appstore operating costs and profit have evolved over
time.

------
nodamage
I am not sure why people continue to redefine the word "monopoly" to the point
where it becomes meaningless.

Claiming that Apple has a "monopoly" on app sales _on its own devices_ might
be _technically_ true but is not a meaningful statement when there are plenty
of alternatives to Apple devices on the market.

It is about as meaningful as claiming a gas station has a "monopoly" on gas
sales _in a three block radius_ , or that a bar has a "monopoly" on cocktail
sales _in its own building_ , or that I have a "monopoly" on lemonade sales
_on my front lawn_.

If you have to apply an arbitrary constraint to eliminate the consideration of
meaningful alternatives that the consumer has access to, then you're not
dealing with an actual monopoly.

~~~
627467
Another poster already mentioned that legal definition varies. And not only
that. It's not that it's "wrong" or illegal to be a monopoly. It's what you do
with those powers.

Natural (and legal) monopolies exist and are regulated so that there's a
perceived net benefit to society for having them. The EU will investigate is
(to Europeans) Apple's monopoly is net beneficial to them.

And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because, unlike
the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles to buy
Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

Is Apple obliged to make their phones available to other app stores? No. But
not doing so AND profiting from 30% AND having a large marketshare is
precisely why the EU is investigating them for abusive monopolistic behaviour.

~~~
nodamage
> And I imply to agree with labeling Apple a monopoly precisely because,
> unlike the gas station on your example, a iPhone user cannot drive 3 miles
> to buy Spotify without having to pay Apple's 30% fee.

They can choose a non-Apple phone. There is an alternative product on the
market.

~~~
627467
That is not what the case is about. The case is about Spotify not having fair
access to Apple customers.

~~~
nodamage
Spotify is no more entitled to Apple's customers than Nike is entitled to
Walmart's customers. If Nike wants to sell shoes in Walmart they will have to
accept Walmarts terms, or find another store to sell in.

~~~
627467
Walmart customers are not hostages being prevented to buy in other shops.
Analogy doesn't hold.

~~~
nodamage
Just like you can choose not to be a Walmart customer, you can also choose not
to be an Apple customer.

------
Flow
A lot of people think their iPhone is a general purpose computer, it isn't.

If Apple is forced to allow other app stores etc, shouldn't MS, Sony and
Nintendo be forced to open their platforms as well?

------
daniel-s
There is no definition of monopoly. People complain about monopolies when they
lose or don't get what they want so resort to the government to cheat their
way to competitiveness/success.

------
newbie578
You should not share articles like these on HN. Sacred things are not to be
critized, and everything Apple is sacred :) Just check the comments in this
thread. As long as I get my "flawless user experience" it doesn't matter what
happens and how Apple treats the backbone of its platform (independent
developers) and forcing them in a feudal relationship, one might even call it
a road to serfdom.

And I can see already that there will be people jumping out of the woods with
the classic argument: "The devs are free to leave the App store" You try to
make a business and the first decision you make is that you abandon half of
your potential marketshare (iOS is over 50% in the U.S.)

------
RivieraKid
I think the right approach here would be to regulate the revenue cut Apple is
allowed to take. Right now it's 30%.

------
Findeton
Yes, it's a monopoly, but that doesn't mean it's bad per-se. People are freely
choosing to buy iPhones and there are alternatives. If the situation on the
App Store was so bad, there wouldn't be enough good apps and perhaps people
would choose other devices. No one is forcing any company to publish into the
App Store.

~~~
slivanes
"No one is forcing any company to publish into the App Store."

Yes Apple is, there is no alternative to the App Store on an iPhone.

~~~
mostlysimilar
I think the point is app developers can target other platforms to release
their software, they don't have to target iOS.

Part of my confidence in the iOS app store is the fact that Apple controls it
so strongly. If they were forced to allow third party apps I doubt I would
install any. My phone is too critical a part of my life to risk it.

~~~
skuthus
it would be on a different app store - you would still have full confidence if
you used the Apple App Store only

------
tschellenbach
I think the important part is that they apply the same rules to all the apps
in their app store so it's a fair playing field between companies. IE they
should not be allowed to for instance get into the dating market, and start by
blocking Tinder.

------
Apocryphon
Blast from the past: Apple using EU courts to prevent Samsung from selling the
Galaxy Tab 7.7 in Europe (2012)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4285862)

------
bostonvaulter2
As an app developer, what bothers me is not so much the fact that you have to
pay the 30% when going through the app store it's the fact that you cannot
even mention the Android Play store AT ALL. Also I don't like that they
completely force app developers to use IAP instead of supporting other
purchasing flows (without Apple's cut)

~~~
threeseed
You actually want Apple to allow you to advertise a competitor's phone on
their phone.

