Should Walmart, who has 100% market share of people walking in a Walmart right now, have control over what is on their shelves?
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.
I don't think this holds up. WalMart choosing not to stock a product doesn't mean that the product won't be made at all. WalMart doesn't decide to stop stocking Hanes underwear because Hanes ships boxers to KMart and Target too.
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.
How does Apple demand the exclusive right to sell anything? There are plenty of Android apps that integrate with Pebble, and plenty of apps that are available across iOS, Android, even Windows, Blackberry, FireFox OS, Cyanogen, etc.
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.
I always hear that the choice you present is what allows anti-competitive behavior.
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?
I think its entirely possible for a product to depend single handedly on WalMart for distribution in order to get economics of scale benefits to even be profitable in the first place.
Should Amazon be allowed to forbid Apple TV sales on Amazon.com now that they have the Fire TV line? Sure, you could shop on Overstock or Newegg or somesuch instead, but would that be convenient after all the energy you might have invested into Amazon (ordering products, perhaps even a Prime membership)?
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.
This is actually a great analogy. If the AppStore was a physical store, I would agree; but I still don't agree and that actually surprises me. The freedom of the internet has shaped my expectations around this issue.
Can Amazon decide what you can buy on Amazon.com? Can Netflix decide what movies you see in their app?
(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)
This isn't about deciding whats in their store, its the justification given. In the US, an at-will employee can be fired for any reason, excluding special cases like sexism, racism, or homophobia in some states. A store can decide to not stock a product for any reason, except for a set of special cases. I think that 'because you are also friendly with a competitor' is one of those special cases. I would definitely have a problem if amazon refused to stock books that are also on B&N, or if Netflix refused to provide a movie only because its also on HBO right now (note that this obviously doesn't apply if there were exclusivity agreements made with the consent of the content maker).
A more relevant comparison would be if Amazon were to forbid Apple TV and Roku and Chromecast sales on Amazon.com because of the existence of the Fire TV.
Not even close. Even if Walmart chooses to not stock a particular product, you can still purchase said product from other authorised retailers. This is more like if Walmart is the sole reseller in the U.S. for a certain hardware device used all around the world, and they choose not to stock it and you have no other venues from which to purchase it.
I totally agree with this analogy. All of the hate in these threads is just... weird.
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.
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.