Apple 'Vehemently Disagrees' With U.S. Tech Company Antitrust Report

[ArPe]

The only tech giant companies that need to be penalized are Facebook and Twitter for the wide spread social engineering, social manipulation and division they cause (in cahoots with politicians) because violence is profit for them. In the past countries used to go to war for profit but today’s wars are digital. Twitter and Facebook are the faces of the digital war industry.

Apple, Google and Microsoft are just tool developers and customers have spoken that they like their tools. That they want enhanced privacy and security that they have been at the forefront of enhancing.

Amazon is just a department store. They do digitally what physical department stores have done for 100 years.

 

[vipergts2207]

Or the system could be kept the way it is as it's working very well.

You can keep it that way. You're acting like you'd suddenly be forced to install apps that aren't in the app store. Not the case.

For the majority of people there is far more sensitive data on their phones these days than there ever was on a home computer.

How so? Most people kept and keep taxes and other financial documents on their home computers. Most people's phones are filled with pictures and games.

 

[justperry]

The only tech giant companies that need to be penalized are Facebook and Twitter for the wide spread social engineering, social manipulation and division they cause (in cahoots with politicians) because violence is profit for them. In the past countries used to go to war for profit but today’s wars are digital. Twitter and Facebook are the faces of the digital war industry.

Apple, Google and Microsoft are just tool developers and customers have spoke. That they want enhanced privacy and security that they have been at the forefront of enhancing.

Amazon is just a department store. They do digitally what physical department stores have done for 100 years.

Amazon does a lot more than you think.

I don't agree at all with the rest, they ALL have too much influence including Apple, although apple comes in way last.

 

[trip1ex]

CAn't Amazon, Walmart, Target, Best Buy etc sell codes to mobile software in their apps?

I know they sell egift cards to Netflix for example and I can buy them through their app. Then you use the code and enter it in your Netflix account.

Does anyone do this sort of thing on a large scale for mobile software on iOS? IT seems like a company could basically create their own app store this way. Even include a link to the app store to download the software. And even give a quick method to copy/paste the code.

 

[TheWatchfulOne]

You're being foolish with all three replies.
You know what I meant..but here you go

1. The point is it's unfair competition.
2. Competing Appstore for iPhones, there's none.
3. 30% for most Apps but not for certain others, think Amazon...Uber and the like.

1. Aren't most of Apple's apps in the App Store free these days? They used to charge for the iLife and iWork apps, but I think they are free now. That alone would keep Apple from paying the 30%. Is there an Apple app in the App Store that isn't free?

2. How would app stores compete? I can only see multiple app stores ending up having the same selection of apps. As a developer myself, I would have my apps in all of them. And I would set my apps at the same price in all of them. If all developers do that, where's the competition? All I see is more accounts to have to keep track of both as a developer and as a user.

3. The Amazon app was free when I got it. I'm pretty sure the Uber app is free. Free apps don't have to pay the 30%.

 

[I7guy]

You can keep it that way. You're acting like you'd suddenly be forced to install apps that aren't in the app store. Not the case....

Having already said, it's out of my control, I'm not of the opinion the app store needs to change or should change.

If you are of the opinion the app store SHOULD change...fine. Two people with two opinions.

 

[I7guy]

...
2. Competing Appstore for iPhones, there's none.
....

There is no legal requirement for an ios competing app store. Whether that changes in the future (and how long in the future) is anybody's guess.

 

[deevey]

If someone manages to still mess up their phone at that point, then it's on them. It's certainly no reason to allow anti-competitive behavior to go on unabated.

People will always blame the vendor rather than blame themselves. Just one gem of Viral app that is shown to be dangerous after a couple of million phones have been "infected" would result in virtually flushing a trusted brand name down the toilet.

Don't you think that millions of little Tommy could convince his parents to allow the lock to be turned off to download something that all his friends are playing - yeah alot of parents are that gullible, and yes they should be more hands-on, but millions of parents are that uneducated on tech related stuff save for posting selfies on instagram or chatting on FB.

