Have to agree with Apple here. No dominant market share / fees are in line with the marketplace. Not sure what else really needs to be said.
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 'Vehemently Disagrees' With U.S. Tech Company Antitrust Report
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You clearly have answered the post that suited the answer you were deperate to give; rather than actually reading my post?
IMO, something will come out of this. If you read the report, you don't have to agree with every conclusion in order to see that there are areas where it makes sense to either have better oversight + enforcement of current laws or to create additional laws that would clarify what would be considered anticompetitive going forward. Tim Cook himself chose the "street fight" analogy for competition in the tech world, which doesn't exactly mean fair play 100% of the time.
Socialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Strange that the end point of hard capitalism is monopoly which is the same a a one party system in politics or a dictator of any political direction. If the marker cannot fix market economy, which require multiple actor in one market place.
An easy fix would be to let app buyers carry over their purchases between platforms so any apps, books, movies must be moved between Apple App Store to correspondent Android App Store when the buyer switch platform.
If you read the report, there's more going on than what Apple rumor sites have focused on. There's more nuance in there than just the fees or market share. Not saying it's a slam dunk on Apple at all, but more that some of the material is fairly reasonable in terms of why more rules might be necessary going forward. And Apple appears to have much less to worry about than Facebook, Google, and Amazon.
Once you start reading some of the sections, you'll get more interested in it. It's not all convincing, but there's some good material in there.
I don't particularly like what the game consoles do either! Two wrongs don't make a right and I'm allowed to be critical of both.
I do think the console makers have less power than Apple, though, just due to the sheer number of iOS devices Apple sells.
I agree when it comes to the app store and managing purchases, not to accessories. Of course if I can get a phone for 35% I'd go for it. But when it comes to purchasing apps, it's nice to go to one place and see everything in one place vs x places. The convenience is worth the alleged price boost.
Yes, exactly this.Hmmm...I remember those good old days and those days that followed…
Let's see, the dwindling software options on the shelves at stores like Fry's Electronics. Less and less new software.
I do remember seeing a surging demand for anti-virus software, too, during that time.
Oh yeah, and 30% is small price compared to having to pay for printing, packaging, delivery and maintaining physical inventory for software.
The PC revolution came to fizzling end
And then the App Store came…
…and breathed new life to the solo entrepreneurial programmer market. A single programmer could actually make money simply by writing code and not have to design a package, have it printed, shipped to a distributer, make business contracts with retailers, and maintain physical inventory (what does all that have to do with programming?).
oh, and what virus on the smartphone platforms?
And now there's at least a dozen apps per topic/subject to choose from and room for competition as each one solves needs and problems differently.
Yeah, this is one techie that does not fondly remember those parts of the good old days.
That being said, I am against Adobe's MONOPOLY and subscription only model on their software
You even got a dislike for stating something so factual? I really don’t get some people that walk around the earth... I could understand something with a lot of nuances but not a “sky is blue” scenario.
The Adobe comment, damn, yes, so used to it that we just give it free passes... it boils my blood.
I bought Affinity Photo in the hopes of swaying away but it’s still a bit painful... filling a layer via shortcuts is imposible (most shortcuts are different), there’s a “fill layer” that I don’t know how it works, etc. I think there are some serious UX issues in a lot of its tools.
That would be thousands of wrongs then... why DVD players don’t play Blu-ray’s or Cassettes or VHS. Or Roku vs Alexa vs AppleTV. Or your toaster it let’s toast bread, it should allow toasting a pizza.
Things are made for a specific task, consoles for games and light browsing, and as the owners of the platform they decide which games are allowed and how they are to be distributed. The user decides if to play game or not... see the Wii U, kinda a flop.
It’s hard to see how Apple is a monopoly, since Apple is a vertically integrated company. Meaning, it participates in many industry segments that are, by themselves, unrelated even if when combined they create the iPhone “experience.” Example: Apple produces its own processors, buildings its own devices, creates its own OS, maintains its own digital store, etc. This is all vertical integration.
The easier monopoly to prove is a horizontal monopoly, or horizontally integrated companies with dominant market share. That would definitely be Google, which participates primarily in the web search and ad industry, and commands 90% of all web searches. Furthermore, Google has leveraged that to maintain its dominance through questionable means, like taking other websites’ information and presenting it as its own.
