I like to use the saying "Minimum Viable X" - As first coined (I believe) with the notion of Minimum Viable Feature - MVF. I think that works well with phrases like "Minimum Viable Regulation" or "Minimum Viable Structure" - ymmv.
Apple Could Soon Face 'Sweeping' U.S. Antitrust Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes it does. Nobody cares if you have the monopoly on something nobody uses. But the App Store has become too dominant and disrupts the market of mobile apps.
If a platform (1) has significant impact on the internal market; (2) provides a specified service that is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and (3) enjoys an entrenched and durable position, then the EU labels it a gatekeeper.
These companies (including Apple with its App Store) need to take measures to level the playing field for other actors (in the EU).
Unregistered 4U
macrumors G4
The largest portion of the market Apple targets already aren’t feeling any cost pressures… so “low priced” options will simply pull attention from existing low priced offerings.
Which, I guess is why Apple’s still around. They, like everyone else, understand that selling expensive things to folks with money is difficult, but Apple seem to provide the right amount of value for a profitable number of people. Everyone else just concedes that market to Apple and goes to scrape the bottom of the barrel with “low priced” and “cheap” products. (AI Pin by Humane MAY be different, we’ll see)
Plutonius
macrumors G3
Some of the points are pretty legitimately Apple maintaining a walled garden, without any other explanation - locking other banking apps out of NFC.
App Store fees and iMessage are certainly walled garden, but ALSO have user protection arguments. Many Apple users WANT the security of App Store vetting (which doesn't always work as well as it should), and MANY big companies would immediately go "sideload-only" if sideloading were available. Not only would you have to open a security hole if you wanted Fortnite, you'd have to open a hole if you wanted FACEBOOK - Zuck would ditch the App Store at his first opportunity. He'd also install types of tracking in Facebook that the App Store protects consumers from (and that consumers WANT protection from)...
Similarly, letting Google into iMessage might (I'm less sure how this works technically) allow malicious text messages which can carry a malware payload into iOS. Right now, they're not a problem, because they require more than SMS to deliver, and iMessage locks them out if they're coming from iOS with greater privilege. Nobody WANTS malware texts, and iOS does a nice job of preventing them - Google doesn't.
The best example of where Apple is being pro-consumer is ad-tracking prevention. An advertisement is a nearly unique product, in that it (generally - there are counterexamples like Super Bowl commercials that people eagerly await) has a NEGATIVE value to the end consumer.
Most consumer products, from a car to a computer to a sandwich, are things that people will pay to HAVE. Standard economics works there - a computer has a value, and, if its value to you is greater than what Tim Cook demands for it, you pay him and have a new Mac. There are many cases where standard economics doesn't produce an equitable result - it's widely recognized that poor schoolchildren need more computers than they can afford - so government might step in and buy some computers for poor schoolchildren to use.
There are sometimes distortions imposed by corporate behavior - I'm in the market for a small electric SUV in the next six months, and I'd love to consider a Tesla Model Y - it has some real advantages. I'm willing to pay SOMEONE the prices demanded for a small electric SUV, but I'm NOT willing to pay Elon Musk in particular, because I dislike other things he does strongly enough. As Harrison Ford said while playing Indiana Jones - "Nazis - I HATE these guys..."
Advertisements introduce a different distortion. Most products have a value greater than zero to the consumer. If the value to you is greater than the price (and you can afford it), you buy it. If the value is between zero and the price, you ignore it. Advertisements generally have a value between zero and LESS THAN ZERO (to the consumer - advertisers value them, or they wouldn't exist). A product with a value less than zero is a product people will pay to NOT HAVE, and advertisements are by far the most common example (there are a few others - many people value perfume or background music below zero, and will pay for a fragrance-free space or a space without Muzak).
Given that advertisements generally have a negative value, Apple is selling "avoiding ads" as a product, and it's working. Facebook is crying foul because their product is ads - they really exist to show advertising, adding just enough other products to push the value of the ads above zero.
If anything, the government SHOULD be protecting people's freedom to AVOID an unwanted product. They should be restricting companies' ability to circumvent ad-blockers and the like. I have a disability that means that the negative value I place on ads is greater than many other people's choices. I find singing, dancing ads incredibly distracting, and am willing to pay quite a bit to remove them (both in money invested in blocking tools AND in things I don't do because of ads).
For me (and for millions of other people), ad-blockers are ACCESSIBILITY SOFTWARE. If a lawsuit forces Macs and iPhones to the Windows/Android consensus about ads (that advertisers can do anything they wish, and that consumers have very few controls), people like me could eventually lose access to computers and smartphones. I'm willing to pay Apple to be able to use these tools without distractions I can't handle (and I'm middle class enough to be able to).
App Store fees and iMessage are certainly walled garden, but ALSO have user protection arguments. Many Apple users WANT the security of App Store vetting (which doesn't always work as well as it should), and MANY big companies would immediately go "sideload-only" if sideloading were available. Not only would you have to open a security hole if you wanted Fortnite, you'd have to open a hole if you wanted FACEBOOK - Zuck would ditch the App Store at his first opportunity. He'd also install types of tracking in Facebook that the App Store protects consumers from (and that consumers WANT protection from)...
Similarly, letting Google into iMessage might (I'm less sure how this works technically) allow malicious text messages which can carry a malware payload into iOS. Right now, they're not a problem, because they require more than SMS to deliver, and iMessage locks them out if they're coming from iOS with greater privilege. Nobody WANTS malware texts, and iOS does a nice job of preventing them - Google doesn't.
The best example of where Apple is being pro-consumer is ad-tracking prevention. An advertisement is a nearly unique product, in that it (generally - there are counterexamples like Super Bowl commercials that people eagerly await) has a NEGATIVE value to the end consumer.
Most consumer products, from a car to a computer to a sandwich, are things that people will pay to HAVE. Standard economics works there - a computer has a value, and, if its value to you is greater than what Tim Cook demands for it, you pay him and have a new Mac. There are many cases where standard economics doesn't produce an equitable result - it's widely recognized that poor schoolchildren need more computers than they can afford - so government might step in and buy some computers for poor schoolchildren to use.
There are sometimes distortions imposed by corporate behavior - I'm in the market for a small electric SUV in the next six months, and I'd love to consider a Tesla Model Y - it has some real advantages. I'm willing to pay SOMEONE the prices demanded for a small electric SUV, but I'm NOT willing to pay Elon Musk in particular, because I dislike other things he does strongly enough. As Harrison Ford said while playing Indiana Jones - "Nazis - I HATE these guys..."
Advertisements introduce a different distortion. Most products have a value greater than zero to the consumer. If the value to you is greater than the price (and you can afford it), you buy it. If the value is between zero and the price, you ignore it. Advertisements generally have a value between zero and LESS THAN ZERO (to the consumer - advertisers value them, or they wouldn't exist). A product with a value less than zero is a product people will pay to NOT HAVE, and advertisements are by far the most common example (there are a few others - many people value perfume or background music below zero, and will pay for a fragrance-free space or a space without Muzak).
Given that advertisements generally have a negative value, Apple is selling "avoiding ads" as a product, and it's working. Facebook is crying foul because their product is ads - they really exist to show advertising, adding just enough other products to push the value of the ads above zero.
If anything, the government SHOULD be protecting people's freedom to AVOID an unwanted product. They should be restricting companies' ability to circumvent ad-blockers and the like. I have a disability that means that the negative value I place on ads is greater than many other people's choices. I find singing, dancing ads incredibly distracting, and am willing to pay quite a bit to remove them (both in money invested in blocking tools AND in things I don't do because of ads).
For me (and for millions of other people), ad-blockers are ACCESSIBILITY SOFTWARE. If a lawsuit forces Macs and iPhones to the Windows/Android consensus about ads (that advertisers can do anything they wish, and that consumers have very few controls), people like me could eventually lose access to computers and smartphones. I'm willing to pay Apple to be able to use these tools without distractions I can't handle (and I'm middle class enough to be able to).
Realityck
macrumors G5
Yep.
I guess the NYTimes is writing their own opinions to sell papers/online content when they write things like this:
How does Apple prevent consumers from being able to ditch any of their devices? That is almost a laughable thought. True you can have someone addicted to the iPhone and its associated iOS operation, but anyone as you said can ditch it without a hassle. Anyone want to compare Apple to something like changing/canceling your AT&T or Comcast service?
Yes seriously around the world you have various companies that make it very difficult to cancel a service compared to going to a wireless company and switching even getting a different phone model.
Is Apple ecosystem like this guys?
joeblow7777
macrumors 604
That's basically what it boils down to. Most consumers know what they're getting with Apple, and it's their choice. It's not like Apple has a monopoly. There's a viable and popular alternative that consumers have access to with Android.
This is not just specific to Apple devices of course, but ecosystem lock-in is real.
Say a person buys an iPhone, and then AirPods and an Apple Watch because that's really the only way to get all of the functionality. It's not just an issue of Apple offering better features, it's Apple offering feature the competition cannot and will never be able to. [Substitute Apple for Samsung or Google and the sentence still works.]
They will be more likely to upgrade to a new iPhone than an Android device because of their accessories, and more likely to buy more Apple accessories because of their iPhone.
It works with services as well of course, let's not pretend that Apple hasn't relied quite a bit on iMessage to keep people in the ecosystem, and the ecosystem to sell them other services and devices.
That's why all of the big platform providers push their ecosystems.
Realityck
macrumors G5
Is simply labeling same brand options to go along with a iPhone as an example an ecosystem? There are a huge number of companies as you imply that indeed promote their add-on products that works more optimally then competitors product.
Shouldn't Apple and other tech giants challenge this misguided labeling championed by politicians against the tech industry as a evil when it abounds in other industries too?
ecosystem /ē′kō-sĭs″təm, ĕk′ō-/
noun
- An ecological community together with its environment, functioning as a unit.
- A system formed by an ecological community and its environment that functions as a unit.
- The interconnectedness of organisms (plants, animals, microbes) with each other and their environment.
Last edited:
jarman92
macrumors 68000
So Apple should be required to accede to the whims of financial institutions who are either incapable of integrating with Apple Pay or, more likely, refuse to do so because they want to keep collecting and selling their customers’ data? Why shouldn’t banks be forced to integrate with Apple and Google Pay?
jarman92
macrumors 68000
That’s just Apple (and others) providing their customers with valuable features and services, and it’s a big reason why Apple customers stay Apple customers. What’s the alternative? Apple will never be able to make AirPods work with Android as well as they work with Apple devices, simply because Apple doesn’t control Android hardware (nobody does, in fact, which is the biggest issue with Android). So if Apple is forced into feature parity, they’ll be forced to cater to the least common denominator—that is, nobody gets cool AirPods features because Android can’t get them.
- How the Apple Watch works better with iPhone than other smart watches do. (Apple opening up the API sound like something good for the consumer)
- How Apple locks competitors out of iMessage. (Same here)
- How Apple blocks other financial firms from offering tap-to-pay services similar to Apple Pay on the iPhone. (And, again)
- Whether Apple favors its own apps and services over those provided by third-party developers. (Sounds like they should make them uninstallable. Which is fair, just provide an extra check and an easy way to reinstall stuff)
- How Apple has blocked cloud gaming apps from the App Store. (This should mostly be solved by allowing third party app stores, again, you could probably get away with a "are you sure you want to...")
- How Apple restricts the iPhone's location services from devices that compete with AirTag. (Sounds like a fair thing to lean on Apple for)
- How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data. (Lol no. There is no god given right to spy on people. Even if it makes folks money.)
- In-app purchase fees collected by Apple. (See, allow third partyt app stores. It's 100% ok for Apple to set their own rules for their store, as long as they allow others.)
wanha
macrumors 68020
What you are saying is certainly true and I agree with it, but imo it's only a part of it.
Digital devices and services play a huge role in society these days and their role is only increasing.
The fact that they are controlled by essentially two companies makes it an area that requires regulation or at the very least very clear outlines of what behavior is acceptable and what is not.
The regulation that is now starting to happen is the governments attempt at creating these outlines.
Unfortunately such regulation is often done by people with limited understanding of all the complex issues associated with digital platforms, which means that over-reaches will occasionally and inevitably happen.
But I think it would be naive to suggest no regulation is required; for all their talk praising free market competition, almost all strategic initiatives by companies aim at creating a monopoly position where they don't have to compete on price and can charge higher prices.
When a company gets too good at that, it is in the public interest that the government steps in.
How wise that regulation ends up being depends on the people in charge.
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
Nonsense. I own my phone. I CHOSE the Apple iPhone because, IMHO, it is a better product. There are alternatives. If you don’t like Apple, pick one.
They’re not in competition with each other. They make sure of that.
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
How are you going to let 300 million (in the USA alone…) decide ? Apple offers a product you may either purchase or not. I would prefer a Porsche 911 cost about 1/10th of its price, but they don’t. That is the Capitalistic marketplace.
Realityck
macrumors G5
- In Apple example they have designed hardware to work with operating systems they developed (iOS/WatchOS).
- In Alphabet (Google) example they market their own smartphones in addition to letting many other smartphone manufacturers utilize Android.
- In Samsung example they created their own linux OS distribution (Tizen) which is now focused on wearables and is a close competitor to Apple
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
Why? Why such a petty, petty attitude?
raindogg
macrumors 6502
I feel like this is the only one that matters:
- How App Tracking Transparency impacted the collection of advertising data.
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
What a reply. I’d rather the Winn-Dixie Ice Cream carton was filled with Haagen-Daz, but that isn’t the choice. If you so love the Apple Product, e.g., iMessage, how can you complain about having to buy the iMessage container?
WarmWinterHat
macrumors 603
You're absolutely allowed to do that, and Chevrolet can't do anything about it.
I transplanted a Kawasaki motorcycle engine into my Honda 4-wheeler in high school.
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
Vote with your wallet.If you don’t like the offerings, don’t buy them.
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
What choice? More crap that runs on Android?
Other hw companies SHOULD be able to make a smartwatch as good as the apple watch for the iPhone. Imagine if they were allowed to. No more boring square shape.
If someone wants to make a better text messaging app that combines multiple services. Let them. Why can't they integrate iMessage? Why should we be forced to use the messages app? How come you can link iCloud mail to different email apps, but not iMessage?
If someone wants to make a better text messaging app that combines multiple services. Let them. Why can't they integrate iMessage? Why should we be forced to use the messages app? How come you can link iCloud mail to different email apps, but not iMessage?
BillyBurke
macrumors regular
I’d bet they don’t especially sell well. Should BestBuy be required to stock every product known to mankind? Profitable or not for them?