The same people who were expecting to bask in the inheritance of Nigerian Princes are the very same ones using the internet today, the same ones falling for "Tech Support" scams, and the same ones who will willingly unlock a device to allow malicious software if it looks reasonably legit.

Also, your analysis of kid's and parent's ability with phones is quite a bit off I think. The people with kids now are millennials and some of the youngest gen-Xers. Even the very youngest millenials are 24 now and the oldest are
approaching 40.

The people with kids now all grew up with computers and transitioned to smartphones and tablets without issue. Parents have grown up with this technology, you just hold it in your hand instead of using it at a desk.

Being a child or teen while the internet as we know it now was in its infancy, is not the same thing as making educated decisions. With the sheer volume of applications / games / social media apps at everyones fingertips today it is nothing like the pitiful number of popular software programs that were available when they were at school/college and being told don't click links in an email.

I used to do computer maintenance for these so-called responsible people, and while savvy enough to unlock, install apps and use a device proficiently, most are certainly not savvy enough to pay heed to what's nasties they are potentially letting into their devices once they do.

They aren't IT experts, they don't care about the security until their credit card number has been stolen, they don't read malware reports from Norton or Macafee and the only Tech related news items they are going to care about is how many more megawhatsits that the next iPhone includes which they only see because its posted on Facebook (which half of them think IS the internet).

People are willing to take a risk of switching off security features if the reward appears higher, and I believe that the opportunity of being rewarded with some awesome viral app, just by hitting that "switch", will be made too attractive for many to avoid.

I'm not saying it is tempting from a Power Users perspective to be able to download apps-from-anywhere. But let's say a viral game like Fortnight was ONLY available by direct download, not available on any app-store. Wouldn't you think that might force the hand of all perspective players to grant access ? Now they know how easy it is, they'll do it again, and again, and again...until boo hoo, my phone was hacked all my contacts got sent that bathroom pic and my bank account is zero. Apple phones are crap.

And then of course there another side of things which the App Store has virtually eliminated - Piracy.

So in short, no, I have zero faith in the majority of "adults" to make informed decisions about whereabouts they can install an application from. I can't fathom for the life of me understand why all schools don't have dedicated social media and internet security education programs by now so we might be up to it in a few years.

 

[m11rphy]

You can keep it that way. You're acting like you'd suddenly be forced to install apps that aren't in the app store. Not the case.

Are you sure thats not the case, are you sure developers will keep their apps in Apple App Store if their is a competing store? Do you think if the latest must play game is only in the non apple App Store that parents will be listening to their kinds complaining and whining until the parent gives in? What if you need an app for work and cant get it on the apple store? What if you have a smart home appliance say a wemo plug and then they pull their app from the Apple App Store and the only way to use your appliance is to install the updated app from the non Apple App Store?

 

[RemE]

Apple may be biased but they are not Google, Facebook, Twitter who have the power to suppress views they don't like, and promote agendas they do. They need to be stripped of any special treatment, and face legal scrutiny and remedy, like any other publisher.

 

[vipergts2207]

People will always blame the vendor rather than blame themselves. Just one gem of Viral app that is shown to be dangerous after a couple of million phones have been "infected" would result in virtually flushing a trusted brand name down the toilet.

Don't you think that millions of little Tommy could convince his parents to allow the lock to be turned off to download something that all his friends are playing - yeah alot of parents are that gullible, and yes they should be more hands-on, but millions of parents are that uneducated on tech related stuff save for posting selfies on instagram or chatting on FB.

The same people who were expecting to bask in the inheritance of Nigerian Princes are the very same ones using the internet today, the same ones falling for "Tech Support" scams, and the same ones who will willingly unlock a device to allow malicious software if it looks reasonably legit.



