You just linked to an article that dismisses your initial claim:
> Most economists now would agree on three fundamentals. First, tying is a pervasive practice that, in many instances, gives rise to substantial efficiencies, particularly when it takes the form of product integration. Second, the circumstances in which tying would lead to anticompetitive effects are very restricted. And third, not only are those conditions hard to verify, but also any attempt to balance efficiency gains against possible anticompetitive effects will prove a complex exercise.
The whole comment is wrapped in anti-trust which doesn't even apply in this situation. The notion that someone should/could go to jail for a policy that is inconvenient, is hyperbolic.
Apple wants a DUNS number because they are taking on some fraud risk and want a company identifier for credit history and to reduce the risk they are dealing with scammers. Seems pretty reasonable.
They are not requiring a credit rating (which is offered by many companies) They want a service from a specific company.
Edit: someone would go to jail after not complying with some court order. Example: google VP in brazil went to jail earlier this year for not taking down a youtube video. Those orders may come way before an actual trial
They used D&B because D&B has by far the largest international database of businesses, and DUNS numbers have been around since the 60s. Many government agencies internationally require DUNS numbers if you want to do business with them.
It's something of an entrenched international standard. Most likely nobody wants to have to deal with multiple database companies, or a competing database with big gaps in its coverage compared to DNB.
At least it's free, even if they attempt to charge a premium for faster service.
While I admit to only skimming that link, all the examples I read discussed a single company tying purchase of one of their products to one of their other products.
Apple does not sell DUNS numbers, as they are not Dun & Bradstreet.
It also mentioned the anticompetitive nature of tying a weak/new product to a stronger one. DUNS numbers are not new or esoteric (although I do think of them as being old-fashioned and enterprisey).
So, I struggle with the notion that this could be illegal, but I'd be fascinated to learn more about it.
Sure is developer hostile and counter-productive, though.
Tying is illegal in the US. The question is 'is that tying?'.
The answer is: yes. The only way this is not tying is by bundling the service: apple would provide the number for you without charging.
But then, D&B competitors could say this is a trust case.
To really solve this apple must offer a list of companies that offer the solution for whatever numbering problem they seem to have. Or just drop the requirement.
Apple can't provide the number. It's not their database.
The number itself isn't the issue, it's what it represents: that your business is recorded in a large and reputable database of international businesses that is in widespread use by companies and governments.
D&B database is widespread in the US, not internationally. In fact, I own a credit card company/bank and never heard of them until I needed their number. Their database is large because they are filling it, not because companies request.
In fact, S&P and Moody's are the only ratings/registry that can get you anywhere in the banking system.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/comme...