What company would ever allow that ?

~~~
ac29
Pre-smartphone era pretty much every hardware vendor didnt impose arbitrary
restrictions on software like that (the notable exception being video game
consoles). If you wanted to write a Mac app that said "also available on
Windows" (or vice versa), no one cared.

------
echelon
Apple had the opportunity to lean on the web and elected not to.

With appropriate APIs, web apps can reach into devices and leverage GPU and
CPU compute, multiple threads, microphone, camera, on-device storage, and
more.

HTML and canvas don't have to be the only UI primitives available.

Both Google and Apple should be _forced_ to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in
leading development of a cross-platform native experience. Other companies
such as Microsoft and Amazon should join as stakeholders.

Yes, they should be forced to do it.

 _Edit:_ Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform? Why do
we have to expend effort developing for three different tech stacks (Android,
iOS, web) when one is superior and wastes less human capital?

 _Edit 2:_ Wow, y'all really don't like this. My other suggestion is that we
break up Apple and Google into separate companies so they're divested of their
app marketplace from their hardware ecosystem/ad tech funnels. I think letting
them work together on an open platform is less destructive and puts the world
in a better place, but honestly if they can't do this then they should be
broken up.

My representative, Lucy McBath, did a great job grilling the tech execs this
week, and I continue to support her in breaking apart these unfair monopolies.

 _Edit 3:_ If you believe Apple is entitled to reap 30% from controlled access
to their generic compute device, then you also should favor cable and internet
service providers charging whatever they want for access to their pipes. It's
the same thing. How many of you want Comcast to be able to charge you for your
Netflix usage?

~~~
xvector
> Both Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or Mozilla in
> leading development of a cross-platform native experience

Private entities shouldn't be _forced_ into doing anything on a whim. You can
arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no reasonable basis
for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.

> Downvotes already? What's wrong with wanting an open platform?

The downvotes is because what you suggest is wholly antithetical to every
"open" movement in history. You don't get to tell people what to do simply
because you want it to be that way. That's tyranny.

> I think letting them work together on an open platform is less destructive
> and puts the world in a better place

Again with this whole thing. You don't get to enact whatever policies you want
because you think it would be nice. People have rights.

~~~
echelon
> Private entities shouldn't be forced into doing anything on a whim.

It's not a whim. They're being investigated by the EU and US Congress for
being monopolies and suffocating smaller players. They're sucking all of the
air out of the environment, making it incredibly difficult to gain traction on
your own.

Don't trust me? Ask DHH.

> You can arguably stop them from doing some things, but there is no
> reasonable basis for compelling companies to do things as you are saying.

The government can absolutely tell them what to do. Apple wouldn't be where
they are today if the US Government hadn't intervened against Microsoft and
forced them to pay Apple.

Apple exists because of antitrust and the DOJ.

> You don't get to tell people what to do simply because you want it to be
> that way. That's tyranny.

I'm glad the tyrannical government put the FDA in place. And the FAA. Can you
imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?

> People have rights.

Companies aren't people. Despite Citizen's United.

~~~
xvector
> It's not a whim

Saying stuff like "Google and Apple should be forced to fund the W3C and/or
Mozilla" is absolutely a whim. This would be an absurd government overreach.

> They're sucking all of the air out of the environment, making it incredibly
> difficult to gain traction on your own.

You can absolutely succeed today without Apple. Apple is a minority player in
the mobile device segment.

Perhaps Apple is more profitable for developers. But they are not a monopoly
in this space yet and do not warrant anti-trust.

> Apple wouldn't be where they are today if the US Government hadn't
> intervened against Microsoft and forced them to pay Apple.

Microsoft, on the other hand, was a monopoly (and still is, in many ways).

> Can you imagine if those industries could act however they wanted?

Can you imagine what will happen if we keep giving the government more and
more power to do what they want? See: Australia's government forcing
encryption backdoors into every service.

Giving the government more and more power over companies that don't yet even
constitute a monopoly is a recipe for disaster.

> Companies aren't people.

And yet companies are property, private entities, etc. Just because companies
aren't people doesn't mean they are toys for the government to manipulate and
control in any way they want under the guise of "antitrust regulation."