Being a child or teen while the internet as we know it now was in its infancy, is not the same thing as making educated decisions. With the sheer volume of applications / games / social media apps at everyones fingertips today it is nothing like the pitiful number of popular software programs that were available when they were at school/college and being told don't click links in an email.

I used to do computer maintenance for these so-called responsible people, and while savvy enough to unlock, install apps and use a device proficiently, most are certainly not savvy enough to pay heed to what's nasties they are potentially letting into their devices once they do.

They aren't IT experts, they don't care about the security until their credit card number has been stolen, they don't read malware reports from Norton or Macafee and the only Tech related news items they are going to care about is how many more megawhatsits that the next iPhone includes which they only see because its posted on Facebook (which half of them think IS the internet).

People are willing to take a risk of switching off security features if the reward appears higher, and I believe that the opportunity of being rewarded with some awesome viral app, just by hitting that "switch", will be made too attractive for many to avoid.

I'm not saying it is tempting from a Power Users perspective to be able to download apps-from-anywhere. But let's say a viral game like Fortnight was ONLY available by direct download, not available on any app-store. Wouldn't you think that might force the hand of all perspective players to grant access ? Now they know how easy it is, they'll do it again, and again, and again...until boo hoo, my phone was hacked all my contacts got sent that bathroom pic and my bank account is zero. Apple phones are crap.

And then of course there another side of things which the App Store has virtually eliminated - Piracy.

So in short, no, I have zero faith in the majority of "adults" to make informed decisions about whereabouts they can install an application from. I can't fathom for the life of me understand why all schools don't have dedicated social media and internet security education programs by now so we might be up to it in a few years.

Malware exists for Mac and Apple’s reputation hasn’t gone anywhere. Your analysis falls completely apart when you look at macOS as a comparison to iOS. No doubt there are some truly stupid people out there. Funny that Apple does see fit to protect their Macs from themselves, even though it’s the exact same scenario.

And again you underestimate the tech savvyness of millennials to an absurd degree. We aren’t in a state of arrested development. We grew up with and adapted to the changes in technology and the Internet as time went on. We didn’t suddenly time travel from 1999 to a 2020 world of unknown dangers. By your logic we’d never get to the point of being able to trust people because when the next paridigm shift occurs you’ll be saying, “but people don’t know what they’re doing, we need a full generation to grow up with this stuff first,” ad infinitum.

 

[vipergts2207]

Are you sure thats not the case, are you sure developers will keep their apps in Apple App Store if their is a competing store? Do you think if the latest must play game is only in the non apple App Store that parents will be listening to their kinds complaining and whining until the parent gives in? What if you need an app for work and cant get it on the apple store? What if you have a smart home appliance say a wemo plug and then they pull their app from the Apple App Store and the only way to use your appliance is to install the updated app from the non Apple App Store?

I don’t see most apps pulling their apps from the App Store because it will still remain the easiest and best way to access your current and potential customers. For most developers there’s no benefit to doing so in the first place. It only benefits paid apps, which is why the government is looking at this in the first place, anti-competitive behavior from Apple being player and referee. It also benefits apps that Apple won’t allow, like porn apps. Who’s Apple to say that someone can’t have a ******* app on their phone? Apple shouldn’t be forced into allowing it onto their store, but a device owner shouldn’t be disallowed from obtaining it elsewhere if they like. And if parents don’t know how to parent and want to raise a brat who apparently runs things around the house, that’s their problem.

 

[I7guy]

I don’t see most apps pulling their apps from the App Store because it will still remain the easiest and best way to access your current and potential customers. For most developers there’s no benefit to doing so in the first place. It only benefits paid apps, which is why the government is looking at this in the first place, anti-competitive behavior from Apple being player and referee. It also benefits apps that Apple won’t allow, like porn apps. Who’s Apple to say that someone can’t have a ******* app on their phone? Apple shouldn’t be forced into allowing it onto their store, but a device owner shouldn’t be disallowed from obtaining it elsewhere if they like. And if parents don’t know how to parent and want to raise a brat who apparently runs things around the house, that’s their problem.

Where has Apple been proven of anti-competitive behavior? (As opposed to someone just saying it?) Apple still needs to follows laws.

Nobody is stopping anybody from loading apps on their own iphones. I'm just against alternate app stores as I believe it devalues the entire platform.

 

[vipergts2207]

Where has Apple been proven of anti-competitive behavior? (As opposed to someone just saying it?) Apple still needs to follows laws.

Nobody is stopping anybody from loading apps on their own iphones. I'm just against alternate app stores as I believe it devalues the entire platform.

Nobody’s proven it yet because this investigation is ongoing. Though there are some pretty black and white examples. For instance Apple can have a subscription gaming service called Apple Arcade, but Microsoft isn't allowed to have one on iOS? Of course Apple must see the writing on the wall since they changed the app store guidelines just last month to allow them, though in hobbled form. Amongst other limitations, those gaming services have to submit every game for review, an artificial limitation. Why would Apple force games available in the streaming service to be reviewed, meanwhile Netflix content isn't reviewed where one can stream "Cuties"?

 

[I7guy]

Nobody’s proven it yet because this investigation is ongoing. Though there are some pretty black and white examples. For instance Apple can have a subscription gaming service called Apple Arcade, but Microsoft isn't allowed to have one on iOS? Of course Apple must see the writing on the wall since they changed the app store guidelines just last month to allow them, though in hobbled form. Amongst other limitations, those gaming services have to submit every game for review, an artificial limitation. Why would Apple force games available in the streaming service to be reviewed, meanwhile Netflix content isn't reviewed where one can stream "Cuties"?

Seems to me innocent until proven guilty, except when it applies to Apple and then guilty until exonerated? Without diving into each example, it's not binary...i.e. in massive companies there always seem to be talking points that show a/the company in some bad light.

 

[vipergts2207]

Seems to me innocent until proven guilty, except when it applies to Apple and then guilty until exonerated? Without diving into each example, it's not binary...i.e. in massive companies there always seem to be talking points that show a/the company in some bad light.

Sure innocent until proven guilty, I'm just pointing out some definitively anti-competitive actions by Apple that lawmakers and regulators will rightfully be looking at. The question for them will be has Apple done enough to be worthy of regulating. I'm guessing the era of big tech companies being allowed a blank check to do largely whatever they want is going to be coming to an end, particularly when they're such a big proportion of our economy. Can't have a giant chunk of the economy not having monopoly and anti-trust laws appropriately applied to them.

 

[I7guy]

Sure innocent until proven guilty, I'm just pointing out some definitively anti-competitive actions by Apple that lawmakers and regulators will rightfully be looking at. The question for them will be has Apple done enough to be worthy of regulating. I'm guessing the era of big tech companies being allowed a blank check to do largely whatever they want is going to be coming to an end, particularly when they're such a big proportion of our economy. Can't have a giant chunk of the economy not having monopoly and anti-trust laws appropriately applied to them.

What you are pointing out are examples of things that after investigation may not be as clearly anticompetitive as you are making them out to be. For example, did Microsoft try to abridge app store rules?

I agree what you said, if in fact, Apple is a monopoly, but by every metric, it's not. Not saying they aren't powerful, but monopoly...it depends on how narrow one defines one.

 

[deevey]

Malware exists for Mac and Apple’s reputation hasn’t gone anywhere. Your analysis falls completely apart when you look at macOS as a comparison to iOS. No doubt there are some truly stupid people out there. Funny that Apple does see fit to protect their Macs from themselves, even though it’s the exact same scenario.

And again you underestimate the tech savvyness of millennials to an absurd degree. We aren’t in a state of arrested development. We grew up with and adapted to the changes in technology and the Internet as time went on. We didn’t suddenly time travel from 1999 to a 2020 world of unknown dangers. By your logic we’d never get to the point of being able to trust people because when the next paridigm shift occurs you’ll be saying, “but people don’t know what they’re doing, we need a full generation to grow up with this stuff first,” ad infinitum.

Perhaps I do, but then again I have had have to clean up multitudes of messes made by people who "know how to use computers". We haven't adapted whatsoever. I think if anything we have become more complacent about clicking the "allow" button. We've simply been protected better than we have been in the past die to requiring actions to second guess ourselves and anti-malware being built into OS's. But the second guess is not always enough.

And while I agree that there is malware available for any desktop or laptop, alot of computing, banking, shopping, photo sharing, social media etc etc.. is now done exclusively on mobile devices. We are at the point of your mobile device being a physical extension of virtually and every person on the planet. A phone now holds more of your sensitive information than a PC ever did - hence the greater need for protection than was required on a Personal Computer.

By your logic we also shouldn't need laws, or police, or governments because after a couple thousand years we, as a species, should be capable of looking after ourselves by this point.

 

[vipergts2207]

What you are pointing out are examples of things that after investigation may not be as clearly anticompetitive as you are making them out to be. For example, did Microsoft try to abridge app store rules?

I agree what you said, if in fact, Apple is a monopoly, but by every metric, it's not. Not saying they aren't powerful, but monopoly...it depends on how narrow one defines one.

Did Microsoft try to abridge app store rules? I don't know. Did Microsoft try to abridge app store rules designed to give Apple an unfair advantage in the market? I don't know that either. I'm sure we'll find out more down the road.

Anti-competitiveness laws don't only apply to true monopolies. Why do you think the T-Mobile/Sprint merger was so heavily scrutinized? And in that market there were twice as many players as there are in the smartphone platform market, where you only have Apple and Google. You don't have to be a monopoly to abuse your market position.

 

[vipergts2207]

Perhaps I do, but then again I have had have to clean up multitudes of messes made by people who "know how to use computers". We haven't adapted whatsoever. I think if anything we have become more complacent about clicking the "allow" button. We've simply been protected better than we have been in the past die to requiring actions to second guess ourselves and anti-malware being built into OS's. But the second guess is not always enough.

And while I agree that there is malware available for any desktop or laptop, alot of computing, banking, shopping, photo sharing, social media etc etc.. is now done exclusively on mobile devices. We are at the point of your mobile device being a physical extension of virtually and every person on the planet. A phone now holds more of your sensitive information than a PC ever did - hence the greater need for protection than was required on a Personal Computer.

By your logic we also shouldn't need laws, or police, or governments because after a couple thousand years we, as a species, should be capable of looking after ourselves by this point.

I'm still confused at what you think is more sensitive that people keep or do on their phones, but didn't on their computer. Banking? Shopping? Pictures? Social media? All of that stuff was commonly done on PCs before smartphones became ubiquitous. I don't know why you're trying to rewrite history. Amazon didn't suddenly poof into existence in 2007 when the iPhone launched. Online banking was mainstream several years before the first iPhone. Xanga, Myspace and even Facebook were all around well before the iPhone.

During none of that time were Apple and Microsoft artificially limiting consumers to a walled garden of what you could install on your PC.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

How is this a fallacy, why is there no other competition?

Because its not about competition. If it was about competition you should have a look at how sports work in competition.

For instance Formular One cars do not compete with Karts ... In athletism one cannot use substances that give an untalented abilities.. In other words, there is a separation of concerns ... far more regulated. No one says its unfair, right or lacks competition in that space does it?

Now that competition is out of the lecture, in a free market there arre veery few rules /laws of engagement, but are some that come around once and awhile. A free market is not regulated as sports of course, neither it should ever be. But when excessive leverage, reaching coercion is being used, I’m in favor of intervention so that separation of concerns is maintained at a healthy level towards innovation.

Case in case, there is a device market and a digital service / app market. Up until now this has been the case, the concerns of each has been separated. Both of them worth way, way way more than a trillion (tiny value in comparison). I fact it was this separation of concerns that allowed Apple to be what its is today. Apple, Google and other that now are trying trying to glue them together ... ask them why ... if you think its because they believe that by doing so thy can serve their customers better, think twice.

Don’t have much time to go on detail on how the side effects of glueing this distinct yet complementary concerns are very bad for innovation and making money. But one is starting to be clear. The App Store sales are fundamentally driven by policy as it dips on the digital services value delivered by third parties. You just need to look at the market of App Hosting, Website Hosting so on and so forth (A web site in a single visit can transfer more data than a single app install).

There is a common expression, called Double Dipping. Double Dipping is the art of receiving compensation for what is the fundamentally same thing. For instance, Apple sells devices and for such matter it receives compensation for the devices and OS it builds through the sale. Amongst many things the reason why Customers buy these devices its because it runs Apps (iOS without Apps would be a brick). When Apple forces a charge 30% to install an App on the device in any shape or form, its again receiving compensation for the use of the device and software it has alreadY sold once. The fact that such charge is included in the App price, its still a charge. Furthermore, Apple goes beyond charging for installing apps, but also consuming content, classes ... zzz that does not service in any shape or form.

Now, you would say what is the problem? Well, you know that you can’t have two auto insurances for the same car right, collect the compensation for the same car in case of crash or malfunction? The reason this is a dubious practice here is the same it can be in the above.

Apple can argue that third parties can always use browser tech. Yet the current Apple’s state of the art for such purpose is way way out of par with native apps facilities, and the company does not allow anyone to create m one that can be for the devices they built and currently serve one in two Americans. Massive gravity.

Anyway, have fun.

 

[m11rphy]

Nobody’s proven it yet because this investigation is ongoing. Though there are some pretty black and white examples. For instance Apple can have a subscription gaming service called Apple Arcade, but Microsoft isn't allowed to have one on iOS? Of course Apple must see the writing on the wall since they changed the app store guidelines just last month to allow them, though in hobbled form. Amongst other limitations, those gaming services have to submit every game for review, an artificial limitation. Why would Apple force games available in the streaming service to be reviewed, meanwhile Netflix content isn't reviewed where one can stream "Cuties"?

Thats incorrect Microsoft can have a subscription gaming service, however each game must be uploaded to the App Store separately for apple to review and then the subscriber to Microsofts gaming service can download each game separately. this is the same way Apple Arcade works but this isn't how Microsoft wants to run their service, if Microsoft was to compromise with apple then we could all enjoy xcloud.

 

[vipergts2207]

Thats incorrect Microsoft can have a subscription gaming service, however each game must be uploaded to the App Store separately for apple to review and then the subscriber to Microsofts gaming service can download each game separately. this is the same way Apple Arcade works but this isn't how Microsoft wants to run their service, if Microsoft was to compromise with apple then we could all enjoy xcloud.

And that artificial limitation may very well be labeled as anti-competitive. It will likely hinge on whether that limitation serves a legitimate purpose or is really just a way to hobble competitors.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I really think this has been taken out of proportion and I hope, like I have said many times before, it doesn't get back to the dark ages of $100k+ per program/game/devkit-license/etc instead of said $100 fee + 30% IF it takes off.

What? It never cost that in mainstream software. 2k tops for access to SDKs and IDEs. Now, if your revenue is daí 500k you pay 150k.

Look I don’t mind you want to pay that much, give devs an option at market prices.

If you don’t believe me check the estimates cost of running the App Store with its revenue ... its Supra natural. You are paying much more now than you ever did for the things you mentioned. Can’t believe that intelligent people actually believe they only pay 100 bucks for the privilege.

 

[m11rphy]

And that artificial limitation may very well be labeled as anti-competitive. It will likely hinge on whether that limitation serves a legitimate purpose or is really just a way to hobble competitors.

Your original post said Microsoft could have a gaming service like Apple Arcade which I'm pointing out is incorrect, they can have one exactly the same. So they are playing my the same rules and not hobbling competitors.