cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
I didnt state whether I think there is or isn’t a duopoly, I asked a question about the alternative players.
Apple to Allow iPad Users in EU to Download Apps From Third-Party App Stores From September 16
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That seems to be what you're trying to do. You are the one who said the App Store/Play Store isn't an app store duopoly and that iOS/Android isn't a mobile OS duopoly yet haven't been able to provide any valid proof or basis. For example, the fact that multiple options exist does not mean there can't be a duopoly.
The fact that options exist does not mean there can't be a duopoly. Options can exist even with a monopoly.
wbeasley
macrumors 68030
do you just redefine monopoly and duopoly on the fly?
the point is there are LOTS of Android app stores and ways to install APKs yourself.
So there is NO duopoly at all.
no matter how you slice and dice it.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
Installing an apk isnt an alternative App Store.
A front end alternative for Google play isn’t an alternative app-store.
Apk mirrors from Google play isn’t an alternate app-store.
RSS reader type apps, like obtainium, aren’t app-store.
Fdroid is, and it’s an alternate App Store, but it’s specifically and only for open source apps.
Gaming appstores are specifically for games. So they’re not really an alternative in the way that is relevant in this conversation.
The relevant alternative AppStore in this conversation would be an all encompassing AppStore ran by someone other than Google or Apple, but allowed the same type of privileges as either of those stores. This is issue, and you cannot give a level player because one doesn’t exist, just as in the OS space.
Now granted, Android it there, but the Google play store remains dominant because it’s built in by default.
Apple is just not there and has nothing of the sort even in the horizon.
Obviously the problem is both Apple and Google have put themselves in the impossible to surmount dominant position, purely gained by virtue of exclusivity.
Last edited:
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Focusing on the above. Popularity is not exclusivity. They aren’t the only app stores. There are hundreds of providers not apple that have multiple app stores.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
Why is Apples AppStore popular then?
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
That’s both a gross exaggeration of what’s available on Android, and utterly irrelevant to iOS.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
They’re popular precisely and solely because they are or were exclusive. In the case of Apple, the only option full stop. In the case of Google baked so deeply into their own os that aside forking the OS it’s virtually indistinguishable from the os, firmly placing competitors to a position of ‘looking in the windows longingly‘
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
The popularity is trickle down effect based on the popularity of iPhones. The fact the iOS app store allesgedly has the crème of the crop apps.
I don’t believe the above is correct. Do you not believe each manufacturer has their own App Store?
iOS belongs to the iPhone as an apple core product. So?
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
People didn’t have to use the ios app stores, but it was a new think for new phone. And made sense given the popularity of iPhones. Remember apple was under no legal obligation to give away their IP.
Think you are connecting the wrong dots.
Nope. Do you?
A monopoly can exist when there is one dominant player with several/many other comparatively smaller players. The fact that options exist does not mean there can't be a monopoly.
A duopoly can exist when there are two dominant players with several/many other comparatively smaller players. The fact that options exist does not mean there can't be a duopoly.
How are you concluding that a duopoly doesn't exist in the app store market? It can't be just because there are options.
Nope, but you seem to be struggling to define it.
A monopoly can exist when there is one dominant player with several/many other comparatively smaller players. The fact that options exist does not mean there can't be a monopoly.
A duopoly can exist when there are two dominant players with several/many other comparatively smaller players. The fact that options exist does not mean there can't be a duopoly.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
If there is one thing to agree on many are struggling to define this concept. And I applaud your efforts to provide allayed of understanding so people rightly understand what a duopoly is. (Even those who believe they may understand) The way the market is being defined in such a way to justify the means.
The fact the options exist; that iOS android can’t collude with android or fix prices. There are multiple app store; there is no barrier to entry above and beyond what would normally be required for a new business line etc. Means: there is no duopoly. There is no controlling the market by any means other then creativity and popularity.
Last edited:
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
No. The reason the AppStore is popular is because there is no other choice. That’s so utterly obvious, and absolutely cannot be argued. Now, if there were two app-stores available and apples was the most popular on its own merits, you would be correct. But with only one option only ever being available, no one can possible know. The AppStore is the most popular place to get iOS apps because it’s the only place to get iOS apps.
Last edited:
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
Both manufacturers bake in and prioritise their own appstores, which they then gain a (strikingly similar) cut of the profits from. It’s the ability of other AppStores to break in to that that the issue. On iOS literally impossible. On Android, possible but not without massive hurdles, and never with the same breadth. OEM appstores are normally supplemental to play with just a few different apps. Unless the manufacturer of the fork goes out of their way to de Google, then Google play is right there, in built and that’s where you’re steered.
What law/definition states that colluding must be possible for a duopoly to exist?
In the meantime, I'll play along...
Apple (with the App Store) and Google (with the Play Store) could collude to set app store fees. That therefore means they are a duopoly?
Apple (with the App Store) and Google (with the Play Store) could collude to block Meta apps on their devices. That therefore means they are a duopoly?
Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) could collude to set mobile OS prices (or lack of) or pre-installed app fees/prices. That therefore means they are a duopoly?
Apple (with iOS) and Google (with Android) could collude to block Meta apps on their operating systems/devices. That therefore means they are a duopoly?
Coca-Cola and Pepsi are often viewed as a duopoly even though there is no unusual barrier to entry controlling the soda/carbonated beverage market other than "creativity and popularity. " In fact, there are many players in that market.
Even based on your "definitions", I don’t see how you could conclude iOS/Android aren't a duopoly in the mobile OS market or that the App Store/Play Store aren’t a duopoly in the app store market.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
I am a steadfast user of ios since it came out. I love the eco system. I love apple products. I have macs, iphones, iPads, apple TV,, homepods. Its unbeatable. I know - I also use android (GrapheneOS) and other computers (popOS and Qubes). Apple is the clear winner. I want to be all in on apple. But I didn't choose apple because they're closed. Being closed is the opposite of what I believe computers should be. I dont like google, I would pick apple any day of the week. Same goes for windows. However, apple have a stranglehold over and above what should be considered normal for a mainstream OS should have. Once you buy a product it becomes yours. Should it be technically possible to do something outside of what the seller deems viable, then I fail to see what right they have to physically stop you. We're talking everyday general computing platforms that most of the industrialised world has come to rely on.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
I disagree. The app store could have turned out to be a dud on 2008.
Except it’s a subjective take on it.
My position and I guess the US legal system agrees apple ecosystem is legal. They built it’s they own it and they control it.
It still could have turned out to be dud. Duds aren’t popular. Ask blackberry.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
You’re welcome to your definition but it’s objectively true:
- competition exists across the broader tech ecosystem. Even if you don’t like the universe characterization)
- android is not a single operating system
- other cell phone manufacturers have alternative platforms
- cross platform tools make it easy to push apps on multiple platforms
There is no rigid duopoly.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
How? We wanted apps. Here they are and we'll take our bit. By the way, that's the only way to get them. Subject closed.
Its the reality.
They operate worldwide. The us is the us not the world.
surferfb
Contributor
But what you're actually saying is "My desire for Apple to be an open system is more important than Apple's desire for their system to be closed, and the vast majority of its customers who either don't care or prefer a closed system".
Because you already have access to an open system in Android. When iOS is forced to open up, those who prefer a closed system have nowhere to go.
cupcakes2000
macrumors 601
Thats just what you think, no? I dont see evidence one way or the other. Even people who know nothing and dont care can either continue to not be affected, or suddenly find a wealth of stuff they didn't think possible.
surferfb
Contributor
I would argue the fact that you keep saying the other App Stores don't matter on Android is proof positive the vast, vast majority of consumers don't care.