iOS is an operating system. Calling the appstore and therefore the software it provides an accessory is stupid. Look at any other OS. If only one company controls the software, what do you think that is? ...A monopoly, maybe?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Asks Judge to Dismiss App Store Monopoly Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
iOS is an operating system. Calling the appstore and therefore the software it provides an accessory is stupid. Look at any other OS. If only one company controls the software, what do you think that is? ...A monopoly, maybe?
Hi,
the main problem is, that actually apple is deciding which product is allowed on the appstore and which isn't. Apple also has the power to pull any app from the store if they think the app is no longer compliant to their rules aka no longer wanted.
If you decide to build a product which offers the ability to use such things as an appstore you might want to check that you are not building a monopoly situation. The iOS devices have a very significant market share all around the globe - so if you want to offer your app for an iOS device you are required to go through apples appstore if apple decides to block your app but they don't block your competitor's app they clearly shift the market in a way that only monopoly situations allow you to do so.
EU and or Germany (don't know right know for certain which it was) are also investigating Amazon for their market place policies. A retailer that offers products on the amazon market place is not allowed to sell the offered products through any (internet/online) channels for less than he is offering them at amazon marketplace. The problem is that amazon get's a "huge" cut when you sell a product on their marketplace. Of course no seller is forced to use the amazon marketplace to sell products, but one may argue that the amazon market place hase become that big that a retailer that is not using this platform might be at a disadvantage... I don't say that amazon/apple are not allowed to get their cuts if their marketplaces are used, but preventing other market places or other distribution channels from offering products at cheaper prices is somehow not right.
bye,
Darky
the main problem is, that actually apple is deciding which product is allowed on the appstore and which isn't. Apple also has the power to pull any app from the store if they think the app is no longer compliant to their rules aka no longer wanted.
If you decide to build a product which offers the ability to use such things as an appstore you might want to check that you are not building a monopoly situation. The iOS devices have a very significant market share all around the globe - so if you want to offer your app for an iOS device you are required to go through apples appstore if apple decides to block your app but they don't block your competitor's app they clearly shift the market in a way that only monopoly situations allow you to do so.
EU and or Germany (don't know right know for certain which it was) are also investigating Amazon for their market place policies. A retailer that offers products on the amazon market place is not allowed to sell the offered products through any (internet/online) channels for less than he is offering them at amazon marketplace. The problem is that amazon get's a "huge" cut when you sell a product on their marketplace. Of course no seller is forced to use the amazon marketplace to sell products, but one may argue that the amazon market place hase become that big that a retailer that is not using this platform might be at a disadvantage... I don't say that amazon/apple are not allowed to get their cuts if their marketplaces are used, but preventing other market places or other distribution channels from offering products at cheaper prices is somehow not right.
bye,
Darky
That's because there's no competition. Everybody has their own store in their own operating systems. You thin that just because we have 4 big cell phone carriers, and many smaller ones, there's competition? No. Those carriers are divided into separate bandwidths, and/or cell technology. That's why they all charge similar prices that are far from reasonable.
The key thing is that you've always been able to get Mac Apps from other places and you still can. If they started requiring only the Mac App store they'd be taking something away for Mac OS X users.
BUT with the iPhone, the App Store been the only way to get apps legitimately (this topic isn't about jailbreaking, so I'm not going there), no one is surprised. Customers knew it when they got it and nothing has changed, they bought into a semi-closed system and stuck with it. You've got 2 weeks (or is it 30 days) to return it if you don't like it...
Gary
Last edited:
I'm sure some developers LOVE the app store!
They don't need to distribute anything, they don't need to collect tax, they don't need to pay charge card fees nor worry about returns, they don't need to maintain servers (for distribution) and who knows what else. You need someone to do these things for you if you sell 10 copies a month or 10,000.
Plus, Apple is adding in DRM to help protect your product for you. Piracy of app store apps would likely be higher if there wasn't a centralized point of distribution.
Apple also "certifies" (approves) it for the iPhone, so as a customer I hope it's safer (not perfect, just safer) than if I was buying it from individual stores.
They can still advertise and promote on their own, but they've still got to give Apple their 30%.
On a side note, I've seen some book authors sell books on their own, but they've got maintain all sorts of things on their own (see above) that's got to be a headache.
Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of problems with this system.
Apple does the same amount of work if it's a 99 cent app or a $4.99 or $9.99 app, regardless of size of the app or how often it gets revised. I think after $5 or $10 the commission should drop to 20% and maybe again at double that...
Apple gets no commission if my app is free and they still do all the same work (for one, they hope you use iAds).
My 2 cents,
Gary
They don't need to distribute anything, they don't need to collect tax, they don't need to pay charge card fees nor worry about returns, they don't need to maintain servers (for distribution) and who knows what else. You need someone to do these things for you if you sell 10 copies a month or 10,000.
Plus, Apple is adding in DRM to help protect your product for you. Piracy of app store apps would likely be higher if there wasn't a centralized point of distribution.
Apple also "certifies" (approves) it for the iPhone, so as a customer I hope it's safer (not perfect, just safer) than if I was buying it from individual stores.
They can still advertise and promote on their own, but they've still got to give Apple their 30%.
On a side note, I've seen some book authors sell books on their own, but they've got maintain all sorts of things on their own (see above) that's got to be a headache.
Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of problems with this system.
Apple does the same amount of work if it's a 99 cent app or a $4.99 or $9.99 app, regardless of size of the app or how often it gets revised. I think after $5 or $10 the commission should drop to 20% and maybe again at double that...
Apple gets no commission if my app is free and they still do all the same work (for one, they hope you use iAds).
My 2 cents,
Gary
Microsoft having Internet Explorer as the default browser certainly got them a fine. If Apple does take off then the iOS / OSX that you know will have to change significantly in order to satisfy monopoly requirements.
Think no more default iPhoto / iTunes / Safari. Everything will be an after the purchase download.
Right but my point is that the closed garden model is and has been their business model for years. And in reality there are obviously other app sources available for those who want it.
I'm sorry, am I missing something from you argument? Basically, you're first saying how users don't benefit from alternative stores, only to talk then at length about how you benefit from more choices yourself. Is it just me, or are you being just a wee bit self-contradictory here?
To be honest, such self-contrariness does not surprise me anymore on this forum. Brand loyalty is a good thing, but only from the point of view of the company. For the consumer, it always increases the transaction price. Having more choice has never really harmed anyone. The simple fact is that in real life one size does not fit all.
However, it's really interesting to see the lengths people will go to in order to defend a company they are invested emotionally in. Here a few more examples of bending the logic up to it's breaking point:
1)
Honestly, where's the common sense in that? Each developer decides for themselves if they want to enter a market tied in to a particular platform. Developing an app for a new operating system involves sufficient know-how, capital investment, time, marketing, etc. and you have to think of the size of the potential market to know if the investment will pay off. No law will (or should) force a developer to invest in the development of an app for a specific operating system. Let the market decide. It's different with selling apps. Apple's restrictive management of the AppStore is not encouraging free-market competition.
2)
That is a totally different case. Developing a game for a different platform involves programming the game from scratch (even if you can reuse the concept, script, music, etc), so it still entails serious costs. Besides, with computer games and software, you buy a license to use it on a particular number of machines anyway. So you might actually need to buy multiple copies of the same programme even if it's going to be used on the same platform but different machines. But there is no reason why you should not be able to buy the game from a vendor of your own choice, or even from your friend who's done with it. Try that on an iOS.
So are all those comparisons between Apple's practices and that of any other company. Whether XYZ Co. Ltd. is acting as a monopoly is irrelevant here. The lawsuit is against Apple, and it's Apple's practices that are of concern here. And if the argument is that the whole market is monopolized, so Apple's not doing anything wrong by playing to the established rules, then (putting the question of who established those rules in the first aside for a while) it seems to me that it's about time to do something about the market, and that Apple's a good place to start. By all means, you don't have to stop at Apple. As a consumer I'll welcome more choice anytime. I might not use the alternative, but, then again that is also a choice of sorts. And I'll probably profit in the end, even if I don't go to an alternative vendor, as competitive pressure might force Apple to lower its profit margins.
Btw. I'm not going to append my post with the usual disclaimer for this forum on the lines of "Honestly, I love my iPod, iPhone, iPad, Mac (cross out whichever does not apply), but I don't like some of Apple's practices. Such poor attempts at providing an alibi for oneself are kind of silly and only divert attention from the discussion at hand. I just wish people would let their arguments and opinions stand trial of logic on their own.
The simple fact is that Apple has for a long time been doing stuff in a way that may be raising antitrust concerns. Anybody who keeps denying that must be really thick-headed. I guess that's a survival trait. After all, anyone who can be as blind to Apple's monopolistic malpractices as some people here seem to be must be running into walls all the time. I can see that a tick skull would come in handy here.
I edited your post down just to keep it from filling the page. I agree with you. Unfortunately - sometimes posting on this forum IS like talking to the "walled garden."
Some people get it. Some people will get it. Some people don't get it. Some people refuse to get it.
of course it does. if you don't like Whoppers, you're entirely free to go to McDonalds. but don't expect one to offer the others products. or pizza.
You are! But it's up to Apple to decide how they want to design the software and what features to include. If it doesn't fit your needs then buy a competing product that does.
Do you think Apple should be forced to provide bootcamp with the iPhone so you can easily install Android if you want to?
Only "pirates" will say that we need consumer choice. Think hacking into Apple's software is lawful in their eyes. If that's the case, developers will not have money = no better software.
I still don't get it, man.
Someone can really build a company to sell smartphone and take 90% of developer's price so the Devs will set up a really high price. Along with that, they don't allow software installation other than their very own apps market, so users and devs are really have no choice at all.
Right, that would be a real *sshole company, but why should you sue them? They can really do whatever they want, and you too. Just walk away and get another platform, done, case closed.
I believe monopoly by definition is if that's "no other choice" left.
Someone can really build a company to sell smartphone and take 90% of developer's price so the Devs will set up a really high price. Along with that, they don't allow software installation other than their very own apps market, so users and devs are really have no choice at all.
Right, that would be a real *sshole company, but why should you sue them? They can really do whatever they want, and you too. Just walk away and get another platform, done, case closed.
I believe monopoly by definition is if that's "no other choice" left.
Alright Apple fan boys who are keen to always defend Apple no matter the situation: What would you call it if the car company you bought your car from demanded that you could only buy parts and service your car at one of their dealers? Let's push it further: What if Chrysler told you that you could only buy gas from their approved gas stations and no other gas stations? Would you call it a monopoly? Would you be screaming bloody murder?
Just wondering...
----------
How is this related to the issue at hand? A better analogy would be: I want to play COD on my PS3, but I can ONLY buy it via Sony's online store. I can't go to <insert store or online retailer> to buy it.
That's the better analogy my friend.
----------
Holy cow... do you people not understand the issue at hand? It's not about being able to use an app developed for one platform on a different platform. The issue is about the limited choices (just the App Store) where you can purchase apps for a single platform (iOS). Why is the reading comprehension on this forum spiraling downward every year?!
Just wondering...
----------
How is this related to the issue at hand? A better analogy would be: I want to play COD on my PS3, but I can ONLY buy it via Sony's online store. I can't go to <insert store or online retailer> to buy it.
That's the better analogy my friend.
----------
Holy cow... do you people not understand the issue at hand? It's not about being able to use an app developed for one platform on a different platform. The issue is about the limited choices (just the App Store) where you can purchase apps for a single platform (iOS). Why is the reading comprehension on this forum spiraling downward every year?!
If you make a piece of hardware that allows for modifying the system somehow (for example, via a reprogrammable chip), then it is possible for that piece of hardware to get exploited.
Sometimes that's fantastic - you can take remote controls with programmable chipsets and reprogram them to support devices that didn't exist when the remote was made. There's lots of great things about using devices for things other than their intended purpose..
Then again, you can do things like taking the wireless tire pressure monitoring system on a car and exploiting it to crash the car's computer system. PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING.
I know I'm rambling a bit here, but pretty much anything can be modified like that. What bothers me is when companies go out of their way to make it impossible to do such a thing - imagine if Apple & say, Linksys made it illegal to install some other firmware on your devices other than what it came with. Technically, that might even be a DMCA violation now on tablets (where they say jailbreaking is illegal)
I get the idea that if you buy a piece of hardware that you are agreeing to license the software necessary for its operation, but at what point can you just sever the link and use the hardware without the software?
wrong.
1. developers set the price for their apps.
2. there are no contractual agreements for developers to prevent development of the same app for android if they already developed for apple.
Last edited:
I would just like to say that Apple's 30% cut is not the issue. They provide more than enough service to developers to fairly earn that cut.