For Amazon and FB, it’s less clear overall. It might be the case where Amazon has to divest itself of its own branded products (Amazon Basics and other products like Echo), since there is evidence that Amazon has abused its position to boost its own products. With FB, I can see it having to divest itself of What’s App and Instagram, which IMO should have never been allowed in the first place.
The easier monopoly to prove is a horizontal monopoly, or horizontally integrated companies with dominant market share. That would definitely be Google, which participates primarily in the web search and ad industry, and commands 90% of all web searches. Furthermore, Google has leveraged that to maintain its dominance through questionable means, like taking other websites’ information and presenting it as its own.
For Amazon and FB, it’s less clear overall. It might be the case where Amazon has to divest itself of its own branded products (Amazon Basics and other products like Echo), since there is evidence that Amazon has abused its position to boost its own products. With FB, I can see it having to divest itself of What’s App and Instagram, which IMO should have never been allowed in the first place.
Apple's products exist in a highly competitive market. Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything. Apple uses all of its elements to produce a tightly-integrated product, with excellent quality. Splitting Apple would ruin that collaboration and hurt the brand.
That's quite a revision of history. Have you not heard of 'shareware' before? Obviously not.
Shareware is a category, people could sell their software, very often online and fairly cheap, without printing anything. It worked very well. All electronically. Yes, even in the 1990s, dial up internet.
And you know, it's still happening today. Individuals selling their ( desktop ) software online, electronically, inside and outside of an "AppStore" - whether that's Apple, or Microsoft.
Shareware is a category, people could sell their software, very often online and fairly cheap, without printing anything. It worked very well. All electronically. Yes, even in the 1990s, dial up internet.
And you know, it's still happening today. Individuals selling their ( desktop ) software online, electronically, inside and outside of an "AppStore" - whether that's Apple, or Microsoft.
So hang on. Apple gives people all the tools, the language, the framework, the libraries, the QA, the research for virtually no cost ($99 is not what I would call cost) and then those people should be able to just sell the app for 100% profit?!? Gotta be joking. And don't tell me Google allows it, because that is barely the case. Other than highly technical people, no one side-loads an Android app because it's too complicated and smells fishy.
After cursory read, found this section interesting:
"Although both Google Android and Apple iOS both have dominant positions in the mobile OS market, high switching costs and a lack of on-device competition mean that neither firm’s market power is disciplined by the presence of the other. The European Commission’s investigation into Google’s Android platform found that because iOS is not available on non-Apple devices, it cannot constrain Google’s dominance in the mobile OS market. Conversely, Android is not available on Apple devices and does not constrain Apple’s dominant position and conduct on Apple mobile devices. An investment research firm recently noted that switching costs were high for Apple users because iOS is not available on non-Apple devices."
Report "...recommends that Congress consider data interoperability and portability to encourage competition by lowering entry barriers for competitors and switching costs by consumers."
From reading that I wonder if Apple could be forced to license iOS or allow Android on iPhones...
"Although both Google Android and Apple iOS both have dominant positions in the mobile OS market, high switching costs and a lack of on-device competition mean that neither firm’s market power is disciplined by the presence of the other. The European Commission’s investigation into Google’s Android platform found that because iOS is not available on non-Apple devices, it cannot constrain Google’s dominance in the mobile OS market. Conversely, Android is not available on Apple devices and does not constrain Apple’s dominant position and conduct on Apple mobile devices. An investment research firm recently noted that switching costs were high for Apple users because iOS is not available on non-Apple devices."
Report "...recommends that Congress consider data interoperability and portability to encourage competition by lowering entry barriers for competitors and switching costs by consumers."
From reading that I wonder if Apple could be forced to license iOS or allow Android on iPhones...
Oh come now, that's not even remotely the same thing! DVD Players don't physically have BluRay drives. But you can create your own DVDs, and the players won't stop you from playing them.
The second part of your sentence is not a natural consequence of the first part. I don't think that the owners of a platform should have control over what users do with the platform. Consoles are designed for games, yes, but if I want to make and sell my own games, it should be up to consumers whether to buy what I create.
And, who knows—tools get repurposed in novel ways all the time! Toasters can't bake cake, but you're welcome to try, and maybe create a new food in the process.
If you are a developer, you can choose to just create an Android app instead. I know many businesses and apps that only exist on Android and they are making quite a bit of money.
The argument behind a closed App Store is that Apple are screening apps for bad behavior. Yet apps like WhatApp and TikTok were allowed for years to run in the background and spy on users (microphone) or steal data from other apps or even your computer (clipboard via handoff).
Even apps like YouTube are still able to track your Internet traffic without your consent. When you click on a link in YouTube is asks you if you want to open it in Chrome or Safari. But when you pick "Safari", which they even display with the Safari icon, the YouTube app just brings up a WebView control within the app, so Google can keep tracking where you go.
Even apps like YouTube are still able to track your Internet traffic without your consent. When you click on a link in YouTube is asks you if you want to open it in Chrome or Safari. But when you pick "Safari", which they even display with the Safari icon, the YouTube app just brings up a WebView control within the app, so Google can keep tracking where you go.
Imagine if Apple agreed ... that would be odd
What Apple fails to acknowledge is that digital businesses are totally dependent on Internet Infrastructure and Computing Devices. It also does not acknowledge that a standard digital business has no control over which device their customers use ... unlike Apple (if it’s one of their customers of course they use at least one of their devices). Finally it fails acknowledge that the digital services and devices sell each other.
Now if iOS devices had the same market share in the mobile space has they do in the desktop space, it could be easily ignored by many has it happens with MacOS. But with 50% the effect is as if it had 100%, it can’t just be bypassed given the above.
But this is Apple alone. Google is moving to do the same, and if MS does it ...these companies could than take whatever with no supervision.
The idea 3 companies in play is enough to grantee a safe and competitive landscape in the US or Globally is ludicrous. As ludicrous as the idea of ... “want to compete with Apple Music? Build your own device” ... “What not to pay us to serve your customers ... build your own device”.... This later argument is of course another a fallacy as far as competition is concerned ...
What Apple fails to acknowledge is that digital businesses are totally dependent on Internet Infrastructure and Computing Devices. It also does not acknowledge that a standard digital business has no control over which device their customers use ... unlike Apple (if it’s one of their customers of course they use at least one of their devices). Finally it fails acknowledge that the digital services and devices sell each other.
Now if iOS devices had the same market share in the mobile space has they do in the desktop space, it could be easily ignored by many has it happens with MacOS. But with 50% the effect is as if it had 100%, it can’t just be bypassed given the above.
But this is Apple alone. Google is moving to do the same, and if MS does it ...these companies could than take whatever with no supervision.
The idea 3 companies in play is enough to grantee a safe and competitive landscape in the US or Globally is ludicrous. As ludicrous as the idea of ... “want to compete with Apple Music? Build your own device” ... “What not to pay us to serve your customers ... build your own device”.... This later argument is of course another a fallacy as far as competition is concerned ...
Last edited:
What's even more ludicrous is to break up these companies so others can use their assets for free.Imagine if Apple agreed ... that would be odd
What Apple fails to acknowledge is that digital businesses are totally dependent on Internet Infrastructure and Computing Devices. It also does not acknowledge that a standard digital business has no control over which device their customers use ... unlike Apple (if it’s one of their customers of course they use at least one of their devices). Finally it fails acknowledge that the digital services and devices sell each other.
Now if iOS devices had the same market share in the mobile space has they do in the desktop space, it could be easily ignored by many has it happens with MacOS. But with 50% the effect is as if it had 100%, it can’t just be bypassed given the above.
But this is Apple alone. Google is moving to do the same, and if MS does it ...these companies could than take whatever with no supervision.
The idea 3 companies in play is enough to grantee a safe and competitive landscape in the US or Globally is ludicrous. As ludicrous as the idea of ... “want to compete with Apple Music? Build your own device” ... “What not to pay us to serve your customers ... build your own device”.... This later argument is of course another a fallacy as far as competition is concerned ...
Of course, don't expect anything to happen before the election and even after the election it's doubtful any of this will come to fruition in any meaningful way.
What these idiots want to do is destroy some of the greatest innovators in the tech industry, which is exactly what we in the US need at this point in time.
As far as Apple agreeing, that's the only think I agree with in this post. As what we need is more regulation to encourage innovation. /s