Which is exactly the reason apple is fighting this inane bit of legislation. Apple provides a platform for distribution of a devs wares, but it is up to the dev to make a good product.
Last edited:
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 Defends App Store Changes in the Netherlands as Fines Reach €30 Million
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple similarly "interfered" in the smartphone operating system market by introducing the iPhone (iOS). To suggest otherwise would essentially mean that Apple had no impact on the smartphone market which is not the case.
Pretty much anytime a new product comes to market from a major company, it is at least a temporary interference. In the case of Apple, while new to phones, they were a major player in the consumer portable electronics market with products like the iPod and were also a fairly strong player in OS.
Apple's mobile OS market share is closer to 30%. They and Google, which basically has the rest, are the only two dominant players in mobile OS. It just seems that Apple gets more of a pass (by some people) simply because they also happen to exclusively make the hardware for their OS.
Like with Google/Android, a number of Apple apps are "required" to be pre-installed on their OS. For Apple this includes Safari, the App store, Keynote, Numbers, Pages, GarageBand, FaceTime, and so on.
But unlike Google/Android, Apple also requires specific browser engine for all browsers on their OS. Apple also requires app developers to use Apple's App store to market their apps on their OS. Apple is even more restrictive here.
It's kind of amusing how back in the 1990s, Microsoft (which I realize was even more dominant in OS at the time) got dinged for pre-installing IE on Windows yet Google and Apple pre-install all sorts of stuff and/or are even more restrictive today.
How is Google worse? Both pre-install a number of apps. Apple, however, has additional OS restrictions like requiring app developers to market through their App store and browsers to use WebKit engine.
Look at early Android prototypes. Early Android was more like BB or Palm. After the keynote, the Android team had to basically start over again. But you are correct that some have had reservations about the business model early on.
Still doesn't change that fact that mobile software wasn't nearly as lucrative a market before, and others quickly followed Apple's lead.
Interesting notes from that 2008 article:
Huh... so when did Google adopt the same commissions as Apple?
?
Did Microsoft make their own PCs? That to me seems to be the key difference. Apple makes their own hardware. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to dictate how they wish to govern their own platform?
But I always found that rule silly. Is that why windows comes with less functionality out of the box compared to macOS? Like macOS has preview which gives me basic pdf management and annotation capabilities. But no equivalent for windows.
Because Apple doesn't compete in the dating app market.
For the most part. China is the exception. As far as FireOS, they're a minor player in the market since they don't compete in smartphones.
Google isn't "interfering" by releasing android as open source code. They're interfering with competition through their licensing of Google Play across their own horizontal competitors to eliminate competition in the large majority of the market. Basically, everyone but Apple in most markets outside of China.
You didn't follow the conversation. What's currently possible and what I'm worried about happening in the future are two different things.
Depends on the market you are talking about. Globally, Apple has around 15-20% of the smartphone market. Technically, Google does not control the OS of the android-compatible part of the market. The manufacturers each control their own android fork.
Gartner Says Global Smartphone Sales Grew 6% in 2021
Gartner says global #smartphone sales grew 6% in 2021. Read more here. #IT
www.gartner.com
Google gains control over their own competitors through licensing of the Android brand and Google Play and associated services.
Microsoft threatened OEMs with their Windows licenses if they preinstalled Netscape.
Google did something similar after some OEMs started inking deals for alternatives to Google Services. For example, the VZW version of the Galaxy S came preinstalled with Bing as the default search engine. It was shortly thereafter that they started requiring GMS in order to receive full support, getting them in trouble with the EU. This is because Google drove away potential competitors by giving away Android for free, knowing that they would be receiving a treasure trove of user data to drive their primary ad business. This is party why Windows Phone couldn't compete with Android, MS charged a licensing fee.
Apple did pull MacOS licensing back in the day because it was killing the Mac business, and bought out their biggest clone manufacturer. They also preinstalled IE on the Mac as the default browser, but you could easily install another.
