Good lord - on HN the monopoly comments are so crazy sometimes. What is the monopoly issue Apple has? Use android if you don't like Apple's product line. Apple is at 22% share.
> Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area.
Geographic area is an interesting term here. If you take "iPhone owners" as a geographic area, then Apple has a 100% monopoly on that market. Geographic area == captive audience, and since iPhone users are a captive audience of the app store.
I think there's a reasonable argument that users buy iPhones with the expectation of a market in the app store (I can get or buy apps from any company that cares to develop one), so when Apple charges a 30% fee (far above normal payment processing fees) on every transaction made through the app they are abusing a monopoly position.
I suppose the next case will be against Walmart for not allowing me to setup my own kiosk with my own payment processor in their store if you define markets in this way. They have a monopoly in their stores on sales of items.
Walmart clearly falls under a geographic area. There's a physical store. You can measure the competition in that geographic area and you can look at what other choices consumers have.
An iPhone is clearly a different case. Measuring what options users have is not limited by a geographic region but by what policies and app stores govern the device.
>on HN the monopoly comments are so crazy sometimes
what's crazy is harping on a technicality about the word "monopoly" and then to ignore the actual issue that is implied by the criticism, market power.
Even two companies aren't a market, if you get hung up about monopoly call it a duopoly. The state of affairs is ridiculous. There should be a thriving market of competing stores, payment systems, operating systems and so on, yet we're stuck with at best two alternatives, both of which are extremely locked down.
But is that required on each and every platform available on the market?
Sure, there should be more platforms available. I'm into that. Personally, I bought an iPhone because of the closed ecosystem. I don't want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it. That's what I paid for and that's what I'm getting.
From my perspective demanding that the platform be open to any and everything is a bit like going to a carwash and demanding they also do your house.
Agree. Other comments raise the point of “what if Windows decided to do this... is it okay because Linux exists?” and the answer is clearly no. I bought an iPhone with the expectation that I would be in a closed ecosystem; if win10 updated to mirror win8 RT where you could only use the windows store, that would obviously be a problem because win10 users purchased a license with the expectation that they could install whatever they wanted on it.
> I don’t want to have to think about my phone that much, but I want to be able to rely on it.
I’m in the exact same boat; I have no interest in sideloading every app that decides to get into a pissing match with Apple (and as Spotify’s hinted at it before, they will certainly be losing my subscription if I need to sideload their app). For every app that has a legitimate reason to sideload (i.e. payments), there will be another app that sideloads to bypass the user-beneficial aspects of the App Store (i.e. Onavo from Facebook).
> There should be a thriving market of competing stores, payment systems, operating systems and so on
That sounds terrible. Myriad incompatible ways to find apps, having to give your financial information to lots of different systems you have to investigate individually, or not be able to do business with someone using a different system, apps only being available on the small number of devices running the OS they were developed for.
All the things you mention benefit massively from network effects, which can greatly benefit consumers.
>apps only being available on the small number of devices running the OS they were developed for.
that is a weird complaint because that is the status quo due to closed platforms, I can't run facetime on an android phone.
Diverse ecosystems develop protocols to enable interoperability, that's where the slogan "protocols, not platforms" comes from. This is how the internet works, despite the fact that you can hook up anything from a fridge running windows ME to a supercomputer running suse to it, everyone communicates just fine.
It's strange that there are different hardware vendors, it's just that making your own software experience seems suicidal. Perhaps in an alternative reality, the US government would've invested in Firefox OS among other competing projects.
It's not about using a different OS. The monopoly is that if you want to distribute through Apple, you have to go through their app store. There's not another app store that you can go through.
At least with Android you can go through f-droid if you don't like the Play Store.
I'll defer to Epic's official court filings to make the argument for a monopoly for me. I'm not an expert on such topics, and it would be out of turn for me to speak more on it.
"Apple monopolizes the iOS App Distribution Market".
How do they reconcile that with the fact that it's possible to side load apps on iOS? Apple might monopolize the Apple App Store Distribution Market, but is that relevant to the legal argument?
We're on Hacker News, so the amount of people that are comfortable with sideloading apps on iOS is definitely going to be skewed.
I don't think that it's a good argument to make that anyone can do it, because it does require _some_ technical knowledge in order to do it. I'd make the argument that if it's not accessible to everyone, then I don't think it's a viable replacement for an app store.