The amount of work that they put into the behemoth of a project called Xcode takes a lot of investment from apple and for almost every beta and with every new iOS release they are up dating Xcode, and adding new features. The API that apple has is hands down the best in the industry. They also provide some really good training with the WWDC and Stanford videos. If anyone here has ventured into programming IC's, then you know that Apple's documentation is spectacular in comparison (if you haven't then head over to Digikey.com) It's comparable to a program like photoshop. Creative Cloud is $600 a year, an iOS Developer Account is $100.
They provide the servers, handle distribution, payment processing, refunds, gift cards, sales tracking, taxes, advertisement revenue system they provide a store front and review system, most important they provide an enormous customer base, and for the best apps they provide some really amazing free advertising.
Apple earns that 30% cut.
The amount of work that they put into the behemoth of a project called Xcode takes a lot of investment from apple and for almost every beta and with every new iOS release they are up dating Xcode, and adding new features. The API that apple has is hands down the best in the industry. They also provide some really good training with the WWDC and Stanford videos. If anyone here has ventured into programming IC's, then you know that Apple's documentation is spectacular in comparison (if you haven't then head over to Digikey.com) It's comparable to a program like photoshop. Creative Cloud is $600 a year, an iOS Developer Account is $100.
They provide the servers, handle distribution, payment processing, refunds, gift cards, sales tracking, taxes, advertisement revenue system they provide a store front and review system, most important they provide an enormous customer base, and for the best apps they provide some really amazing free advertising.
Apple earns that 30% cut.
Fail. Nice strawman attempt.
Who's talking about Andriod? We're talking about iOS.
The developer has no CHOICE but to sell their APPLE app except through Apple.
[dice]try again[/dice]
it's not about phones or iOS.. it's about the apps.. and how every single app that goes onto an iphone, apple stands to profit off it...
if i want to buy irate turkey, i must buy it from apple..
it'd be like trying to buy photoshop for mac except i can't buy it from adobe or auth dealers for $600..
gotta buy it from apple for $800..
it's definitely a monopoly.. 100% of all apps must go through them..
only alternative is the unsupported semi-sheisty grey area of jailbreaking..
----------
what.. nobody else is capable of handling that type of distribution? of course they are..
apple doesn't earn 30%.. they demand it..
i don't think that's the case.. rockefeller found that hovering around 70-80% of all oil was the sweet spot and trying for 100% wouldn't have worked out as well because the public would then turn against him.. (ie- gotta make it seem as if their are alternatives out there so the public can say things like "well, if you don't like standard oil, go buy such and such")
via wiki on his monopoly
(bold = familiar feeling of the app store)
The ignorance of most in this thread is mind boggling.
"This isn't a monopoly, you can go android"
Really? Did you miss the point? Yes, I can buy an android phone and always could. The point is if I go iOS, I have to have apples blessing to install apps out the door. This isn't only an issue in terms of price. If apple feels my app has questionable material, it won't be allowed. This completely shuts out the adult industry from official software.
"Get cydia"
Yes, the small fraction of users who are even aware of cydia can do that... If there happens to be a jailbreak out for whatever version of software they are running. Up until a few weeks ago anyone who owned an iPhone 5 was SOL. That's five months of Apple making the decisions.
I've long said that this was an issue, and frankly wish I would have the time and funds to head this battle. I hope this changes things for iOS, Windows Phone, and any other OS with locked down application installation options.
"This isn't a monopoly, you can go android"
Really? Did you miss the point? Yes, I can buy an android phone and always could. The point is if I go iOS, I have to have apples blessing to install apps out the door. This isn't only an issue in terms of price. If apple feels my app has questionable material, it won't be allowed. This completely shuts out the adult industry from official software.
"Get cydia"
Yes, the small fraction of users who are even aware of cydia can do that... If there happens to be a jailbreak out for whatever version of software they are running. Up until a few weeks ago anyone who owned an iPhone 5 was SOL. That's five months of Apple making the decisions.
I've long said that this was an issue, and frankly wish I would have the time and funds to head this battle. I hope this changes things for iOS, Windows Phone, and any other OS with locked down application installation options.
People only sue when there is something to gain. How many injustices happen per day? How many times do people settle out of court? It's all about whether or not a lawsuit is worth your time.
Frankly, the w8rt is also a problem. So is windows phone. Depending on how this lawsuit turns out they may be targeted next. The fact that other companies are doing it is hardly evidence that it is an acceptable practice.