When it comes to iPhone however it's always been locked down, just like Xbox.
Google did something similar after some OEMs started inking deals for alternatives to Google Services. For example, the VZW version of the Galaxy S came preinstalled with Bing as the default search engine. It was shortly thereafter that they started requiring GMS in order to receive full support, getting them in trouble with the EU. This is because Google drove away potential competitors by giving away Android for free, knowing that they would be receiving a treasure trove of user data to drive their primary ad business. This is party why Windows Phone couldn't compete with Android, MS charged a licensing fee.
Apple did pull MacOS licensing back in the day because it was killing the Mac business, and bought out their biggest clone manufacturer. They also preinstalled IE on the Mac as the default browser, but you could easily install another.
When it comes to iPhone however it's always been locked down, just like Xbox.
To me, anytime a company introduces a product that offers new or better features, support, warranty, price, etc. it’s at least a temporary "interference" in that segment/market and therefore Apple certainly interfered with the smartphone and mobile OS market in 2007.
Given the nature of the mobile OS market and by them currently having a notable (e.g., second highest globally, highest in the U.S.) share of that market, I also feel that Apple interferes by things like their App store requirements.
I was talking about the global mobile OS market. According to StatCounter, Apple currently has over 28% mobile OS market share. It's over twice that much in the U.S. where they have around 58% share.
As I commented in another topic on here (re: browser engines on iOS), it seems like Apple found a "loophole" and is using it as much as possible to their advantage. If you make the OS and exclusively make the hardware for it, you can be more controlling or restricting but if you only make the OS, it's a different story?? Given the nature of the mobile OS and app market, I guess I just don't feel that is quite right.
No one's talking about simply participating in the smartphone market. I'm talking about anti-competitive actions from an antitrust perspective. What you are talking about is competition, not interfering with competition.
That can be true depending on which geographic mobile device market you are referring to and in which vertical market you believe they are harming competition.
Maybe, but the person that you were correcting wasn't. Hence, my claim that it depends on what market you are talking about.
Last edited:
That's always been Apple's strategy. They control the whole product and can do with it whatever they wish. There isn't really room in the market for two "open" OS's (all of Android's competitors failed); they replicate each other's functions. There's room for a standard, licensable OS and a closed-down, "higher-quality" OS. Treating Apple products as a platform the way Android and Windows are treated hurts consumer choice by forcing Apple to act like the very thing they have sought to avoid being- a generic OS vendor providing a platform for others to use, rather than an integrated product provider.
That's not to say that one can't have issues with Apple's policies regarding IAP, the App Store, or anything else (which I do think need to change). What I don't understand is why people conflate the issues with these policies with antitrust. Just because a company is doing something "bad" does not make it antitrust. You (or developers) don't like Apple's policies? Either leave the platform or advocate for laws that ban the behavior. Don't try to contort the Sherman Act or have Apple declared a "platform" or "gatekeeper" in order to short-circuit the process of passing well thought out legislation that does minimal damage.
I see both cases as interference, as each can cause a disruption to the market/segment whether it be due to price, features, name/brand dominance or whatever. Whether or not they may reach antitrust territory would depend on how much market share was involved.
I wasn't "correcting". My response was to your response to my prior comment about market share and I clarified to you specifically what I was referring to. Apple has over 28% mobile OS market share globally and 58% in the U.S. Since Apple requires iOS users to use the App store to get apps, those percentages could also apply to their dominance in the mobile app store market.
Yes, Apple's strategy has largely been the same but they also used to allow outside software (apps) for most if not all of their devices available at the time to be sold by companies/stores owned and run by someone other than Apple. On iOS devices, you are required to use the App store.
If all iPhone apps were made by Apple and no outside apps were allowed then I think Apple wanting complete OS control could be fine. A huge mistake as far as what it would do to their market share, but fine in the control sense. However, that's far from the case as most apps are NOT made by Apple and therefore I don’t think the level of control they want/have is entirely reasonable here.