To lean on F-droid as an example on the Android side, outside of the initial installation of F-droid(which can be done from your phone), you can easily browse F-droid and install apps.
I don't think it's as easy to sideload apps on iOS. I haven't done it in years(since my jailbreak days), but I remember that you needed to be on a Mac and needed xcode to do it. It's probably updated now to make it a bit easier, but from a quick Google it looks like you need to download a separate program in order to do it. It looks like other ways to sideload apps requires some abuse of developer certificates to make it work.
No company can sell or distribute an app without having to use the appstore. Sideloading is restricted by design to not work as a standard installation method
There are multiple stores that you can try and get your product on. If Walmart doesn't work, then you could try Target, or Aldi, or Amazon.
You have literally one option to go with on iOS. You can't even "drive to a new store", as switching to Android costs hundreds of dollars, and not everyone is in a financial situation to purchase a new phone on a whim.
I won't argue about the specifics of this, Epic paid lawyers millions of dollars to draft a court document about the monopolization of the iOS app distribution store. I'd urge you to read the document first before drawing pretty poor parallels.
It's crazy how he won't respond to you know, since people purposely keep saying that Apple is not a monopoly, and when someone shares a stat where Apple has around 50% marketshare, then they just disappear in the ground.
I don't have time to respond to every comment. The court case argues that apple monopolizes the iOS App Distribution market. So they claim a real monopoly.
Similarly, I'm sure Walmart monopolizes the Walmart distribution market.
As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods.
They STARTED the app store with these terms, that is literally the OPPOSITE of achieving a monopoly with predatory or below market pricing. They did such a good job that despite the high price most developers make LOTS of money on the app store, and users value many of the elements as well.
Anyways, will be an interesting case, but it's not "crazy" that someone doesn't have time to respond to every point on HN - seriously HN has gone full outrage / offense these days with no ability to just discuss merits, consider other viewpoints.
Exactly this - I'm a "high spending" customer. Because they take pretty good care of their store, because there are no surprise auto-renewals and on and on I spend money freely - it's pretty safe to.
I always seem to regret signing up for subscriptions elswhere. Did anyone have the myheritage fight - I did that 5 years ago - total nightmare. I mean - how is stuff like THAT legal (hadn't used service in a year, no notice prior to the renewal being billed), no way to get out of paying.
We roughly know their profit margin on the App Store from corporate reporting though so seems unlikely to be any significant spending on curating, and a lot is to curate away competition like Steam's streaming that allowed PC game purchases to be remotely made through streaming your desktop and big picture mode.
Huh?
All of Apple is (or soon will be) an entirely closed garden. You can harp on the literal meaning of the word "monopoly" all day, but Apple still makes a profit from a market dominating position.
30%? Just to be distributor? Really?
If their H/W would be free I'd have some sympathy, but as is you pay for their devices and then pay a 30% fee. In my book this is way-laying.
I'm not using any Apple products for exactly that reason (other than what my workplace forces upon me.)
On my Android phone I can install any 3rd party app I please - there even is "F-Droid", a non-Google app store for open apps, which I use a lot.
And for desktops I use Linux. I guess I'm in the minority - even here on HN.
I've been an Apple user for 15+ years. However, my first 3 smartphones were Android. In 2016 I switched to an iPhone and I prefer the "lock in". I prefer the "walled garden".
In my youth I had the energy and desire to individually assess how much I trusted what I downloaded. Today I do not want to spend the energy/time so I spend financial capital to have Apple assess trust for me.
Does that mean that app developers have a harder time selling me their software? Yes. I empathize, but I don't want to be an early adopter anymore. I'm happy for those developers to first build trust, then have access to me as a customer.
So if in a year a product comes out that I really want to use, the product really wants to support apple, but apple says "no we're not going to allow you". I have to create more ewaste by going and buying an android phone instead?
Is this what we're advocating for? More consumption of rare resources?
No, you know that the app might not be available for your new iPhone and accept the fact when you buy it or you just do not buy an iPhone and buy Android/LibreOS/etc instead.
'Monopoly' is just a poorly phrased way of saying abuse of market power.
Edit as reply: I'm not accusing them of breaking a law, but of abusing their position. That there might not yet be a law against this specific kind of abuse doesn't make the practice any less abusive.
If you are accusing Apple of doing something contrary to US law, you have to be specific about what that is. What do you mean by "abuse of market power"? What is the law or regulation that you are accusing Apple of being in breach of?