If Apple isn't intentionally trying to at least partially "control" (for financial reasons) the mobile OS and app market, what are the issues here? Do they feel they're incapable of making their OS safe and effective enough for sideloading? Do they feel they're incapable of making their OS safe and effective enough for other browser engines? Do they just not want to spend any of their billions and billions and billions to do it?
Sure, but that definition of the word "interference" isn't really relevant to the conversation.
You responded to another poster (not me) who claimed Apple had 10% market share. I'm just pointing out that you were both referring to different markets.
It is kind of weird to keep talking about the mobile OS market, because it's not really a market that Apple competes in. They don't sell iOS. iOS is just a feature of their mobile devices. Apple competes primarily in device markets, as well as other vertical markets like music.
That's a loaded question. The obvious response is that the feel they can make their platform safer and more effective without sideloading.
Same argument.
That assumes that billions and billions could make it safer than the current strategy. I don't think that's likely.
Apple is not trying to control any market. (Apple does not compete in the OS market as iOS is not a product, and other OEMs also have app stores. Google forcing them to use Google Play is not Apple's problem.) They are trying to make money off iPhone, and mandating the App Store and IAP certainly helps with that (although they could still enforce a commission without them). The fact that Apple is trying to make money does not make them a monopoly nor the behavior illegal. To be clear, the fact that it is legal does not make what they are doing "good" or "bad". It just is something that Apple has chosen to do. Just as Congress can choose to pass a law banning it, or not. The fact that various people currently dislike Apple's practices doesn't make them a monopoly.
Of course Apple competes in the OS mobile market, by the fact that they market iOS as an integral part of the iPhone and iPod. A company doesn't have to sell (or give away) their product separately or on its own to be considered competing in the particular market.
Apple does compete in the OS mobile market by the fact that they market iOS as an integral part of the iPhone and iPod. A company doesn't have to sell (or give away) their product separately or on its own to be considered competing in the particular market.
Whether or not a company like Apple is a monopoly in a certain market will depend on their market share however, being a monoply is not necessarily illegal. The legal issues potentially come in by how a company may try to use their monopoly power.
Fair enough, I just disagree. Every feature of a device isn't a new market in any meaningful way. The competition is between smartphone makers and tablet makers. A market is generally defined by goods or services that are exchanged.
I talk about Toyota in the context of the auto market. Not the car stereo market.
Last edited:
In the case of cars, if an automaker made the stereo or made the tires or whatever themselves, then they would be competing in that market. However, most automakers buy a number of parts/components like these from other companies e.g., tires from Goodyear, Firestone, Michelin, etc.
The market a company competes in is typically defined by some sort of final end product (like a smartphone, car, etc.) but can also be separately defined by individual parts/components like an OS, tires, etc. Apple competes in the smartphone market because they make the end product (iPhone) but they also compete in the mobile OS market because they make the mobile OS (iOS). Toyota competes in the car market because they make the end product (Avalon, Camry, etc.) but they don't compete in the tire market because they don't make the tires.
Apple is a MAJOR competitor in mobile OS which is an integral component of smartphones where they also compete.
The comment above is the one that you so vehemently contested leading to a never ending narrative of fallacies ... yet ...
... you agree with him. You could have spared me some time unraveling all sorts of justifications defending the opposite.
Absolutely. The corollary to this is that considering that the App Store is a feature bundled in the OS and this of the iPhone it faces no competition for users. The iPhone is the thing competing.
Hence the core feature of the App Store for digital services is the fact that their customers own iPhones. Forget anything else.
Now what might be subject to Anti-Trust is the way Apple and Google are using their control over users properties if not together over OEMs properties in case of Google, to enforce policies conditioning competition with and amongst digital services. Entities that have little to do with competition amongst smartphone and tablet makers. Yet are fundamental in providing services to users, from healthcare and state governance, to banking and entertainment ... enriching both these digital ecosystems as well as the local and global economy.
Last edited: